Attest function to be relooked

Stat Audit 1351 views 6 replies
In sports there are some legendary rivalries. In baseball, it’s the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox. In college football, University of Michigan and the Ohio State University. But how about that classic rivalry between financial accountants and managerial accountants?

Financial accountants, typically CPAs who produce or audit a company’s financial disclosure statements, may not even be aware of any rivalry. But they have the reputation of viewing managerial accountants, who mainly produce internal information for decision making, as minor league players. However, make no mistake: the managerial accountants resent their second-class status in the accounting community.

The animosity between the two may even be worse in academia. Financial accounting professors who teach or write about producing financial statements, compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley law or how to approach organizational mergers and acquisitions view themselves well above faculty who teach cost accounting. As evidence, some universities have shifted managerial accounting courses from being required to being elective.

But here’s a switch: I think this pecking order is backwards. Let’s reverse the role rankings. Why?
Let’s first consider how well the audit profession has been doing at preventing financial scandals and keeping perp walks by executives off the front page or the evening news. Not very! Enron is only one of many company names that people equate with financial disclosure failure.

When you step back for some perspective , financial accounting simply deals with valuation – what is an organization worth if you were to sell it? But managerial accounting is about creating value – contributing to management decisions that ultimately provide the basis for financial accounting. Which is more important?

Yes, I realize it matters that capital markets and the investment community have confidence in financial reporting. (See “If Only Internal Financial Transparency Were As Good As the US Government’s SEC Laws” ). But I think it is even more important for managers and employee teams to have reasonably accurate and relevant managerial accounting information to make better decisions with (“Do Accountants Lead or Mislead?”).

Managerial accounting is one the important components that constitute the various methodologies of the Performance Management framework. Its information is what can give an organization a superior and sustainable advantage to satisfy the needs of its investors and employees. If investors were given the choice of having only one, the astute investors would choose managerial accounting.
 
Replies (6)

In response to my recent post, Does Financial Accounting Deserve Superiority Over Managerial Accounting?) I received a thoughtful e-mail from . I asked him to expand on his ideas as a guest blogger here so all of you could enjoy his insights and experience.


I have come to the conclusion, after close to 30 years of actually doing management accounting, that the practice also encompasses everything within financial accounting except the "attest" (external audit) function. So the contest is actually between the accountants inside corporations who do managerial accounting (including financial accounting activities such as regulatory compliance, which is inherently non-value added) vs. the CPA accountants outside the corporations who perform the attest function.
The former obviously provides more value to the firm. But the referees and inspectors (i.e. the CPAs) help protect the public, so they provide value to the investing public as independent inspectors. This is like USDA inspectors examining meat before it is sold to the public, the NRC inspecting and licensing nuclear plants, the FDA inspecting consumer drugs, and even the IRS auditors checking your tax returns.

Therefore, it seems to me that managerial accountants inside the firm both create and measure wealth; whereas the CPAs who perform the attest function outside the firm independently assess the measurement of the wealth that has already been measured by the managerial accountant inside the firm (as part of the financial reporting process). The CPAs create no value to the firm, but they help assure that the information provided to others to compute the firm's value is independently assessed.

In soccer, who has more value, the players and coaches, or the referees?
-- Can a game be played and enjoyed without referees? Of course.
-- Can fans who buy tickets enjoy the game if there are no referees? Yes.
-- Will the spectators, as well as the players and coaches, have a more enjoyable experience if there are referees to keep things fair? Sure.
But who has more value, those "doing it" or those "inspecting it"? The answer to where you stand on this issue depends upon where you sit.

So it is with the great debate within the accounting profession.

By the way, we all know there is no such thing as "independence" in the external financial audit (attest) function in the US. Based on current system, there can't be. What we have is a system where those in charge of financial reporting and those responsible for auditing have written the rules to benefit themselves, rather than the investing public.
Wouldn't it be laughable if the Chicago Cubs hand picked their own umpires for each game, paid them directly, went out to lunch with them, and paid them for other work unrelated to baseball? Would the other teams think this fair? Of course not. Why? Because such actions would surely compromise the independence of the umpires.
How could they call balls, strikes and plays fairly?

Yet, look at how CPA firms operate with companies they audit. The company hand picks them, pays the CPAs a fee directly, chums around and plays golf with them, and the CPAs do other unrelated work for additional fees.

From the public's perspective, would it be OK if Armor Meat selected and paid their own "independent" meat inspectors, DTE Energy selected and paid for their own "independent" nuclear power plant inspectors, or Johnson & Johnson selected and paid their own "independent" drug inspectors? What if you selected and hired your own "independent" tax auditor when the IRS audits you? Would the public feel as secure?

Yet these companies all hand pick and compensate their own external auditor – who is supposed to be the last safeguard of the financial public's interest – directly.

Enron happened because there was little independence between the auditor and the company. The auditors wanted to keep the account and earn more money from other non-related work, and get big bonuses for doing the aforementioned. Their ability to fairly inspect and question was clouded by dollar signs in their eyes. Another Enron will happen again, because we still lack independence between auditors and companies.

A way to fix this flawed system once and for all would be to have all public firms pay an audit fee to the SEC. The SEC would select and assign CPA firms to audit public companies, and then compensate the CPA firms directly. There should be no direct relationship or money that changes hands between public companies and the CPA firms who provide the independent attest function. This system would better serve the public interest, and better assure auditor independence.


 

NICE SHARING SIR, THANKS

Good one Veeraraghavan.

Thanks

 

good informations by both the members thanks for that

 both the members thanks for that

All the corporates take only Chartered Accountants as their chosen men and the salary

offered to them are phenomenal compared to the Management Accountants who in addition to the compliance function do the controlling of the key parameters of the organisation very well.  This has to be appreciated by the top management. 

 


CCI Pro

Leave a Reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register