Audit committee
reports
A survey of 2013 annual reports
August 2014
Contents
Welcome
03
Effectiveness of the external audit process
04
• Use of a questionnaire or survey to assess audit effectiveness
08
• Disclosure of action plans and improvement opportunities
10
Auditor appointment and tenure
12
•
Tenure
12
• Approach to tendering
13
The last reporting season has seen audit committees get to
grips with the new reporting requirements relating to how the
audit committee discharges its duties. We have performed
a survey of FTSE 350 company annual reports and in this report
we have provided some observations on how the requirements
are being addressed by different companies.
The revised 2012 UK Corporate Governance Code came into effect as of 1 October 2012 and many companies have now published their annual reports under the revised Code. Provision C.3.8 of the revised Code details the new reporting requirements.
2012 UK Corporate Governance Code provision C.3.8:
A separate section of the annual report should describe the work of the committee in discharging its responsibilities. The report should include:
• T he signifi cant issues that the committee considered in relation to the fi nancial statements, and how these issues were addressed;
• An explanation of how it has assessed the effectiveness of the external audit process and the approach taken to the appointment or reappointment of the external auditor, and information on the length of tenure of the current audit fi rm and when a tender was last conducted; and
• If the external auditor provides non-audit services, an explanation of how auditor objectivity and independence is safeguarded.
In May, the ACI published a survey on the response to the revised Code’s requirement for the audit committee to discuss the significant issues considered in relation to the financial statements and the new audit report requirements.
In this publication, we report on our survey of 227 FTSE 350 company annual reports, focusing on the disclosures made in regards to the assessment of the effectiveness of the external audit process; the approach taken to appointment and tenure of the auditor; and the safeguards to auditor independence and objectivity.
In performing this survey, we have also taken into consideration the results of the Financial Reporting Lab report ‘Reporting of Audit Committees’ published in October 2013, which provides listed company and investor views on meeting the disclosure requirements and insights on the content and style of presentation.
Timothy Copnell
UK Audit Committee Institute August 2014
The revised 2012 UK Corporate
Governance Code sets out that
a separate section of the annual
report should describe the work
of the audit committee in
discharging its responsibilities,
including, inter alia, an
explanation of how it has
assessed the effectiveness of
the external audit process.
The ACI published initial fi ndings in January 2014 from a review of the fi rst reports issued under the revised 2012 Code. We have updated our fi ndings for further annual reports published since our initial review.
The disclosure of the steps taken by audit committees in assessing the effectiveness of the audit process vary widely – both in the number of steps performed and the level of detail. Of the companies surveyed, 6% made no comments in regards to auditor effectiveness and 13% disclosed that the assessment had been performed, but provided no explanation as to how this was performed.
Half of the annual reports which made disclosures in relation to audit effectiveness also explicitly concluded on the result of the assessment, all noting favourable results (this excludes comments stating that the auditor was recommended for reappointment at the coming AGM).
The average number of assessment activities performed by audit committees across the companies surveyed was 2.8.This was roughly consistent across the different rankings within the FTSE 350, although we note that the top 50 on average was above this (3.6 activities).
Financial reporting lab suggestions:
✓ Disclosures can become repetitive year on year and focus on the process; concise, specifi c descriptive actions and outcomes are more useful to the reader
✓ If the audit committee undertakes a survey as part of this process,
the survey should be described and providing a summary of resulting actions is encouraged
✓ If the audit committee reviews independent regulator inspection reports, this should be disclosed, along with the outcomes
ey/Questionnaire v Sur
46%
Number of assessment activities by FTSE ranking
4.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 1. 0 0.5 0 1 to 50 51 to 1 0 0 1 0 1 to 1 5 0 1 51 to 20 0 2 0 1 to 250 251 to 30 0 3 0 1 to 350 FTSE ranking 3.5 Number of activities
Whilst, in practice, audit committees may well employ more mechanisms or factors in assessing the effectiveness of the
external audit process than they actually report, the most commonly reported factors were:
13%
Additional insights and obser vations pro vided b y the auditor 44% Revie w of present ations and communications 42% Revie w of risk identifi cation process and deliv ery against the audit plan
41%
Assess le vel of c
hallenge and
robustness of the auditor and their viour 40% Feedbac k from management 38% Revie w qualit y of st aff, resources and qualifi cations 23% Revie w of AQR T reports 19% Revie wing internal qualit
y control
procedures and/or transparency reporting ongoing beha
Example 1
“The Committee has reviewed the effectiveness of the external audit process during the year, including consideration of the following factors:
•
T he appropriateness of the proposed audit plan and the
signifi cant risk areas and areas of focus, and the effective performance of the audit in line with the agreed plan.
• T he technical skills and industry experience of the audit
engagement partner and the wider audit team.
• T he quality of the external auditor’s reporting to
the Committee.
