Andersen Get 'Thumbs-Up' on Peer Review
Posted by AccountingWEB in Community News on 01/03/2002 - 17:20
"In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Arthur Andersen LLP in effect for the year ended August 31, 2001 has been designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standards for an accounting and auditing practice established by the AICPA, and was complied with in the year then ended to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of complying with professional standards."
A copy of the Andersen Peer Review can be downloaded here (in PDF format).
In an exercise that is sure to capture the attention of the SEC, the Peer Review Committee of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' (AICPA) SEC Practice has accepted a "clean" Peer Review of Big 5 accounting firm Andersen. Deloitte & Touche, the firm issuing the report, offered an "unmodified" opinion of the firm's accounting and auditing practices.
According to the review, Andersen's system of accounting and auditing quality has been deemed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with professional standards, following the most extensive peer review in the firm's history. The scope of the Peer Review had been expanded in the wake of revelations about events leading to the debacle at Enron.
"In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Arthur Andersen LLP in effect for the year ended August 31, 2001 has been designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standards for an accounting and auditing practice established by the AICPA, and was complied with in the year then ended to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of complying with professional standards."
Deloitte & Touche, LLP
A copy of the Andersen Peer Review can be downloaded here (in PDF format).
The integrity of the peer review process was almost immediately criticized by analysts, including Professor Lynn Turner, a former Securities & Exchange Commission chief accountant and current director of the Center for Quality Financial Reporting at Colorado State University.
"If the process was really credible I don't think we'd be having the rash of problems we are having today," said Turner. He cited reporting problems that have cost investors billions such as those at Enron, other Andersen clients such as Waste Management Inc. and Sunbeam Corporation, and other high profile failures after audits by other top firms at Cendant/CUC, Rite Aid and MicroStrategy.
Critics of the peer review process point to the fact that since the process began in 1978 no Big Five accounting firm has ever received a qualified opinion of its accounting procedures from a rival.
- 4343 reads
Tags
Accounting and Auditing
Administrative
AICPA
Auditing
Busy Season Daily Workplace Exercises
Careers
Celebrity news
CFO
Consulting
Conversations
Economy
Education
Education and careers
Excel
Excel tips
FASB
Financial Reporting
Firm news
Government
Guest articles
Health care
Human Resources
IFRS
Income tax
International
IRS
IT
Legal issues
Legislation
Marketing
Mergers
PCAOB
Personal Finance
Practice Development
Practice Management
QuickBooks
Retirement
Sarbanes-Oxley
SEC
Self-Improvement
State and Local
Students
Tax
Technology
Training
Trends
Watchdog
Workplace Fitness
Workshops
XBRL
Gail Perry, CPA
Peer Review and Self Regulation
The last chairman of the SEC said bluntly on several occasions that if the profession could not regulate itself than someone else (i.e., Congress) should do so.
Unfortunately D&T's peer review of Anderson only reinforces the conclusion that the profession is out of control. The "weasel wording" in the report in painfully clear. Whether Anderson's system of internal control is "properly designed" says nothing about the appropriateness of the standards themselves or the vigor with which Anderson enforces them.
Says More About Peer Review Than Andersen
D&T's clean opinion for Andersen is, if nothing else, impeccably timed. What it highlights is the irrelevance of peer review. As with so many initiatives coming out of the AICPA, peer review was designed as a window dressing rather than a solution.
As a sole practitioner issuing compiled financials, I get the peer review treatment every 3 years. I've been through 2 and all I can say is nothing I was required to provide the reviewers could have given them a clue as to my relative competence or lack thereof. The process is a classic case of form over content.
Peer review is, at best, an expensive distraction. At worst, as in this case, it is an embarrassment for the whole profession.