We Need More Than the 'Big Four'
Ford, GM, Chrysler. The Big Three. The only real choices of car-buying Americans a few decades ago . . . or so they thought. Car buyers began to explore new options, matching needs and tastes to a widening array of makes and models. Fresh competition ultimately produced cars with better performance at inflation-adjusted lower costs. This heightened competition produced a better automotive industry.
Another concentrated industry now finds itself at a critical juncture. Similar to car buyers of old, segments of the capital markets, directors, audit committees and the investing public still think there are only four audit firm choices. After decades of consolidation, corporate scandals, the dissolution of Arthur Andersen and a more complex regulatory environment, investors, companies and advisers need a healthy dose of audit profession competition.
Independent audits are a linchpin between financial statements and their credibility to the investing public. In 2003, a Government Accountability Office survey reported 86% of Fortune 1,000 companies preferred more audit firms; yet, the Big Four audited 99% of public company annual sales. Such findings reinforce the false perception that no real audit choices exist, thereby inhibiting competition in the profession, limiting its continuing development and threatening financial-market stability and investor confidence.
To gain the strongest combination of auditor quality, service, value and reach, companies and their advisers must understand and respond to marketplace realities. First, as the news media report, the Big Four are stretched to capacity and focused on their largest and most profitable clients. Second, other global, national and regional firms do have the requisite attributes to meet the audit needs of all but the largest companies.
When directors and capital markets (investors, regulators, exchanges, investment bankers and securities attorneys) embrace these realities, a more robust profession will emerge. Companies will evaluate a range of prospective auditors. Reduced concentration will lessen threats of more regulation. Greater competition will strengthen capital markets by minimizing the potential impact of another large audit firm failure.
Public, private and academic sectors all agree: Auditor concentration poses serious risks to companies and stakeholders. The concluding report of The American Assembly 2003 conference, "The Future of the Accounting Industry," included a warning: "The consolidation of the accounting firms . . . has created a precarious situation."
Despite this increasing attention, suggested solutions have focused on the Big Four and their largest clients. Proposed regulatory options -- including mandatory firm rotation or breaking up the Big Four -- are complicated, costly and not in the best interests of the capital markets or the profession. Business, financial, academic, legislative and regulatory experts need to explore more viable market-driven approaches:
? First, guidelines to support auditor selection from a wider pool of qualified firms are needed. Guidelines can recommend periodic competitive bidding and replace the "nationally recognized audit firm" standard sometimes used in lending agreements.
? Second, more audit committees and directors should consider firms beyond the Big Four based on the quality, service, value and reach of prospective firms. Directors and capital-market influencers must be informed about and receptive to a broader array of audit firms. Outside influencers who limit choice to the Big Four pre-empt the federal mandate to audit committees to evaluate and select auditors.
? Third, debate on auditor liability limitations must begin. The litigation environment, unchecked liability exposure and trend of increasing claims against auditors, coupled with Sarbanes-Oxley, are significant barriers that inhibit competition.
Audit committees are slowly embracing the broader universe of qualified firms. Larger companies are selecting non-Big Four auditors. Perhaps over time, market forces will lead to greater auditor diversification. But, "over time" is too long to wait and simply too risky. Consensus is needed on ways to enhance competitiveness, utilize the capacity of more firms, and better match the size and needs of companies with the size and capabilities of audit firms.
Independent assurance of financial results is critical to stability and investor confidence. The risk posed by auditor concentration is real. The credibility of the capital markets demands a robust, dynamic and competitive auditing profession. Therefore, the door to what has been an exclusive club of the Big Eight, Seven, Six, Five and now Four, must be thrown wide open.