• T he effectiveness of the co-ordination between the UK and
Chilean audit teams.
• T he effectiveness of the interaction and relationship
between the Group’s management and the external auditor. • Feedback from management, including questionnaires
completed by the operational finance teams in respect of the effectiveness of the unit audit processes.
• Consideration of the auditor’s management letter and, in particular, the view this provides of the auditor’s level of understanding and insight into the Group’s operations. • Review of reports from the external auditor detailing their
fi rm’s internal quality control procedures, as well as the auditor’s annual transparency report.”
Antofagasta plc
Example 2
“We formally reviewed the effectiveness of the external audit process and the quality of the audit. The review covered the following:
• The audit partners with particular focus on the lead audit engagement partner.
• The skills and experience of the audit team.
• The planning and scope of the audit and identifi cation of areas of audit risk.
• The execution of the audit.
• The role of management in the audit process.
• The quality of communication between the external auditor and the audit committee.
• The quality of their regular reports on accounting matters, governance and control.
• The support provided by the external auditor to the audit committee. • The contribution made by the external auditor towards
insights and added value.
• The reputation and standing of the external auditor. • The independence and objectivity of the external auditor. • The quality of the formal report to Shareholders.
We conducted this review as part of the 2013 year-end process. The views of each member of the Audit Committee, the Chief
Financial Officer, the Vice President Group Finance and key
members of the finance management team at Group and divisional level were sought. We considered the feedback from this process and shared it with the external auditor and with management. During the year, we considered the inspection reports from the Audit Oversight Boards in the UK and US, specifi cally the: • Financial Reporting Council’s Audit Quality Inspections
Annual Report 2012/13 and Public Report on the 2012 inspection of Ernst & Young LLP.
• The US based Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Report on the 2012 inspection of Ernst & Young LLP.
Example 3
“The Audit Committee has adopted a formal framework in its review of the effectiveness of the external audit process and audit quality which includes the following areas:
• T he audit partners, with particular focus on the lead audit
engagement partner. • T he audit team.
• Planning and scope of the audit and identification of areas of audit risk.
• Execution of the audit.
• T he role of management in an effective audit process.
• Communications by the auditor with the Audit Committee, and how the auditor supports the work of the Audit Committee. • How the audit contributes insights and adds value.
• T he independence and objectivity of the audit firm and the
quality of the formal audit report to shareholders. An auditor assessment tool is completed each year by each member of the Audit Committee and by the CFO. Feedback is also sought from the CEO, other members of the fi nance team, divisional management and the head of internal audit. The assessment tool adopted is comprehensive and includes detailed questions which are completed by way of a formal questionnaire every three years, with the key areas being performed every year. The feedback from this process is considered by the Audit Committee and is provided both to the auditors and to management. Action plans arising are also reviewed by the Committee.
The effectiveness of management in the external audit process is assessed principally in relation to the timely identifi cation and resolution of areas of accounting judgement, the quality and timeliness of papers analysing those judgements, management’s approach to the value of independent audit, the booking of audit adjustments arising (if any) and the timely provision of draft public documents for review by the auditor and the Audit Committee.
Every three years, the Audit Committee requests that a partner independent of the audit engagement team discusses the quality of the external audit process with the Audit Committee chairman and the CFO using this evaluation framework.”
Polymetal International plc
Example 4
“As part of its role in ensuring effectiveness, the committee has completed a formal review which focused on the effectiveness, independence and objectivity of the external audit and included the following areas:
• T he audit partners and audit teams with particular focus
on the lead audit partner including an annual assessment
of the qualifications, expertise and resources of the
external auditors.
• Planning and scope of the audit and identifi cation of areas of audit risk.
• T he execution of the audit including the robustness
and perceptiveness of the auditors in handling their key accounting and audit judgements.
• T he role of management in an effective audit process.
• Communications by the auditor, including the quality of their reporting and the availability of the lead audit partner to meet senior management and to discuss matters with the committee.
• How the auditor supported the work of the audit committee. • How the audit contributed insights and added value.
• A review of independence and objectivity of the audit fi rm.
• T he quality and content of the formal audit report in the
annual report.
• T he appropriateness of the audit fee including value for
money considerations but also to ensure a suffi cient quality of work can be achieved for the fee proposed.
• Results of regulatory reviews by the audit inspection unit.”
Use of a questionnaire or survey to assess audit effectiveness
A questionnaire or survey completed by the audit committee, senior management, group finance employees, or others, was the most common method of assessing the effectiveness of the external auditor and audit process.
The survey participants varied between companies. 28% of the companies employing this mechanism did not specify who participated. The participants, where disclosed, included a mix as shown below. Half noted that the survey had been completed by the audit committee in conjunction with one or several other groups of participants.
