CMA recommends changes to the UK audit market

18th April 2019

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published its final report with recommendations to address serious competition problems in the UK audit industry.

Legislation is needed to address both the vulnerability of the industry to the loss of one of the Big 4, and the current inadequate choice and competition. The CMA is recommending the separation of audit from consulting services, mandatory ‘joint audit’ to enable firms outside the Big 4 to develop the capacity needed to review the UK’s biggest companies, and the introduction of statutory regulatory powers to increase accountability of companies’ audit committees.

The CMA’s recommendations follow extensive discussions with audit firms, investors and major UK companies on its Update Paper – published in December. They also take account of the recommendations of a major report from the Business Select Committee, and the inquiry into regulation led by Sir John Kingman. The recommendations are:

  1. Operational split. Auditors should focus exclusively on producing the most challenging and objective audits, rather than being influenced by their much larger consultancy businesses. Given the difficulties with an immediate global structural split, the CMA is – at this stage – recommending an operational split of the Big 4’s UK audit work. This will require separate management, accounts and remuneration: a separate CEO and board for the audit arm; separate financial statements for the audit practice; an end to profit-sharing between audit and consultancy, and promotions and bonuses based on the quality of the audits.
  2. More choice to increase resilience: mandatory joint audit.  More choice and competition for the audits of big businesses can and should drive up their quality, but the barriers to entry for ‘challenger’ audit firms are currently large. The CMA recommends mandatory joint audit, to increase the capacity of challengers, to increase choice in the market and thereby drive up audit quality.  Challenger firms should work alongside the Big 4 in these joint audits and should be jointly liable for the results. There should be initial limited exceptions to the requirement, based on criteria set by the regulator, focused on the largest and most complex companies. In addition, any company choosing a sole ‘challenger’ auditor should be exempt. Audits of exempt companies may be subject to rigorous, real-time peer reviews commissioned by and reporting to the regulator. The joint audit requirement should remain in place until the regulator determines that choice and competition have improved enough to address the vulnerability of the market to the loss of one of the Big 4.
  3. Regulation of UK companies’ audit committees. It is essential that audit committees choose auditors by seeking those likely to provide the most robust and constructive challenge to the accounting practices of their companies. The CMA recommends that the regulator should hold audit committees more vigorously to account. This may include ensuring that committees report their decisions as they hire and supervise auditors, and that the regulator issues public reprimands to companies whose committees fall short of adequate scrutiny of their auditors.
  4. A five-year review of progress by the regulator. The regulator should review the effects of these changes periodically, in the first instance five years from full implementation. This should consider in particular: the merits of moving to independent appointment for auditors; whether to go beyond the operational split already proposed; and how to fine-tune the joint audit remedy to adapt to market developments.

CMA Chairman Andrew Tyrie said “People’s livelihoods, savings and pensions all depend on the auditors’ job being done to a high standard. But too many fall short – more than a quarter of big company audits are considered sub-standard by the regulator. This cannot be allowed to continue.
“The Government now has three reports to hand. In large part, they come to similar conclusions. Conflicts of interest cannot be allowed to persist; nor can the UK afford to rely on only four firms to audit Britain’s biggest companies any longer. Early action will require legislation – hence the CMA’s proposals.”

CMA’s Chief Executive, Andrea Coscelli, said “The UK is recognised as having a strong history in the fields of corporate governance and accounting.
“Our recommendations, along with improvements to regulation and clarifying the purpose and scope of audits, will ensure the UK strengthens its position.”

“We look forward to supporting the Government as it considers how best to take forward these changes through legislation, alongside Sir John Kingman’s recommendations on regulation and the results from Sir Donald Brydon’s review on the quality and effectiveness of audit.”

Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Rachel Reeves MP, said “We welcome the CMA’s recommendations aimed at addressing what are serious failings in the audit market and ending the stranglehold of the Big 4. We agree that it is high time that their audit work is separated out from their consultancy services to tackle the conflicts of interest that have persisted for too long.”

“The CMA’s proposals, when taken with our Committee’s other recommendations such as seven-year, non-renewable audit terms and cooling off period for non-audit services, should go some way towards putting things right.”

“These findings, seen alongside our Committee’s report and the results of the Kingman review, show there is a clear consensus on how to restore confidence in the market. It’s now up to the Government to deliver, by coming forward with legislation to ensure that audits provide what businesses, investors, employees, pension-holders and the public expect.”