Audit regulators are increasing their focus on how group auditors identify, engage and supervise component auditors, sparking important discussions about effectiveness, practicality and unintended consequences.

Is this level of scrutiny necessary for all group audits, or should regulators take a risk-based approach? Are auditors spending too much time on reporting instead of enhancing audit quality? And with AI reshaping audit methodologies, why aren’t auditors leveraging real-time analytics to ensure they engage the right component auditors for high-risk areas?

These aren’t just compliance questions — they challenge the future of global audits, the role of technology and the balance between oversight and efficiency.

The group auditor’s dilemma

Every group audit presents unique risks — multiple jurisdictions, different reporting frameworks and varying component auditors. Group auditors cannot execute these audits alone; they must rely on component auditors positioned in every corner of the world. And let’s be honest — not all auditors are trained equally, adding complexity to the group auditor’s oversight responsibilities. The group auditor’s role is to demonstrate oversight, yet the expectations for how they supervise component auditors continue to evolve.

Group auditors face criticism for insufficient oversight, inconsistent risk assessments and overreliance on local teams. The common response — stricter oversight and more documentation. But is that truly the right answer?

A better solution may just be that group auditors equip (and train) their component auditors with the best tools available to assess and respond to risks effectively. Technology already delivers real-time risk insights and should be the standard for group audits. Instead of sending more checklists and outdated instructions, group auditors should adopt AI-driven risk assessments to focus oversight where it matters most. These tools empower group auditors to engage the right component auditors and enhance audit quality through smarter, more targeted supervision.

Some would say that minor discrepancies — like a misspelled name or failing to identify a component auditor — rarely impact audit quality in a meaningful way, but instead result in disproportionate administrative burdens. So are we just chasing our tails instead of truly improving audit quality?

The regulator’s position: valid concern or misplaced focus?

Regulatory scrutiny of group audits is increasing, but the impact on audit quality remains unclear. Many group auditors are already struggling to comply with evolving regulations, and additional oversight of how group auditors engage component auditors may not always provide commensurate value.

If audit quality is the endgame, then chasing every detail with a broad brush won’t cut it. It’s time to separate the wheat from the chaff — zero in on the highest-risk areas where it truly counts. A smart, risk-based approach does more with less, especially when resources are already stretched thin. Even if regulators intended to examine every component auditor, do they even have the resources to do so?

“Auditing the auditors” at scale is no small task. Scrutinizing every component auditor is unlikely to yield measurable improvements in audit quality and dilute attention from high-risk engagements. Expanding oversight without clear evidence of impact risks shifting the profession toward check-the-box compliance rather than demonstrating that regulatory review is working as intended.

Maintaining this level of scrutiny without modernization risks overwhelms both auditors and regulators — with little to show in terms of audit quality gains. If oversight efforts aren’t driving measurable improvements, it’s time to rethink the approach and double down on what truly moves the needle.

The technology imperative

AI, automation and analytics have transformed audits, allowing auditors to detect anomalies, assess risks and analyze full populations of data like never before.

Imagine if auditors used AI-powered analytics to monitor financial performance across subsidiaries, identifying inconsistencies and high-risk areas in real time. Group auditors would gain intelligent dashboards for visibility into component auditors’ testing procedures, while audit analytics tools pinpoint risks across global operations demonstrating true oversight.

This isn’t theoretical — it’s happening. Yet many auditors hesitate to scale these solutions, while regulators focus on manual oversight and increased documentation. The question isn’t “Can technology improve audit quality?” but rather, “Why aren’t auditors deploying it more aggressively?”

Regulators and auditors would be far more effective if they worked together to standardize and promote AI-driven audit analytics instead of expanding outdated oversight mechanisms. While AI is already helping auditors pinpoint high-risk areas and drive better audit outcomes, it’s not a silver bullet. It’s a powerful tool — but only when paired with professional judgment and strategic focus. Used wisely, AI and analytics can help direct regulatory inspections to the most critical areas of group audits, making oversight more targeted and effective.