Approximately 35% of the surveys were only provided to one group of participants identifi ed below.
One third of the reports made disclosures around the content and types of
questions in the survey or questionnaire. Some examples are shown opposite.
Survey participants
53% Audit Committee
66% Senior Management
55% CFO/Finance Director at key geographical locations
26% Group Finance
A specimen questionnaire can be found
“”
in Appendix 17 of the
ACI Audit Committee Handbook.
Audit committee extract
“Again this year we requested a review of the effectiveness of external audit as perceived by 12 senior fi nancial personnel and senior management closely involved in the year-end reporting process as well as members of the Audit Committee. The approach was consistent with last year, involving 25 questions covering three key areas – the robustness of the audit process, the quality of delivery and the quality of people and service. Questions related to professional scepticism, integrity and competence, understanding of the business risks, issues and their impact, the clarity and appropriateness of the audit
strategy, the efficiency and effectiveness of audit delivery,
constructive relationships and control recommendations, good judgement and clear and timely communication.” (TUI Travel PLC)
Audit committee extract
“ The survey covered a total of 22 different aspects of the audit process grouped under three separate headings; the robustness of the audit process, the quality of delivery of the audit process and the quality of the people in the audit team and the service provided by them. Each respondent was asked to award a rating on a scale of 1 to 5 for each aspect reviewed and to provide any additional comments they wished to make in relation to the questions raised .” (Bunzl plc)
Audit committee extract
“ The questionnaire used is the template produced by KPMG’s Audit Committee Institute which considers comprehensively different aspects of the audit process.” (Elementis plc)
Audit committee extract
“ This covered resource and expertise of the audit teams, quality of planning, execution and deliverables as well as an assessment of overall performance. Resultant themes and fi ndings were discussed between ourselves, management and EY with both management and the auditors reporting to us on the actions being implemented in response.” (The Weir group PLC)
Disclosure of action plans and improvement opportunities
Interestingly, 23 companies made disclosures in regards to action plans or improvement opportunities identifi ed as part of the assessment. This was an area highlighted in the Financial Reporting Lab report: investors want to know about the results and any actions.
The level of disclosure in this area differed greatly, ranging from noting that there were no action points; to there being action points; to disclosure of the points and actions agreed with the auditor. Some examples are shown below.
Audit committee extract
“ The review included seeking views of Audit Committee members, senior executives across the business and members of Group Audit, through a questionnaire and a number of one to one interviews, together with
consideration of the reports provided by PwC to the Audit Committee. The review concluded that the external audit process was effective and identified a number of areas where further enhancements could be made.” (Lloyds Banking Group plc)
Audit committee extract
“ The findings were that the 2012 audit was appropriately
scoped and was well planned and executed.
A number of actions were agreed with Deloitte, including
increasing efficiency of the audit, by improving co
ordination with both the internal auditor and fi nance managers across the Group’s various jurisdictions, and also reviewing the impact of the new accounting system being introduced in 2013 on future audits.”
(SEGRO plc)
Audit committee extract
“ The results confirmed that both PwC and its audit process were considered to be effective and that a good working relationship was supplemented by a sufficient amount of challenge. Minor improvements, including proactive communication of emerging topics and new industry/ regulatory guidance, were suggested to and accepted by PwC.”
(GKN plc)
Audit committee extract
“ The Committee assesses annually the qualifi cation, expertise and resources, and independence of the Group’s external auditors and the effectiveness of the audit process. The Committee’s assessment is informed by an external audit satisfaction survey completed by members of senior management, which it reviews in detail. 94 surveys were completed this year and no material issues were identifi ed.”
The Code requires disclosures
about the length of tenure
of the external auditor and
when the last tender was
performed, as well as the audit
committee’s approach to
external auditor appointment.
Again, we have found that the
level of disclosure varied
between companies.
Tenure
The majority of the companies disclosed the year of appointment of the current external auditor, however a handful were less informative, giving a vague statement (such as: the external auditor’s tenure has exceeded 20 years).
30% did not make any disclosures around the length of tenure, as shown below. 38% of the companies providing disclosure around auditor tenure noted the year of the last tender. These were all conducted between 1994 and 2014. The length of the current auditor tenure ranged from 1 to 117 years (where disclosed), with the average term being 14 years.
Half of the companies providing information on auditor tenure also disclosed information regarding the current audit partner’s tenure and rotation requirements. Only 9% named the partner, which was a suggestion within the Financial Reporting Lab report.
