UNCATEGORIZED
PCAOB Proposal Would Require Audit Firms to Disclose a Variety of Metrics
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a pair of proposals on April 9, one of which would require audit firms to publicly disclose several metrics—including the involvement of partners and managers on an audit, auditor workload, and auditor turnover—on a new form that would be accessible to investors.
“Sound and consistent information bolsters confidence in our capital markets, and can drive audit quality,” PCAOB Chair Erica Williams said in a statement on Tuesday. “Informed by extensive study and stakeholder input, today’s proposals would strengthen PCAOB oversight and equip investors, audit committees, and others with clear, consistent, and actionable data related to the audit.”
Some public accounting firms voluntarily disclose certain firm-level information publicly through their annual audit quality and transparency reports. This proposal would require all PCAOB-registered firms that audit one or more accelerated or large accelerated filers to publicly report a standardized set of 11 metrics that would draw back the curtain and offer investors a look into their work.
“While some firms publicly disclose certain firm-level metrics today, the PCAOB’s staff has observed that the number of firms doing so is small,” the board said in a press release. “Furthermore, the disclosures are inconsistent across firms—there are no common definitions or calculations allowing for consistent comparisons—and most of the disclosures are voluntary, so firms are free to revise or discontinue such reporting anytime. At the same time, there is a lack of incentive for firms, acting on their own or collectively, to provide accurate, standardized, and decision-relevant information about their firms and the engagements they perform.”
The proposed firm and engagement metrics cover:
1. Partner and manager involvement: Hours worked by senior professionals relative to more junior staff across the firm’s issuer engagements and on the engagement.
2. Workload: Average weekly hours worked on a quarterly basis by engagement partners and by other partners, managers, and staff, including time attributable to engagements, administrative duties, and all other matters.
3. Audit resources (use of auditor’s specialists and shared service centers): Percentage of issuer engagements that used specialists and shared service centers at the firm level, and hours provided by specialists and shared service centers at the engagement level.
4. Experience of audit personnel: Average number of years worked at a public accounting firm (whether or not PCAOB-registered) by senior professionals across the firm and on the engagement.
5. Industry experience of audit personnel: Average years of experience of senior professionals in key industries audited by the firm at the firm level and the audited company’s primary industry at the engagement level.
6. Retention and tenure: Continuity of senior professionals (through departures, reassignments, etc.) across the firm and on the engagement.
7. Audit hours and risk areas (engagement-level only): Hours spent by senior professionals on significant risks, critical accounting policies, and critical accounting estimates relative to total audit hours.
8. Allocation of audit hours: Percentage of hours incurred prior to and following an issuer’s year end across the firm’s issuer engagements and on the engagement.
9. Quality performance ratings and compensation (firm-level only): Relative changes in partner compensation (as a percentage of adjustment for the highest rated group) between groups of partners based on internal quality performance ratings.
10. Audit firms’ internal monitoring: Percentage of issuer engagements subject to internal monitoring and the percentage with engagement deficiencies at the firm level; whether the engagement was selected for monitoring and, if so, whether there were engagement deficiencies and the nature of such engagement deficiencies at the engagement level.
11. Restatement history (firm-level only): Restatements of financial statements and management reports on internal control over financial reporting that were audited by the firm over the past five years.
The proposal would require reporting of firm-level metrics annually on a new Form FM, for firms that serve as the lead auditor for at least one accelerated filer or large accelerated filer, the PCAOB said. Reporting of engagement-level metrics for audits of accelerated filers and large accelerated filers would happen via a revised Form AP, which would be renamed “Audit Participants and Metrics.” Firms are currently required to use Form AP to disclose the name(s) of the lead partner(s) on an audit engagement, as well as information about other accounting firms that participated on the audit, including the names of the firms and the extent of their participation.
Finally, the proposal would allow, but not require, limited narrative disclosures on both Form FM and Form AP to provide context and explanation for the required metrics.
The deadline for public comment on the metrics proposals is June 7.
Proposal on framework for collecting information from audit firms
The other proposal issued by the PCAOB on Tuesday would amend the board’s annual and special reporting requirements to “facilitate the disclosure of more complete, standardized, and timely information by registered public accounting firms.”
Most of the information would be made available to the public, but some would be available to the PCAOB only for oversight, the board said.
The PCAOB is proposing to enhance the required reporting of information by registered firms on the regulator’s public Annual Report Form, also known as Form 2, and the Special Reporting Form, also known as Form 3, in several key areas:
Financial information: Under the proposal, all registered firms would report on the public Annual Report Form additional fee information. The largest registered firms would also be required to confidentially submit financial statements annually to the PCAOB.
Audit firm governance information: The proposal would require all registered firms to report on the public Annual Report Form additional information regarding their leadership, legal structure, ownership, and other governance information, including information that would govern a change in the form of the organization.
Network information: The proposal would require on the public Annual Firm Report a more detailed description of any network arrangement to which a registered firm is subject, including describing the legal and ownership structure of the network, network-related financial obligations, information-sharing arrangements between the network and registered firm, and network governing boards or individuals to which the registered firm is accountable.
Special reporting: The proposal would shorten the timeframe for all reporting on the Special Reporting Form from 30 days to 14 days (or more promptly as warranted) and implement a new confidential special reporting requirement for events material to a firm’s organization, operations, liquidity or financial resource, or provision of audit services.