If auditors are expected to adopt AI for sharper risk assessments, regulators need to walk the talk too. So why aren’t more regulators embracing AI to sharpen their inspections? An AI-assisted review could be the way regulators demonstrate their relevance towards faster and scalable oversight responsibility.

The future of audit oversight: adapt or fall behind

Auditors and regulators alike face a pivotal choice: embrace a data-driven future or stay stuck in outdated oversight models. The good news? They’re chasing the same outcome — meaningful, scalable oversight in a world where audits are challenged by global complexity and geopolitical pressures.

Now is the moment to rethink how we monitor global audits. Oversight must shift from broad sampling to high-risk targeting. Auditors need to lead with AI adoption to stay ahead of mounting expectations. And regulators? They have no choice but to modernize — embracing the very tools already transforming the audit profession.

Saying the profession is at a crossroads is stating the obvious. The real question is: who’s willing to move first? The next step will define the future of group audit oversight.

Bloomberg News

The House Financial Services Committee passed a budget bill Wednesday that eliminates the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and caps the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s budget at roughly $249 million, a drastic reduction from its recent budgets.

Committee chair French Hill, R-Ark., said the moves outlined in the budget bill — which will be combined with similar bills in other committees to make up the bill that will appear on the House floor for a vote — deliver more than the $1 billion annual savings required by the House Budget resolution that passed in February. The bill passed the committee by a 30-22 vote along party lines.

“We’re taking a strong step toward restoring fiscal discipline and ensuring government funding is being used wisely and transparently,” Hill said. “To deliver on President Trump’s agenda … House Republicans will reduce the deficit and exceed the $1 billion savings target outlined in the budget resolution.”

The bill would eliminate the PCAOB’s ability to assess and spend accounting support fees, would direct any unspent funds back to the Treasury Department and direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to take over the board’s responsibilities and cease collecting fees. The PCAOB was established in 2003 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to be an independent investigator and standard-setting body for auditing firms, a need that Congress identified after the WorldCom and Enron accounting scandals created a crisis of confidence in public accounting statements.

GOP lawmakers mull eliminating ‘management’ from CAMELS

 
The bill would also cap the CFPB’s budget at 5% of the Federal Reserve’s total operating budget for 2009, a figure Hill said would amount to roughly $249 million. The CFPB’s estimated operating budget for the 2024 fiscal year was $684.9 million. The bill would also direct the CFPB to return all remaining funds from the Civil Penalty Fund back to the Treasury Department after direct victims had been compensated. The bill also directs the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to rescind unobligated funds for the Green and Resilient Retrofit Program, which were appropriated as part of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The program provides grants for landlords receiving HUD assistance to improve energy and water efficiency, improve indoor air quality and climate resilience for their properties.

The bill also limits assessments collected by the Office of Financial Research to the average operating budget of the Financial Stability Oversight Council over the prior three years. 

During a marathon markup hearing that went into the evening, Democrats offered 35 amendments to the bill, including measures to investigate who is investing in the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto company, as well as to maintain funding for the PCAOB and CFPB. None of the Democratic amendments were adopted; all were voted down along party lines. 

Speaking in favor of an amendment to maintain the PCAOB, Rep. Maxine Waters, D.-Calif., said the organization inspects auditing firms not only in the U.S. but in more than 50 countries abroad, including China. Dissolving the board and handing its duties to the SEC, she said, would cost taxpayers money and give China an opportunity to press its advantage. The PCAOB — which is a non-governmental standard-setting body — has an agreement with the Chinese government to inspect auditing firms, she said, but the SEC does not.

“Every Republican and Democratic member of this committee must understand that if we shut down the PCAOB and transfer its authority to the SEC, we’re shutting down our regulators’ access to China-based auditors,” said Waters, the committee’s ranking member. “If we disband the PCAOB today, the SEC cannot simply be a substitute.”