Financial reporting lab
suggestions:
✓ Investors would like to know in advance when the company intends to put the external audit out for tender and to be involved ✓ Investors would like information
around the tendering policy and process to help them understand how the decision was made ✓ Encourage the disclosure of the
date of appointment of the current audit fi rm, the name of the partner and information
on their rotation and when the last tender occurred
Disclosure of auditor tenure
30% No disclosure in relation to tenure
3% External auditor appointed for a number of years ie ‘more than 20 years ’
67% Year of fi rst appointment of current external auditor
“”
Our view is that if the auditor tenure is 11 years or less as at 17 June 2014,
the company has as least 12 years before it must rotate its auditor. In this
case, if a Member State has opted to permit a further extension of 10 years
(as is likely in the UK), then the company would need to conduct a public
tender by 17 June 2026, and may then extend its audit relationship until
2036 (or 2040 if there is a joint audit).
Approach to tendering
At the time the annual reports included in our survey were being prepared, the now legislated EU reforms were still provisional. The UK Competition Commission reforms were also subject to finalisation, though the UK Corporate Governance Code provision on tendering had come into effect before December year end companies would have prepared their 2013 reporting. 70% of the companies surveyed acknowledged the proposed external audit tendering requirements. Of these, the following acknowledgements were noted.Update on mandatory fi rm rotation:
EU legislation to reform the statutory audit market was adopted in April 2014 and will apply from 17 June 2016. This legislation now requires rotation of the audit fi rm every 10 years. Transitional rules stagger the introduction of mandatory fi rm rotation and depend on the length of auditor tenure as at 17 June 2014:
• 20 years or longer – 6 years transition; after 17 June 2020 the auditor cannot be reappointed
• 11 to 20 years – 9 years transition; after 17 June 2023 the auditor cannot be reappointed
Acknowledgement of tendering reform
5% Noted changes but not the source 3% EU proposals only
36% Both Competition Commission and/or UK Corporate Governance Code and EU proposals
56% Competition Commission and/or UK Corporate Governance Code
’ 21% No further comments made
beyond acknowledging changes
14% Intend to comply with the changes (no further comments provided)
33% Intend to comply with the changes and will make use of transitional provisions and wait until current audit partner s rotation ends
32% Intend to comply, but will monitor changes and wait for fi nalisation before taking action
Additional disclosures about timing of recent or planned tender
24% Stated which year they intended to put the audit out for tender
24% Stated that a tender had occurred in the past 1-3 years
52% No disclosures in relation to tendering
Time periods provided where companies disclosed when they were going to initiate a tender
2014
“”
Anecdotal evidence suggests that institutional
investors are increasingly engaging in dialogue
with the audit committee about the appointment
of auditors.
Of those companies acknowledging the proposed tendering changes, the majority specifically noted that they intended to comply with the new requirements. See top chart opposite. Of those who did not acknowledge the proposed changes in relation to audit tendering, some provided additional information about the last tender or the intention to put the audit out to tender, although, a majority made no disclosures in relation to tendering. See middle chart opposite.
Where companies disclosed when they were going to initiate a tender, the time periods in the bottom chart opposite were provided.
In 2013, 16 of the companies surveyed put their external audit out to tender. 9 of those kept the same auditor, with only 5 changing (2 had not concluded at the time of writing the annual report). Only 7 companies reported that they had a formal policy of tendering every 10 years; whilst 5 reported that their policy was to tender more frequently than 10 years. 4 reported that they currently had no formal policy in relation to tendering. Anecdotal evidence suggests that institutional investors are increasingly engaging in dialogue with the audit committee about the appointment of auditors. One company, Barclays PLC, explained that the stakeholders had been involved in the discussion around when to tender and the considerations in making this decision. See below.
Audit committee extract
“ The Committee has also had regard to the complexity and scale of the Barclays external audit and is particularly conscious of the degree of change impacting the business, including the Finance function, as a result of the Transform programme and the additional strain that both an audit tender and a change of audit fi rm would involve. In addition, the Committee noted that both the Group Finance Director and the Committee Chairman are new in role, the latter having previously been a senior
partner in one of the audit firms likely to tender.
Weighing up all these factors, and with the Committee Chairman having recently spoken to a number of key investors, the Committee has recommended to the
Board that, depending on the final rules from the Competition Commission and the
European Union, a tender of the external audit should start in 2015 or 2016 with respect to the 2017 or 2018 audit and that PwC should not be invited to tender.” (Barclays PLC)
Twelve companies disclosed that they were not in compliance with the new UK Corporate Governance Code ‘comply or explain’ provisions, and that it was considered inappropriate to put the external audit out for tender at this time. Reasons cited for this centred around the pace of organisational change. Some examples of these discolosures are shown below.