Examples of events required to be confidentially reported under the new Special Reporting framework include:
- A determination that there is substantial doubt about the firm’s ability to continue as a going concern;
- A planned or anticipated acquisition of the firm, change in control, or restructuring, including external investment and planned acquisition or disposition of assets or of an interest in an associated entity; or
- Entering into or disposing of a material financial arrangement that would affect the firm’s liquidity or financial resources.
Cybersecurity: The proposal would require confidential reporting on the Special Reporting Form of significant cybersecurity events within five business days and periodic public reporting of a brief description of the firm’s policies and procedures, if any, to identify and manage cybersecurity risks.
Board member Christina Ho, who cast the only dissenting vote on this proposal, said in a statement that the proposal “represents an overreach of regulatory power and stands to undermine competition in the audit marketplace as well as investor protection.”
“This proposal quantifies neither the increased reporting and recordkeeping requirements nor their estimated costs,” Ho said. “This would not be the case if the PCAOB were subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, because the PRA requires federal agencies to estimate the ‘burden’ on the public in complying with recordkeeping and/or reporting requirements, where the estimate of the burden includes the value of both the time and the effort to fulfill a collection along with the financial cost.
“My point is that the PCAOB admirably gives stakeholders notice and an opportunity to comment on this proposal as if we were a federal agency subject to the Administrative Procedure Act, but then less admirably elects not to follow the PRA,” she added. “I am profoundly worried that the board’s apparent zeal to impose, in each new proposed standard or rule, new burdens on firms, without sufficient tailoring and without quantifying the estimated burdens, may end up breaking the public company auditing profession’s back, particularly for small firms. If we ‘break’ the profession in the name of investor protection, are we really protecting investors?”
The deadline for public comment on this proposal also is June 7.
In the vast landscape of global business, few names resonate as powerfully as Aliko Dangote – a visionary entrepreneur who has single-handedly reshaped Africa’s industrial landscape and emerged as the continent’s most successful business magnate.
Early Beginnings: The Seeds of Entrepreneurship
Born in Kano, Northern Nigeria, in 1957, Aliko Dangote came from a prominent Muslim family with a strong trading background. From an early age, he displayed an extraordinary entrepreneurial spirit. While most children were focused on childhood pursuits, young Aliko was already selling candy and exploring business opportunities during his school years.
After graduating from Al-Azhar University in Egypt with a degree in business studies, Dangote returned to Nigeria with a clear vision: to build an empire that would transform African industry. What started as a small trading company in 1981 would soon become the Dangote Group, a multinational conglomerate that would change the economic trajectory of not just Nigeria, but the entire African continent.
The Dangote Empire: Building an Industrial Powerhouse
The Dangote Group’s initial focus was on trading various commodities, but Dangote quickly recognized the potential for local manufacturing. He strategically pivoted towards producing essential goods that Nigeria was importing, believing strongly in import substitution industrialization.
His most significant breakthrough came with Dangote Cement, which has become the largest cement manufacturer in Africa. The company now operates in multiple African countries, producing over 65 million metric tons of cement annually and accounting for a significant portion of the continent’s cement production.
The Dangote Refinery: A Game-Changing Milestone
In 2023, Dangote achieved what many considered impossible – completing the Dangote Refinery in Lagos, the largest single-train petroleum refinery in the world. This massive $19 billion project is set to transform Nigeria’s oil industry, potentially ending the country’s dependence on imported petroleum products and positioning Nigeria as a major oil refining hub.
The refinery has a production capacity of 650,000 barrels per day, which is more than the entire current refining capacity of Nigeria. This project represents not just a business achievement, but a potential economic revolution for Africa’s largest economy.
Wealth and Philanthropy: Beyond Business
Consistently ranked as Africa’s wealthiest person, Dangote’s net worth exceeds $13 billion. However, his impact extends far beyond personal wealth. Through the Aliko Dangote Foundation, he has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in healthcare, education, and economic empowerment across Africa.
His philanthropic efforts have been particularly notable during global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, where he donated significant resources to support medical infrastructure and relief efforts.
Future Vision: Transforming African Industrialization
Dangote’s future goals are ambitious. He envisions a fully integrated African industrial ecosystem, with plans to expand into petrochemicals, fertilizers, and continue creating value-added industries across the continent. His strategy goes beyond profit – it’s about creating economic opportunities, generating employment, and reducing Africa’s dependence on imports.
Personal Philosophy: The Dangote Approach
“Control costs, focus on quality, and always think long-term” – these words encapsulate Dangote’s business philosophy. He represents a new generation of African entrepreneurs who are not just building businesses, but creating entire ecosystems of economic development.
Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Transforming the Future
China self-driving truck company TuSimple pivots to genAI for games
M&A roundup: From Minnesota to Memphis
New 2023 K-1 instructions stir the CAMT pot for partnerships and corporations
Are American progressives making themselves sad?
U.S. Beneficial Ownership Information Registry Now Accepting Reports
-
Finance1 week agoStocks making the biggest moves after hours: ORCL, AI, MTN, PL
-
Accounting1 week agoReplacing mortgage deduction may boost homeownership
-
Personal Finance1 week agoThe Fed cut interest rates but some credit card APRs haven’t gone down
-
Accounting1 week agoIt’s time to get your WISP in order
-
Accounting1 week agoPCAOB staff report outlines 2025 inspection priorities
-
Accounting1 week agoBig changes expected at SEC under new chair Paul Atkins
-
Accounting1 week agoCanada pressured to respond to Trump’s tax cut regime
-
Leaders1 week agoRishi Sunak, The politic and the Successful Businessman