The Significance of Audit Quality: Lessons from KPMG’s Fines
In the intricate world of finance and business, the accuracy and integrity of a company’s financial statements stand paramount. Audits serve as the cornerstone for maintaining this accuracy, ensuring stakeholders can trust in the financial health and integrity of businesses. However, when audit processes falter, the repercussions extend far beyond the audited entities, affecting the auditing firms themselves. The recent fines imposed on KPMG for its 2018 audit of M&C Saatchi underline serious failings in audit practices and underscore the paramount importance of upholding high audit quality standards.
The Fine Details
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC), the UK’s audit quality watchdog, levied a £2.25 million fine against KPMG, which was reduced to £1.46 million following admissions and early case resolutions. Adrian Wilcox, the audit lead, faced a £75,000 fine, subsequently reduced to £48,750. These penalties were for significant shortcomings in the audit of M&C Saatchi, a major player in the advertising industry. The FRC’s criticisms were centered around a lack of professional scepticism, particularly in high-risk audit areas, and fundamental errors in journal testing.
Understanding Professional Scepticism
A pivotal aspect of the FRC’s critique was KPMG’s insufficient application of professional scepticism. Professional scepticism involves an auditor’s mindset that encompasses a questioning mind and an alertness to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to error or fraud. It necessitates a critical evaluation of audit evidence and is essential for detecting material misstatements in financial statements, irrespective of fraud or error.
Why Professional Scepticism is Critical
Sufficient professional scepticism acts as a defense against complacency and uncritical acceptance of information during the audit process. It demands that auditors actively seek evidence, critically assess obtained evidence, and evaluate the adequacy of explanations given. This approach ensures that auditors do not overlook or dismiss findings that could indicate significant financial mismanagement or fraudulent activity.
The Underlying Audit Failings
KPMG’s audit shortcomings were multifaceted, focusing on three main areas: Work In Progress (WIP) credits, the auditing of subsidiaries’ financial transactions, and client rebates. These deficiencies led to an overstated revenue figure for M&C Saatchi by £1.2 million in 2018, among other issues. The FRC found that KPMG inadequately investigated the release of WIP credits, failed to audit journal entries across several subsidiaries adequately, and did not properly verify rebate claims made by a senior finance executive at M&C Saatchi.
The Impact of Audit Failings
The fallout from these audit failings is extensive. For M&C Saatchi, it unveiled a £12 million accounting discrepancy, leading to major management changes and a temporary suspension of share trading. For KPMG, this incident is another blot on a record that includes 16 fines since 2018, highlighting a pressing need for audit firms to maintain the highest standards of quality and professional scepticism.
Learning from Mistakes
In response to the fines, Cath Burnet, KPMG UK’s head of audit, expressed regret over the shortcomings and emphasized the firm’s commitment to improving audit quality. KPMG has pledged significant investments in training, controls, and technology to bolster the resilience and reliability of its audit practice. This commitment is crucial for restoring trust and ensuring the firm’s audit failings become lessons for the future.
Conclusion
The KPMG fine for its audit of M&C Saatchi’s 2018 accounts is a stark reminder of the critical importance of high-quality audits. As auditing firms navigate the complexities of financial reporting, the lessons from this and similar cases must guide efforts to enhance audit quality, ensuring the integrity and reliability of financial reporting. This incident serves as a potent reminder of the indispensable role of professional scepticism in maintaining the trust and functioning of financial markets.