Audit committee extract
“ The Company may put the audit outto tender at any time, however, for the reasons noted below it will not be tendered in 2014 and the matter will be reviewed on an annual basis. Deloitte was appointed the Company’s auditor in August 2000. Its performance is reviewed annually by the Audit Committee. In deciding not to put in place a tender process in 2013 and 2014, the Committee considered: • the Deloitte audit partner,
Gregory Culshaw, will be rotated off the audit on 25 April 2014 and the new audit partner’s fi ve-year term will end in 2019, in
accordance with the FRC’s Ethics Standard 3 (Revised);
• the change of the Group Finance
Director during the year;
• the upcoming change in the Chair
of the Audit Committee; and
• the Audit Committee’s
assessment of the external auditor’s effectiveness and independence.” (Senior plc)
Audit committee extract
“ The rationale for non-compliance reflects the importance we place on the period of
transformational change the business is undergoing to become a predominantly biomassfi red power station. The incumbent auditor has accumulated knowledge and experience that allows it to carry out effective and effi cient audits during this period of change and provide insightful and informed challenge. In addition, to conduct a thorough competitive audit tender process would require substantial Board and management participation at a time when the transformation of the business is placing greatly increased demands on them.
In coming to a recommendation the Committee considered how, notwithstanding its recommendation to defer putting the external audit contract out to tender, the Group would adhere to the principle of the Code to maintain an appropriate relationship with the auditor. The independence and the effectiveness of the external auditor are reviewed annually by the Committee and no weakening in the level of the auditor’s scepticism or in its desire to challenge management’s judgements and assumptions
in relation to financial reporting has been noted. In addition, there is a well-established
policy and fees paid to the external auditor for audit and non-audit services are reviewed at each Committee meeting, with gated authority to approve non-audit services without the Committee’s approval. In the light of these policies and procedures, the Committee is satisfi ed that an appropriate relationship has been maintained with the auditor.”
Disclosure on tender processes conducted in 2013
Several companies disclosed that they had put the external audit out to tender in 2013. The disclosures provided around tendering ranged from stating that
a tender process had been performed and the results, to a description of the major considerations. Some examples of more descriptive disclosures provided around the tender process by those companies that did tender during the year are as follows.
Audit committee extract
“ In 2013, the Board recommended to shareholders the appointment of KPMG LLP as external auditor to the Company. This followed a rigorous tender process, overseen and directed by the Committee in which fi ve audit fi rms were invited to tender. The process included provision of detailed information, meetings and presentations to both management and the Committee. There were 29 members of management involved in meeting with the tendering fi rms and all evaluated the fi rms against selection criteria covering industry knowledge, people, audit approach, proactivity, organisational fi t and coverage, customer focus and fees. Of the fi rms who tendered, two were invited to make formal presentations to the Committee. These presentations took the form of meetings at which proposed audit strategy including planning, scope and risk identifi cation was presented, discussed and challenged. Following those meetings, the Committee recommended to the Board that the appointment of KPMG LLP be recommended to shareholders.”
(RSA Insurance Group plc)
Audit committee extract
“ PwC, Ernst & Young and Deloitte were invited to tender their proposals. Firms in the next tier of audit fi rms were considered but as a result of the Group’s geographical
spread none of these firms were invited to participate.
KPMG provides Man with internal audit services and was therefore excluded for independence reasons. The three
participating firms were evaluated against set criteria in the
following areas:
• Credentials and capabilities of the audit fi rm;
• Effectiveness of the lead partner and engagement team; • Behaviour and deliverables; and
• Fees and terms.
T he process was led by the Committee and involved
meetings with key Man personnel followed by the submission of written proposals.
Presentations from each firm were then made to an
external audit tender sub-committee who reported to the Committee. As part of this process the effectiveness of the external auditors was assessed and no concerns were raised. The Committee concluded to recommend the appointment of Deloitte on the basis of their experienced lead partner and audit team, their use of technology, their proposed transition process and the value added services identifi ed in their proposal. In reaching this decision, the Committee had also considered the advantages and
disadvantages of utilising one firm for both the corporate
and fund audits. Although the effi ciencies that would be
derived from using one firm were recognised, the use of
two firms was preferred on the basis of risk management
and maintaining broader relationships.” (Man Group plc)
The Code also proposes an explanation of how auditor objectivity and independence is safeguarded
if non-audit services are provided by the external auditor.
Most reports explain that it is often advantageous to have the external auditor perform some non-audit work, particularly in respect of confi dential matters, assurance related work, or work where their understanding of the company places them in a better position than other firms. Most reports also commented that the use of the external auditor was not prohibited, however, the decision on which firm to use would always be made with cost-effectiveness and practicality in mind.
Only 1 company noted that non-audit work was prohibited to be performed by the external auditor. Two companies noted that the policy was generally not to appoint the external auditor to perform non-audit services, but did not rule this out if a business case existed.
A further two noted that there were no non-audit services provided in the financial year being reported on. All of the other companies surveyed permitted their external auditor to provide non audit services. 5 of these did not provide any detail around the non-audit service fees or safeguards within the Audit Committee/Directors report.
