Monthly Archives: May 2012

EU Audit Market proposals: “No change is not an option”

Yesterday, I and the CEOs of Grant Thornton, BDO, Mazars, and Rödl & Partners, along with the CEO of EGIAN (European Group of International Accounting Networks) met with MEPs in Brussels to discuss mid-tier accountancy firm’s positions on EC audit proposals.

Back in October 2010, the EU launched a consultation to improve the audit market and to specifically address the dominance of the Big Four firms.

The EU Commission highlighted a number of weaknesses in the market including:

  • a lack of choice for audit clients resulting from high concentration levels;
  • systemic risk if one of the big firms were to fail;
  • possible conflicts of interest around the independence of auditors; and
  • doubts around the credibility and reliability of audited financial statements for banks and other public interest entities (PIEs).

Yesterday’s meetings were a welcome opportunity to discuss with MEPs that status quo in the EU audit market it not an option. In doing so we presented a balanced package of measures designed to effectively address the concentration within the audit market and thereby advance public interest:

  • Two or more audit firms should be involved in the audits of PIEs;
  • Although excessive audit firm tenure needs to be addressed, mandatory audit firm rotation alone will not achieve the desired objectives, especially if rotation is allowed to take place among the dominant firms;
  • We reject assertions that only the current dominant firms can provide audit services to PIEs. There are a number of additional global networks which have the global reach, consistent audit methodologies and audit quality to compete;
  • We support proposals to prohibit restrictive clauses in tendering and other documents that limit the choice of firms and we support measures resulting in greater audit committee and shareholder involvement in a fully transparent auditor appointment process.

In addition to the workshop with the MEPs, Bob Dohrer and I met with several other MEPs to discuss our position on the EC audit proposals. We will continue to ensure that our position is explained to EU policy makers, with particular focus on advancing the public interest, and greater diversity and transparency in the market.

The context is very much explained by this recent and fascinating BBC programme In Business examining the Big Four’s global domination of auditing and reporting on the measures being taken by Chinese Government and the EU Commission to open up the market to smaller firms. The programme is an insightful analysis of the current situation and very useful for anyone who wants to understand why it is both necessary and logical to reduce the current state of excessive market concentration.

We believe change needs to happen. The presenter, Peter Day, makes many points to support this position:

“Preserving the status quo may be dangerous when it might put at risk the credibility of accounts, the building blocks of the continued health of capitalist public companies.

“And that is where the arcane matter of audit practice becomes a matter of great public interest, and why the current rash of inquiries into accounting and auditing is so important.

“As the financial crisis has shown, we still need to understand far more about how companies are running their businesses. The auditors ought to be able to help.”

I firmly believe that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. We will keep fighting hard to ensure this window of opportunity does not close before we affect meaningful change.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Audit Proposals, EU

Austerity alone will not lead growth

European governments are facing a clamour of calls to ditch austerity measures and start spending.

The most rational of these calls are from those who wish to find a middle ground, understanding that is very hard to nurture economic growth without some form of stimulus.

It is very rare for an economy to simply change gear without a significant catalyst – be it the growth in a particular industry, political reform, or a significant innovation which a country is in a unique position to capitalise on. My own perspective is that, outside of pure chance, growth tends to follow intelligent strategic investment.

A fascinating comment piece in the Financial Times by Professors Marcus Miller and Robert Skidelsky of Warwick University questions the validity of austerity, and presents a very clear and concise case for the adoption of pragmatic growth measures as a solution to the current economic woes.

Devising ways to reduce debt without austerity is imperative. Assessing the current turmoil and drawing parallels with the 1930’s, they argue that sovereign debts must be managed in ways that do not destroy the economy or the political centre ground – as is the threat from a rigid austerity programme

According to Miller and Skidelsky, growth will only be achieved through increased project spending, restructuring of debts and shifting debt onto future generations. This basic foundation will create breathing space in which countries can climb out of the current morass.

I certainly appreciate that it is important that austerity measures be adopted at the early stages of a debt crisis – in the most recent crisis, it was important to show bond markets that tackling the debt mountain was a priority. With these initial measures in place (and as growth slides backwards and tax receipts fall), the question should be not if, but when, we begin adopting growth measures in earnest.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Economy, Effective business, Europe

Resource rich Australia grapples with a two speed economy

Last month GE reported a 26% rise in revenue from Australia. The resource
rich nation exceeded China revenue by US$100 million, and the company
expects Australia will surpass China again in 2012. According to the Wall
Street Journal
GE expects that the price of minerals will remain strong and support Australia’s burgeoning mining sector.

For GE, this presents an immense growth opportunity fuelled by sales of
industrial equipment to nations that produce healthy amounts of oil, gas
and iron ore.

