tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5124857623766724513.post557752848910351152..comments2024-01-13T08:27:40.266+00:00Comments on Suq Al Mal: DFSA Calls for Audit ImprovementsAbu 'Arqalahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01296250358695456059noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5124857623766724513.post-32760499469963106012010-09-21T12:44:57.129+01:002010-09-21T12:44:57.129+01:00LC2 and TRC
I take your points.
I have seen them...LC2 and TRC<br /><br />I take your points.<br /><br />I have seen them in action. And in another part of the world, I have seen a regulator go "blind, deaf and dumb" when I - non auditor - informed him of a financial crime well beyond fiddling with the accounts.<br /><br />Even if the regulator backs up the auditors, I don't think that solves the problem. The client could always move business later or not award new business to the "offending" firm. <br /><br />It would be hard to link to disputes. A quiet word and the preferred firm could adjust its bid to become competitive. Impressions of team quality could tip a bid.Abu 'Arqalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01296250358695456059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5124857623766724513.post-80307225528494006982010-09-21T06:52:55.303+01:002010-09-21T06:52:55.303+01:00Simply a well-timed comment on my part in response...Simply a well-timed comment on my part in response to a well-timed post by yourself... So if we end up in a hyper-regulated market you have only yourself to blame :) <br /><br />I agree with Laocowboy, without the backing of regulators or government entities, auditors may be unable, or unwilling, to go head-to-head with firms. <br /><br />Especially in this part of the world where connections and the continuation of "good standing" with high profile, powerful local firms can mean a lot to auditors.The Rageful Cynicnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5124857623766724513.post-89311040574008660122010-09-21T06:04:43.914+01:002010-09-21T06:04:43.914+01:00Ethics true - but the regulator needs to show that...Ethics true - but the regulator needs to show that he is ready to back up the auditor(s) if they go head to head with the client. Having sat on the client side I have been able to see the pressure that can be brought (supported by sophistry) on the auditors in terms of veiled threats of loss of business not only from the client but from acssociated companies (sometimes including the quasi-governmental sector).<br /><br />There are also cases where auditors (or individual managers) have gone to regulators with ,atters that concern them only for the "problem" to be buried.<br /><br />Perhaps there should be a standing rule that changes in auditors be a matter which regulators should always examine in case there are non-commercial 'reasons".Laocowboy2noreply@blogger.com