The most common safeguard in relation to auditor independence was a policy of formal approval required for non-audit services. Most companies went some way in explaining their policy towards approving non-audit services being performed by the external auditor, 13% noted that their policy was available on their website.
14% of those companies where non-audit services were allowed to be performed by the external auditor required approval by the Audit Committee in advance for every single piece of work.
The majority (63%) disclosed that they used a pre-approval system, whereby Audit Committee approval was delegated to management below a certain fee threshold (85%), and/or certain service limits (27%). Fee thresholds for Audit Committee/Chair approval ranged from £10,000 to £200,000.
Companies took different approaches to requiring Audit Committee approval when work requests were above the thresholds for pre-approval, as shown opposite top.
A third of the reports reviewed stated that the Audit Committee reviews the audit and non-audit fees paid to the external auditors as part of monitoring their independence. Disclosures were also made in regards to the frequency of this review as shown opposite bottom.
Financial reporting lab suggestions:
✓ A summary of the non-audit services policy is useful, although replication of full policy is not necessary and can be referenced to the website. Points of interest are: the approach to tendering for non-audit services; and pre-approval thresholds and criteria
✓ If any changes are made to the policy, these should be noted and described ✓ If a policy on recruiting from the external auditor exists, this should be disclosed ✓ Disclosure of a percentage or ratio of non-audit fees is useful, along with an
Audit committee approval of non-audit services
40% Differing thresholds for audit committee chair and full audit committee approval
21% Audit committee chair only
39% Full audit committee
Frequency of audit committee review of non-audit service fees
53% No comments in regards to frequency 14% Every meeting 15% Quarterly 8% Bi-annually 11% Annually
14% of those companies where non audit services were permitted also noted that they had a policy around tendering non-audit services. This ranged in detail from stating that if the fee was likely to be over £50K/£100K then it would be put out to external tender; to a type of service always being tendered (ie tax or consulting); to stating that tendering is performed where appropriate. Some reports detailed the fees paid to other accounting firms for non-audit services in addition to disclosure around the fees paid to their external auditor.
Audit committee extract
“ The Audit Committee considered that performance of the relevant non-audit services by Deloitte was the most cost-effective way of conducting the requisite work and therefore in the best interest of the Group having due regard to the competence and
knowledge possessed by Deloitte. The Committee was also satisfied that no confl icts
of interest existed or would arise in the conduct of the work on behalf of the Group. During the year a total of $2.91 million (2012: $3.27 million) was paid to other
accounting firms for non-audit work, including $1.4 million for work in relation to tax
advice to the Group provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Ernst & Young and KPMG.”
(CSR plc)
8% of those companies where non-audit services were permitted also noted that they had a policy in regards to the recruitment of employees from the external auditor. This ranged from noting that they had a policy, to an explanation of the policy, for example stating that employees from the audit team could not be employed without a cooling off period of two years, and/or without Audit Committee approval, some examples of this are shown. Please see opposite middle and bottom.
Audit committee extract
“ To safeguard the independence of the Company’s external Auditor and the integrity of the audit process, the recruitment of senior employees from the Company’s Auditor is not permitted for a period of at least two years after they cease to be involved in the provision of services to the Company.”
(Compass Group PLC)
Audit committee extract
“ Further factors identified as contributing to external auditor objectivity and independence
include the external auditor’s retention of an impartial and questioning approach,
particularly with respect to issues of heightened sensitivity, the firm’s prudent attitude to
the consideration and undertaking of nonaudit services and Shire’s own principle of not recruiting staff directly from the external auditor engagement team.”
Audit committee extract
“ The services prohibited by the Policy include:
• book-keeping or other services related to the accounting records or fi nancial statements
• financial information system design
• appraisal or valuation services where the results would be material to the fi nancial statements
• internal audit outsourcing • actuarial calculations
• management functions • legal services
• forensic audit services
• temporary or permanent services as a director, officer or employee or performance
of any decision-making, supervisory or monitoring function • recruitment of senior management.”
(Standard Life plc)
31% of companies who permitted non audit services also provided detail of the types of services which were prohibited. See extract to the left.
10 companies stated that they applied a maximum non-audit to audit fee ratio. This ratio was 1:0.64, on average, with most companies stating a ratio of 1:0.5 or 1:1.
The chart below shows the type of fee disclosure provided, which ranged from the level of non-audit fees, either as a total or by service type; disclosure of non-audit fees as a percentage of audit fees; a combination of these; or reference to the note to the fi nancial statements which detailed the fees paid to the external auditors.
Disclosure of non-audit service fee information
Disclosure of non-audit fee amount and as
Disclosure of Reference to fi nancial a percentage
non-audit fee amount statement note only of audit fees
43% 25% 5%
9% 18%
Disclosure of non-audit fees as No disclosure in regards to a percentage/ratio of/to audit fees non-audit fees paid
21 companies provided additional detail in regards to the non-audit fees, most of these providing a table of the fees broken down by service type or individual engagement.
