Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 04FRANKFURT3169 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 04FRANKFURT3169 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Consulate Frankfurt |
| Created: | 2004-04-16 08:29:00 |
| Classification: | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY |
| Tags: | ECON EFIN EUN |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 FRANKFURT 003169 SIPDIS SENSITIVE STATE FOR EUR PDAS RIES, EB BAY, EUR/AGS, AND EUR/ERA STATE PASS FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD STATE PASS NSC TREASURY FOR DAS SOBEL TREASURY ALSO FOR ICN COX, STUART PARIS ALSO FOR OECD TREASURY FOR OCC RUTLEDGE, MCMAHON E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON, EFIN, EUN SUBJECT: Commission proposes directive on auditor regulation and oversight T-IA-F-03-0004 This cable is sensitive but unclassified. Not/not for Internet distribution. 1. (SBU) Summary: The European Commission has proposed a directive to clarify the duties of statutory auditors in the European Union and to set out clear principles to ensure their objectivity and independence. The proposal mirrors much of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and reflects close consultation with the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. If adopted as currently drafted, auditors from third countries will have to be approved and registered in the EU if they audit companies listed in the EU. However, on the condition of reciprocity and equivalence, the proposed directive allows for exemptions for non-EU auditors from registration, quality assurance, investigations and sanctions. Moreover, under certain conditions it would permit the transfer of audit documents to third country authorities. The latter provision is regarded with skepticism by some member states, including Germany, as well as by many auditors. End summary ------------------------------- Combating fraud and malpractice ------------------------------- 2. (SBU) On March 16, the European Commission presented its long-delayed proposal for a directive "on statutory audit of annual accounts and consolidated accounts". The proposed directive aims to clarify the duties of statutory auditors and to set out clear principles to ensure their objectivity and independence. It would introduce a requirement for external quality assurance, new rules for robust public oversight for auditors, and promote cooperation between EU regulatory authorities. The proposal also calls for the creation of an audit regulatory committee by member state representatives to assist the Commission in the implementation of the directive. Moreover, the Commission proposes the use of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) and establishes a basis for co-operation with third countries. The proposal must be adopted by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure before it can be implemented by member state governments. 3. (SBU) The initiative is the second in a pair of initiatives announced in 2003 intended to improve corporate governance in European Union countries. The Commission stressed that while the recent corporate scandals in the U.S. and the EU have emphasized the need for ensuring the credibility and reliability of companies' financial statements, its proposal for a directive is not "a knee-jerk response" to these scandals, but rather reflects a long- standing reorientation of EU policy on statutory audit dating from 1996. Nevertheless, the actual Commission proposal mirrors much of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. --------------------------------------------- Ensuring independence and quality of auditing --------------------------------------------- 4. (SBU) The proposal prescribes that each member state designate competent authorities for the approval of auditors and mandates that statutory audits be carried out only by auditors or audit firms approved by the member state where the audit is carried out. Those auditors would be put in a public register. 5. (SBU) The text would require Member States to ensure that auditors are subject to principles of professional ethics, which at least cover the overall responsibility of the auditors towards the public, their integrity and objectivity, and their professional competence and due care. National authorities would also have to make sure that auditors are independent from the audited entity and are not in any way involved in the latter's management decisions. Auditors would be prohibited from carrying out a statutory audit of a firm if they had any financial, business, employment or other relationship, including the provision of additional services, with the firm that might compromise the auditors' independence. The Commission proposal would also require member states to ensure that auditors be dismissed only where there are proper grounds - divergence of opinions on accounting treatments or audit procedures are not considered proper grounds. Both the audited entity and the auditor would have to inform the competent authorities about the dismissal and the reasons for it. 6. (SBU) The Commission proposes that all statutory audits prescribed by Community law be carried out in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (ISA), as endorsed by the Commission. Moreover, it also requires that member states ensure a system of quality assurance for auditors which meets a list of specified requirements. Among other things, the quality assurance system must be organized in a manner that is independent from the reviewed auditors. The Commission proposal would also require member states to put in place effective systems of investigations and sanctions to detect, correct and prevent inadequate execution of statutory audits. Where an auditor does not meet the requirements of the directive, national authorities would impose effective and proportionate civil, administrative or criminal penalties. 7. (SBU) Reflecting the subsidiarity principle, the draft leaves it to Member states rather than the Commission to organize public oversight systems to which all auditors in their respective jurisdictions would be subject. These national systems would have to be governed by boards comprising a majority of non-practitioners in auditing who are, nevertheless, knowledgeable in the area. --------------------------------------------- Specific rules for "public interest entities" --------------------------------------------- 8. (SBU) The draft directive also includes special provisions for so-called public interest entities: companies whose securities are traded on a regulated market as well as banks and insurance companies. Such enterprises would be required to publish annual financial reports and to establish an audit committee composed of non-executive members of its administrative body or members of the supervisory board, including at least one independent member with competence in accounting or auditing. The text calls for this audit committee, inter alia, to monitor the financial reporting process, the effectiveness of the company's internal controls as well as the auditor's independence, and to oversee the statutory audit of the firm's annual and consolidated accounts. The appointment of an auditor by the administrative body or supervisory board must be based on a nomination by the