我们需要的不只是“四大”
福特(Ford)、通用汽车(GM)和克莱斯勒(Chrysler)，响当当的三大汽车巨头，也是几十年前购车者为数不多的选择……至少他们是这样认为的。后来，买家有了更多新的选择，从新厂家新车型中尽情挑选适合自己需要和品位的新车。这一现象突出体现了竞争在汽车行业发展过程中起到的重要推动作用。
现在，又有一个行业走到了关键的十字路口。和以前的购车者一样，资本市场的各个领域、公司董事、审计委员会和投资公众都认为只有四家审计公司可供选择。几十年行业整合过后，层出不穷的公司丑闻、安达信会计师事务所(Arthur Andersen)的解体、以及更加负责的监管环境，让投资者、企业和顾问们都需要一套健康有序的审计行业竞争环境了。
独立审计师是公司财务报表和投资者眼中报表信誉之间的关键。美国政府问责局(Government Accountability Office)2003年的调查显示，财富1,000家公司中86%的公司都希望有更多审计师事务所可供选择；然而，四大审计师事务所承揽了99%上市公司的年报审计。这一发现更清楚地体现了审计行业没有真正选择这个观念。这就制约了专业领域的竞争，限制了行业的进一步发展，也威胁到金融市场的稳定和投资者的信心。
要想得到最好的审计质量、审计服务和审计价值等诸多因素的综合效果，公司及其顾问都必须理解市场现实并作出适当反应。首先，和新闻媒体报导的一样，四大审计师事务所已经全力投入，而且它们重点承揽大公司和利润丰厚的审计业务。其次，其他的全球性、全国性和地区性审计师事务所的确具备满足除最大型企业之外其他企业审计所需的素质。
当公司董事和资本市场（投资者、监管机构、交易所、投资银行和证券律师）都认识也接受了这个现实后，一个更加旺盛蓬勃的行业就会发展兴起。各公司将对一批有一定实力的审计师事务所进行评估。集中化程度减弱会降低实施更多监管条例的危险。竞争程度加剧会将万一某大型审计师事务所倒闭带来的潜在冲击降到最低，增强资本市场承受冲击的能力。
公共、私人和学术界一致认同：审计业务过于集中是公司和股东面前的重大风险。American Assembly在2003年会的总结报告《审计行业的未来》中发出警告，“审计师事务所的整合……营造了一种非常不稳定的环境。”
虽然人们对此事的关注日益增长，但提出的种种建议仍然是集中在四大事务所和他们最大的客户身上。种种监管方面的提议，包括强制公司轮换聘用审计师事务所，或者拆分四大事务所，都过于复杂，代价高昂，也不符合资本市场和审计行业的最佳利益。企业界、金融界、学术界、法律界和监管领域的专家都需要认真研究，找出一套更可靠的由市场推动的改革方案。
首先，需要提供一套指导方针，支持企业界从更多合格审计师事务所中挑选所需。这套方针可以推荐定期进行竞争性投标，取代签署协议时常用到的“全国认可审计师事务所”的说法。
其次，更多的审计委员会和公司董事需要从质量、服务、价值和业务范围等各方面综合考虑四大审计师事务所之外的有能力的事务所。公司董事和资本市场有影响力的参与人士必须了解情况，要愿意接受更多审计师事务所的参与。
第三，必须开始讨论审计师责任和义务的范围。诉讼环境、未经查验的责任风险、审计师事务所遭遇越来越多起诉的趋势，加上《Sarbanes-Oxley法案》，都是抑制审计行业竞争的重大障碍。
审计委员会正在逐步接受越来越多合格的审计师事务所。大公司也开始挑选四大审计师事务所之外的事务所了。也许随著时间的推移，市场力量就会促使审计行业实现多元化发展。但是，“时间的推移”太长久了，不容等待，也蕴含了过多风险。各界人士需要就如何扩大竞争、利用更多审计师事务所的业务能力、让提交待审计报表企业的规模和需求同审计师事务所的规模和能力相匹配等问题取得一致意见。
对财务报表进行独立审计是保持金融市场稳定和投资者信心的关键。审计业务集中化的风险真切而不容忽视。金融市场的可信性要求一个蓬勃发展、活力十足、而且竞争充分的审计行业为支柱。因此，所谓八大、七大、六大、五大，现在只是四大的专有俱乐部的大门应该大大敞开。
编者注：本文作者Edward E. Nusbaum是Grant Thornton LLP的首席执行长