TUI Travel PLC provided a table of individually signifi cant non-audit engagements, which described the engagement, provided the fee and also provided an explanation of why the external auditor was selected to perform this work. This is shown to the right.
Audit committee extract
1RQ$XGLW6HUYLFHVt6LJQLåFDQW([SHQGLWXUH$XWKRULVHG
Business Work Rationale for use of
Area under taken the external auditor £000s
Group Boeing Transaction: Detailed knowledge 850
Detailed analysis of the and understanding
forecast trading results, of the business.
cash and working capital requirements for the Group from 1 March 2013 to 30 September 2014 in support of the circular presented to shareholders as part SJEWMKRMäGERX'PEWW transaction.
Germany COSO – Operations: Won on competitive 420
Following on from the tender on the basis of
äVWXWXEKISJXLI'373 their detailed knowledge
TVSNIGXMIXLI*MRERGMEP and understanding of
Reporting Category) the business. PwC will
to assist the German support Ernst & Young
business in developing )=MRWGSTMRKXLI[SVO
the next stage of and collecting basic
XLITVSNIGXMIXLI information relating to
Operations Category). risk and controls, with
EY responsible for ensuring independent review of the results and implementation
SJXLITVSNIGX
Group Functional Baseline Detailed knowledge and 270
Assessment: understanding of the
Assist in gathering FYWMRIWWMXWSTIVEXMSREP
data and identifying base and stakeholders),
opportunities to reduce the requirements of
costs and improve XLII\IVGMWILEZMRK
performance across completed a similar
Finance, HR and IT in exercise in 2007) and
Mainstream and A&D. the travel market.
New EU legislation on non-audit services will come into effect from 17 June 2016. The list of prohibited non-audited services is more extensive than current regulations and introduces a non-audit services fee cap of 70% of the average audit fee over a consecutive 3 year period. This cap will come into effect after the 3 year period, so for most companies, on 17 June 2019.
Some companies did add some disclosure around their level of non-audit service fees, in the case where the fee was
considered ‘high’. This was a suggestion made in the Financial Reporting Lab report. Examples of this are shown below.
Only 20% of the companies noted that they obtained a written confirmation of independence from the external auditor, although we expect in practice, all companies do receive this confi rmation.
Only 4 companies referred to the then provisional EU 70% non-audit services fees cap (which has now been approved).
Audit committee extract
“ T he Committee does acknowledge that this year the
non-audit fees are higher than in previous years. This is
principally due to the significant work related to the
Company’s IPO, where it was felt that KPMG were best positioned to provide the services, without compromising their independence, given their overall understanding of the business, and appropriate segregation was put in place to avoid compromising their independence. The Committee recognises this is an exceptional item and expects the fees spent on non-audit services with KPMG to return to more normalised levels.”
(Crest Nicholson Holdings plc)
Audit committee extract
“ The level of non-audit fee awarded to EY is considerably higher in 2013 than would normally be the case, as shown in the table opposite. In conjunction with the CFO, the audit committee chairman approved the services of EY to undertake and support management’s due diligence work for the proposed acquisition of Foster Wheeler.
The substantial due diligence performed by EY primarily covered the balance sheet, profit & loss, accounting policies, revenues, provisions, liabilities, general
accounting, tax, corporate finance and differences
between US GAAP and IFRS.
The decision to appoint EY to undertake this work was considered by the audit committee to be in the best interest of shareholders. The firm has a deep understanding of AMEC, placing them at a distinct advantage to support the board in this regard. In addition, should the proposed acquisition be successful, a sizeable portion of the work performed by EY will not have to be repeated, thereby making the most efficient and economic use of shareholders’ funds.”
The companies included in this survey were as follows:
888 Holdings plcAberdeen Asset Management PLC Aberforth Smaller Companies Trust plc Admiral Group plc
Afren plc
African Barrick Gold plc Aggreko plc
Al Noor Hospitals Group Plc Alent plc Alliance Trust PLC AMEC plc Amlin plc Anglo American plc Antofagasta plc ARM Holdings plc Ashmore Group Plc AstraZeneca PLC Aviva plc
AZ Electronic Materials S.A BAE Systems plc
Balfour Beatty plc
Bank of Georgia Holdings PLC Barclays PLC BBA Aviation plc Beazley plc Berendsen plc BG Group plc BH Global Limited BH Macro Limited
BlackRock World Mining Trust plc Bodycote plc
Bovis Homes Group PLC BP p.l.c
Brewin Dolphin Holdings PLC British American Tobacco p.l.c
British Empire Securities & General Trust PLC
British Sky Broadcasting Group plc
Cairn Energy PLC Capita plc
Capital & Counties Properties PLC Carillion plc
Carnival plc
Catlin Group Limited Centrica plc
Cobham plc
Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company S.A.
