Informationskvaliteten i revisionsfirmaernes gennemsigtighedsrapporter er meget svingende. Deloitte og EY gennemgår mest detaljeret resultater af kvalitetskontroller, og EY oplyser endda om en ”reprimande”. På grund af ringe informationskvalitet hos de andre, er det vanskeligt at uddele karakterer.
Deloitte skriver: ”Ved den gennemførte kvalitetskontrol af kvalitetsstyringssystemet er Erhvervsstyrelsen ikke blevet bekendt med forhold, der giver anledning til at konkludere, at der generelt ikke er etableret, implementeret og anvendt et hensigtsmæssigt kvalitetsstyringssystem. Ved kvalitetskontrollen er der imidlertid identificeret forbedringspunkter vedrørende følgende områder i kvalitetsstyringssystemet: • Anvendelse af kvalitetsstyringssystemets procedurer og politikker vedrørende kvalitetssikringsgennemgang • Utilstrækkelig reaktion på forhold, som bliver konstateret som led i den interne overvågningsproces. Vi er enige i de af Erhvervsstyrelsen anførte forbedringspunkter, og vi har allerede iværksat tiltag til afhjælpning heraf.”
[irp posts=”540531″ name=”Flere revisorer får sanktioner i Revisornævnet”]
Videre hedder det, at ”det amerikanske revisortilsyn, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), foretog sammen med Erhvervsstyrelsen i foråret 2016 en fælles kvalitetskontrol af Deloitte. Slutrapporten fra PCA-OB, som blev modtaget i april 2017, indeholdt enkelte væ-sentlige bemærkninger til gennemførelsen af revisionen i to af de kontrollerede sager og til det interne kvalitetsstyringssystem. Deloitte har en frist på tolv måneder til at svare på slutrapporten fra PCAOB og til at angive de tiltag, som er implementeret for at addressere PCAOBs bemærkninger.”
EY skriver i sin gennemsigtighedsrapport , at revisionsfirmaet under den seneste tilsynsgennemgang har fået en “reprimande”. “Based on the review of the quality control system and of individual engagements, the Inspector from the Danish Business Authority quality controller found that EY in general has implemented and used an appropriate quality control system. However, the review showed that the quality control system was not sufficiently implemented and complied with in all areas to guarantee compliance with EY’s policies and standards, including the classification of 2 municipal clients subject to section 60 of the Danish Local Government Act, and thus also covered by the then applicable section 21(3) of the Danish Act on Approved Auditors and Audit Firms.“
Videre hedder det, at ”based on the quality assurance review performed, the Inspector from the Danish Business Authority found that the auditor’s reports in 60 selected individual engagements, in all material respects, were in accordance with the working papers and requirements under Danish law. In 9 individual selected engagements concerning audit engagements involving less than 200 audit hours the review showed that the quality control system was not applied to the extent required in the preparation and documentation of the audit engagements. EY Denmark has received a reprimand for this.”
PwC skriver: ”Based on the quality control review performed of the quality control system and engagement-specific controls, PwC has, in the control officer’s opinion, established, implemented and applied an appropriate quality control system.” In a separate report to the PwC leadership, the control officer has made recommendations for additional improvements of the quality control and has commented on a few of the engagements reviewed. These recommendations have been addressed in our continuous efforts to improve our quality control system.”
Det oplyses dog ikke nærmere, hvad det handler om, hvilket ellers kunne være nærliggende i netop en gennemsigtighedsrapport.
Videre skriver PwC, at “In addition, in the spring of 2015, PwC Denmark was singled out for a quality inspection by the US Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) because PwC Denmark is authorised in the USA to audit clients subject to rules issued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB. The inspection comprised both a review of our quality control system and of selected assurance engagements subject to these rules. The final report was received in the autumn of 2015, and we passed the PCAOB’s review without any issues and recommendations being identified and made.” Heller ikke her oplyses noget om det materielle indhold i disse anbefalinger.
KPMG skriver i den seneste gennemsigtighedsrapport, at revisortilsynet er ved at kigge på revisionsfirmaet.
