Arthur Levitt, who headed the Securities and Exchange Commission from 1993 to 2001, “sought to root out conflicts of interest at audit firms in 2000, and urged Congress to adopt auditor term limits in 2002 after the Enron and WorldCom scandals.”[1] Levitt did not buy the argument made by companies that it would cost them a lot of money to change audit firms. To be sure, he acknowledged that some added cost would be entailed in a system of mandatory auditor “term limits,” but a long auditor relationship “raises the perception,” he maintained, “that the auditor is very much beholden to the company and not totally independent. An environment of skepticism should trump the fraternal environment that tends to occur after a relationship has developed over a period of years.”[2] Indeed, Arthur Andersen’s people were well ensconced at Enron by the time the energy giant went bust. In fact, the auditors even approved the questionable “partnership” accounting (used to hide debt). Nor did the auditors communicate any misgivings to the audit committee of the company’s board of directors. The auditors were “in” with a rancid management.
The full essay has been incorporated into "A Proposal: Limited Tenures for CPA Firms" at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon.
The full essay has been incorporated into "A Proposal: Limited Tenures for CPA Firms" at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon.
1. Emily
Chasan, “Keeping Auditors on Their Toes,” The Wall Street Journal,
October 19, 2011.
2. Ibid.