Colt Group S.A. Compass Group PLC Computacenter Plc Countrywide plc
Crest Nicholson Holdings plc CRH plc Croda International Plc CSR plc Derwent London plc Devro plc Dignity plc Diploma plc
Direct Line Insurance Group plc Domino Printing Sciences Plc Domino’s Pizza Group plc Drax Group plc
easyJet Plc
Electra Private Equity plc Elementis plc
EnQuest PLC Enterprise Inns plc Essentra plc esure Group plc
Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC EVRAZ plc
F&C Asset Management plc
F&C Commercial Property Trust Limited Ferrexpo plc Foxtons Group plc Fresnillo plc G4S plc GKN plc GlaxoSmithKline plc Glencore plc Grafton Group plc Grainger Plc Greencore Group plc Hammerson plc Hansteen Holdings PLC HellermannTyton Group plc Henderson Group plc Herald Investment Trust plc Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC Hiscox Ltd
Howden Joinery Group Plc HSBC Holdings plc Hunting PLC IMI plc Imperial Tobacco plc Inchcape plc Inmarsat plc
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC International Airlines Group International Personal Finance plc International Public Partnerships Limited Interserve Plc Intertek Group plc Intu Properties plc IP Group plc ITE Group plc ITV plc
James Fisher and Sons Plc Jardine Lloyd Thomson Group plc John Laing Infrastructure Fund Limited John Wood Group PLC
JPMorgan American Investment Trust plc Jupiter Fund Management plc
Kenmare Resources plc Kentz Corporation Limited Kingfi sher plc
Ladbrokes plc Laird PLC
Lancashire Holdings Limited Law Debenture Corporation p.l.c Legal & General Group Plc Lloyds Banking Group plc Lonmin plc Man Group plc Marston’s PLC Meggitt PLC Melrose Industries PLC Merlin Entertainments S.à r.l. Michael Page International plc Millennium & Copthorne Hotels plc Mitchells & Butlers plc
Mondi plc
MoneySupermarket.com Group PLC Morgan Advanced Materials plc Murray International Trust PLC National Express Group PLC
NB Global Floating Rate Income Fund Limited NEXT plc NMC Health plc Ocado Group plc Old Mutual plc Ophir Energy plc Pace plc
Paragon Group of Companies plc Partnership Assurance Group plc Pearson Plc
Perform Group plc Persimmon Plc Petrofac Limited Phoenix Group Holdings Playtech Limited
Polymetal International plc Premier Oil plc
Provident Financial plc Prudential Plc
Randgold Resources Limited Rathbone Brothers Plc Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc Reed Elsevier PLC Regus plc Rentokil Initial plc Resolution Limited Rexam PLC Rightmove Plc Rio Tinto plc
RIT Capital Partners plc Riverstone Energy Limited Rolls-Royce Holdings plc Rotork plc
Royal Dutch Shell plc RPS Group Plc
RSA Insurance Group plc Sage Group plc Savills plc Schroders plc SEGRO plc Senior plc Serco Group plc Shaftesbury PLC Shire plc SIG plc
Smith & Nephew plc SOCO International plc Spectris plc Spirax-Sarco Engineering plc St. Modwen Properties PLC St.James’s Place plc Standard Chartered PLC Standard Life plc SVG Capital plc Synthomer plc Taylor Wimpey plc Telecity Group plc
Temple Bar Investment Trust PLC
Tesco PLC
The Bankers Investment Trust PLC The Merchants Trust PLC
The Restaurant Group plc The Royal Bank of Scotland plc The Scottish Investment Trust PLC The Weir Group PLC
Thomas Cook Group PLC Travis Perkins plc TUI Travel PLC Tullett Prebon plc Tullow Oil plc UBM plc UDG Healthcare plc
UK Commercial Property Trust Ultra Electronics Holdings plc Unilever PLC Vesuvius plc Victrex plc Vodafone Group Plc Whitbread PLC William Hill PLC
Witan Investment Trust plc Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC Xaar plc
“”
Audit committee statements within the annual report are a rapidly developing area and it will be
interesting to see the extent to which companies embrace the enhanced disclosures as time moves
forward. The new disclosures present a real opportunity to close the information gap and provide
investors with greater understanding as to whether the audit committee is providing sufficient
oversight over the matters they themselves perceive to be important. However, this is the start of
a journey and its success is dependent on both board directors and the investment community
engaging in a frank and robust dialogue about investors’ needs and how the information will be used.
Contact us
If you would like further information on our survey,
please talk to your usual KPMG contact or contact:
Timothy Copnell
UK Audit Committee Institute
Tel: +44 20 7694 8082 e-Mail: tim.copnell@kpmg.co.ukThe information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.
