ACCOUNTING FIRM CONSOLIDATIONWord格式.docx

1、ACCOUNTING FIRM CONSOLIDATION Views of Surveyed Large Public Companies on Audit Fees, Quality, Independence, and Choice Most of the 159 respondents said that they were satisfied with the current auditor, and half had used their current auditor for 10 years or more （see figure below）. Generally, the

2、longer a respondent had been with an auditor, the higher the overall level of satisfaction. Consistent with high levels of satisfaction, GAO found that, aside from former clients of Arthur Andersen, few respondents had switched auditors in the past decade. When they did, they switched because of rep

3、utation, concerns about audit fees, and corporate mergers or management changes. In looking for a new auditor, the most commonly cited factors the respondents gave were quality of service, industry specialization, and “chemistry” with the audit team. Finally, almost all respondents used their audito

4、r of record for a variety of nonaudit services, including tax-related services and assistance with company debt and equity offerings. Respondents had differing views about whether past consolidation had some influence on audit fees, but most believed that consolidation had little or no influence on

5、audit quality or independence. Respondents commented that other factorssuch as new regulations deriving from the SarbanesOxley Act and changing auditing standardshave had a greater impact on audit price, quality, and independence. While half of the respondents said that past consolidation had little

6、 or no influence on competition and just over half said they had a sufficient number of auditor choices, 84 percent also indicated a preference for more firms from which to choose as most would not consider using a non-Big 4 firm. Reasons most frequently cited included （1） the need for auditors with

7、 technical skills or industry-specific knowledge, （2） the reputation of the firm, and （3） the capacity of the firm. Finally, some expressed concerns about further consolidation in the industry and the limited number of alternatives were they to change auditors under existing independence rules.Conte

8、ntsLetterResults in Brief 1Background 2Most Respondents Were Satisfied with Their Auditor, Had Long-term Relationships, and Used Their Auditor for a Variety of Services 5Respondents Had Differing Views about Past Consolidations Influence on Audit Fees but Most Agreed That It Had Little or No Influen

9、ce on Audit Quality or Auditor Independence 10Respondents Were Concerned That Limited Audit Choices May Create Problems 13September 30, 2003The Honorable Richard C. ShelbyChairmanThe Honorable Paul S. SarbanesRanking Minority MemberCommittee on Banking, Housing, and Urban AffairsUnited States Senate

10、The Honorable Michael G. OxleyChairmanThe Honorable Barney FrankRanking Minority MemberCommittee on Financial ServicesHouse of RepresentativesThe number of public accounting firms widely considered capable of providing audit services to large national and multinational public companies decreased fro

11、m eight （the “Big 8”） in the 1980s to four （the “Big 4”） today.1 These four firms currently audit over 78 percent of all U.S. public companies and 99 percent of public company annual sales. The Big 4 also dominate the market for audit services internationally. On July 30,2003, we issued a report on

12、the impact of this consolidation on competition and audit services provided to large national and multinational companies （as mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002）.2 This supplemental report details more comprehensively the responses we received through August 11, 2003, to a survey of a random

13、 sample of Fortune 1000 companies on their experiences with their auditors of record.3 Specifically, our objective was to obtain the views of the chief financial officers of large 1The Big 8 were Arthur Andersen LLP, Arthur Young LLP, Coopers & Lybrand LLP, Deloitte Haskins & Sells LLP, Ernst & Whin

14、ney LLP, Peat Marwick Mitchell LLP, Price Waterhouse LLP, and Touche Ross LLP. The Big 4 accounting firms are Deloitte and Touche LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG LLP, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. These firms differ from other firms by their total revenues, size, and global reach. 2See U.S. General A

15、ccounting Office, Public Accounting Firms: Mandated Study on Consolidation and Competition, GAO-03-864 （Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2003） and Pub. L. No. 107-204 701 （2002）. 3We also surveyed the 97 largest public accounting firms for their views on accounting firm consolidation and its potential imp

16、lications; their responses are included in our July 30, 2003, report. This report focuses on the views of large public companies as clients of accounting firms. September 30, 2003 their responses are included in our July 30, 2003, report. This report focuses on the views of large public companies as

17、 clients of accounting firms.national and multinational public companies on （1） the relationship of their company with their auditor of record in terms of satisfaction, tenure of the relationship, and services provided; （2） the effects of consolidation on audit fees, quality, and auditor independenc

18、e; and （3） the potential implications of consolidation for competition and auditor choice. We drew a random sample of 250 of the largest publicly held companies from the 2003 list of the Fortune 1000 companies produced by Fortune, a division of Time, Inc., after removing 40 private companies from this list. Of the 250 companies surveyed, we received responses from 159 companies, or 64 percent; all of whom used a Big 4 firm as their auditor of record. The response rates for individual questions varied, depending on how many respondents answered each question.