Alongside Australia, GE CEO Geoff Immelt pointed at Canada, Peru and
Mongolia as other targets for the firm. He noted that these nations are
more or less geographically equal in size to China, but are “not as hard”
to do business in. The challenge for these countries is to develop
economies which holistically benefit from a boom in one sector.

Much is being made of Australia’s “two speed economy”. Its fully-fledged
mining boom is pushing the resources sector far ahead of the rest of the
economy, which is flagging under the weight of an increased trade deficit.
The strong Australian dollar is the culprit for these woes.

Then again, ask any European finance minister to consider a job swap, and I
am sure you’ll get no complaints about taking on the role in Australia –
low unemployment, low inflation and low interest rates are not to be
scoffed at.

There is some heavy work going on in Australia to align the economy. Budget
cuts were unveiled last week and the Government announced they are aiming
at going from deficit to a surplus of AUS$1.5 billion for 2012-2012.

There are, of course, a couple of issues GE and other companies in a
similar position need to be mindful of.

The incoming Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MMRT) is a tax levied on 30% of
the “super profits” from the mining of iron ore and coal in Australia. The
tax kicks in at profits of $75 million and while 320 companies could
potentially be affected, it will certainly raise the cost of doing business
with these firms. The Government expects the tax will raise around AU
$10.5bn.

Furthermore, the labour market is very tight and companies looking to work
within the sector will be competing for experienced staff. This will cause
further wage inflation and a tighter market than already exists.

The challenges and problems are there, but in looking at the global
economy, I would rather be a finance minister wrestling with sustainability
issues rather than existential issues. A two speed economy is certainly
preferential when your only other option is a one speed economy heading
downwards.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Australia, Economy, RSM Regions, Tax

Introducing the RSM World

I am very pleased to announce the launch of a new look RSM! Our international network will now be known as purely RSM, complete with a new “RSM World” logo representing our global connectivity as a network.

We’ve been on a very rewarding journey researching what our clients and partners understand about what makes us different as a network. Analysing these findings gave us some fascinating insights into our strengths and opportunities. It was an inspiring process, particularly when it revealed that RSM are increasingly known for a strong personal approach and entrepreneurial awareness in our work with clients and with each other. For partners, this means increasingly taking the time to understand our clients in depth, and working with them flexibly, efficiently and passionately to help them realise their ambitions. It means connecting with clients in order to earn their trust and respect, and connecting with each other to bring the power of the network to our clients. We call this ‘connected for success’, a theme which will feature in our global advertising and communications over the coming year.

RSM, Audit, Tax, Advisory

The creation of this brand mark is a fundamental part of communicating these strengths and we believe reflects a closer representation of who we are – a strong global network of high quality audit, tax and advisory firms unified on putting clients first and delivering the highest quality advice, quickly and efficiently.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Branding, Corporate Culture, News

Guest post: Financial Transaction Tax: Learning crucial lessons from Sweden’s misadventure…

For many years Europe has struggled to introduce financial transaction tax (also known as FTT and Tobin tax). In 1984 when Sweden first installed FTT, it set off a chain reaction of events which effectively strangled its domestic financial markets until the tax was eliminated, six damaging years later.

The introduction of an FTT has recently been added to Hungary’s policy makers’ agenda. Zsolt Kalocsai, the Managing Partner of RSM DTM Hungary, RSM’s Hungarian member firm, believes that we should look at the case of when Sweden brought in an FTT back in the 1980’s…

The key development was in 1986 when Sweden erroneously doubled the tax, driving 60 percent of the turnover of its 11 most actively traded shares to move to London. By the 1990′s 50 percent of the Swedish stock exchange’s former turnover was traded in London, and most dramatic of all – futures trading fell by 95% and bond trading fell by 85%.

Key elements:
1. Foreign investors reacted to the tax by moving their trading offshore

2. Domestic investors reacted by reducing the number of their equity trades

3. Tax revenues from FTT were almost entirely absorbed by the drastic reduction of the personal income tax on the capital gain of transactions

4. Markets hated the FTT – The Stockholm stock exchange dropped by almost 5.5 percent and later, in response to the news of the increase of tax, shares fell a further 1 percent.

5. FTTs are not guaranteed to earn – the actual revenue from FTT for government securities in Sweden was a dismal 4 percent of the predicted tax revenue.

Sweden’s misadventure teaches us that the introduction of an FTT can clearly have dramatic implications for financial markets, with the potential to do long term damage.

These are important lessons and highly relevant today. The risks of the FTT are clear. But would these risks be mitigated by the introduction of regional or global FTTs? Probably yes, but the likelihood of such happening is remote.

If applied to Europe, transactions would (by their nature) move to the American continent or to Asian financial markets immediately.

So it is no coincidence that many EU member states are clearly against the introduction of FTT including the United Kingdom, Italy and, no surprise, Sweden.

Introducing an FTT is not a simple decision for policymakers as the historical evidence points to the risks almost certainly outweighing the benefits.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Europe, Tax, Technical News