audit committee. For public interest entities, the proposal delegates oversight of auditors exclusively to non-practitioners. More controversially, it would require public interest entities to rotate the statutory auditor or key audit partner within a maximum of five years, and the audit firm within a maximum of seven years. As many firms will end up being classified as public interest entities this requirement will have far- reaching implications for the audit industry. --------------------------------------------- ---------- Regulatory and oversight arrangements between EU member states --------------------------------------------- ---------- 9. (SBU) The Commission would require the national authorities to establish procedures for the approval of statutory auditors approved in other member states, thus applying the principle of mutual recognition. The proposal lays out how mutual recognition of regulatory arrangements between member states would function: regulatory arrangements of the member states would have to respect the principle of home country regulation and oversight by the member state where the auditor is approved and registered. For example, regarding statutory audit of consolidated accounts, the national authority requiring the audit of the consolidated accounts could not impose additional requirements concerning registration, quality assurance, auditing standards, ethics or independence on an auditor carrying out an audit of a subsidiary established in another member state. In the case of a company whose securities are traded in a member state different from where it has its registered office, the national authority where the securities are traded could not impose any additional requirements in relation to the statutory audit. 10. (SBU) Moreover, the proposal requires the responsible national authorities to cooperate with each other whenever necessary for the purpose of carrying out their duties of oversight of the auditors approved by them. This includes assistance to the competent authorities of other member states, in particular the exchange of information and cooperation in investigation activities. --------------- Third countries --------------- 11. (SBU) The Commission proposal would permit, "on the condition of reciprocity," the competent authorities of an EU country to approve auditors from a third country, provided they can furnish proof of being approved as an auditor, theoretical knowledge, practical skills, and integrity "equivalent" to the provisions of the proposed directive, as well as legal knowledge relevant in the member state in question. 12. (SBU) Auditors and auditing firms from third countries that issue audit reports of firms with securities traded in the EU would have to be registered in an EU member state and be subject to that member state's systems of oversight, quality assurance, investigations and sanctions. Only auditors meeting the "equivalent" quality criteria could be registered. In order to prevent unnecessary international regulatory overlap, the proposed directive allows for exemptions from registration on the basis of reciprocity, if audit firms from third countries are subject to equivalent systems of registration and oversight. This equivalence would be assessed by the Commission rather than, but in cooperation with, member state authorities, and be decided upon by the Commission as well. 13. (SBU) The Commission proposal notes that the complexity of international group audits requires good cooperation between the competent authorities of the member states and those of third countries. Therefore, it proposes that member state authorities may, under certain conditions, allow the transfer to the competent authorities of a third country of audit working papers or other documents held by statutory auditors subject to their jurisdiction. The text lays out preconditions including that "there are working arrangements on the basis of reciprocity agreed between the competent authorities concerned." Moreover, justification would have to be provided by the third-country authority of the purpose of the request for audit working papers and other documents, which could only be used for the exercise of the third countries' authorities' functions of public oversight, quality assurance and investigations. The authorities receiving the information would also need to respect professional secrecy requirements. --------- Reactions --------- 14. (SBU) According to press reports, the German federal government is, in principle, in favor of the Commission proposal and supportive of closer cooperation with third countries, in particular with the U.S. However, it is skeptical of the proposal on transferring audit documents outside EU territory. Many observers in Germany regard the latter provisions as the Europeans going down on their knees before the Americans. Reportedly, these provisions were also controversial when discussed inside the Commission and a number of member states are opposed to them. Experts believe that it will take several years before the conditions for the transfer of information to third countries, such as approving reciprocity agreements, are met. This may be due, not only to the length of time that will be required for the EU to consider and implement the legislation, but also to the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not contain any rules on cooperation with other countries. 15. (SBU) The German auditors association (IDW), while in principle welcoming the Commission's proposal, is vehemently opposed to external rotation. It also criticized the proposal for the provision of non-auditors exclusively to the public oversight bodies for the public interest entities, arguing that this even goes beyond the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Moreover, the IDW is very critical of the potential transfer of documents to third countries, evoking professional secrecy and data protection requirements. 16. (SBU) The Federation of European Accountants (FEE) welcomed the Commission's initiative to modernize legislation on auditing, but also voiced concerns over the provisions that foresee the transfer of information to third countries and the mandatory rotation of auditors. Furthermore, the FEE criticized the Commission for proposing to exclude the audit profession from national oversight systems for listed companies. 17. (SBU) According to the Financial Times, the big four firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young, KPMG and PwC) are strongly opposed to rotation of audit firms, partly as it could threaten their dominance of auditing multi-national companies, thus providing new business opportunities for their medium-sized competitors. 18. (SBU) Internal Market Commissioner Bolkestein briefed member state finance ministers about the proposal at the April 2-3 Informal Ecofin. However, with a new Parliament and Commission not expected to be up and running until the fall, this matter will fall to the incoming Dutch, UK and Luxembourg presidencies to navigate through the EU legislative process before action passes to member states. 19. (U) This cable has been coordinated with USEU. 20. (U) POC: C. Ohly, Economic Specialist, e-mail ohlyc@state.gov; tel. 49-(69)-7535-2367, fax 49-(69)-7535- 2238. BODDE
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04