Skip to main content

Committing to the Public Interest

Tom Seidenstein
Chair, International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board
English

I would like to wish the PIOB a happy 15th anniversary and thank the many people who have volunteered time to the PIOB for their service. You have created an important institution, one whose relevance to the external reporting architecture should continue to grow. 

I joined the IAASB last year, as a non auditor, with the firm conviction that the public interest is best served when market participants have confidence in reported information and those that provide assurance. At its best, the audit profession is at the heart of driving market confidence. However, despite the good work of many auditors, recent corporate failures do raise questions regarding the relevance and quality of audits. Together regulators, oversight bodies such as the PIOB, independent standard-setters, and practitioners can be constructive forces in addressing those questions.

In my brief remarks today, I want to:

  1. Emphasize the value of independent, publicly accountable standard-setting and therefore the PIOB’s role
  2. Describe the IAASB’s effort to be more responsive, agile, and connected to our key partners, including IESBA
  3. Highlight a recent accomplishment that should form a foundation to support audit quality

Let me turn to the importance of independent standard-setting. I strongly believe that setting standards at the international level is the most effective way to respond to the relentless globalization of business and avoid the economic costs and regulatory arbitrage that come with a fragmentation in rules. At the same time, international standards are best set by an independent standard-setting body with appropriate expertise and perspective, free of undue influence, and committed to a thorough due process.

However, independence is not omnipotence. With the privilege of independence, the system requires appropriate accountability mechanisms and standard setters constantly willing to prove that the public interest comes first. I commend the Monitoring Group for recently completing its reform recommendations. The reforms end a period of uncertainty and should produce positive change by bolstering the independence of the standard-setting boards. The changes also should improve public accountability. I particularly highlight the PIOB’s critical oversight role now clearly articulated through a Public Interest Framework. I am also pleased that the recommendations preserve the two-board structure, IESBA and IAASB, and the technical competence of the two standard-setters. The standard-setting boards look forward to work closely with the Monitoring Group, the PIOB, IFAC, and other key stakeholders to implement those changes.

While the Monitoring Group was deliberating the proposed reform, the IAASB took the position that our best contribution to the public interest is to take the proverbial bull by its horns. The IAASB instituted a new strategy, after PIOB review, aimed at putting the public interest front and center of all that we do. After completing foundational standards, we are now pivoting our workplan to focus on the most pressing emerging challenges facing audit and assurance. This shift includes dedicated efforts to reduce the growing complexity of our standards, where appropriate, and workstreams on fraud, going concern, assurance of non-financial information, and the impact of technology. Those topics are raised in nearly every conversation that I have had since becoming chair and the IAASB is now acting.

A common complaint of standard setters is that we move too slowly. While respecting due process, our strategy calls for us to make the standard-setting setting process more agile. For example, we heard that our standards have stood up well during the Covid 19 crisis. At the same time, we recognized that practitioners and others needed help. We responded quickly with a series of Staff Alerts aimed at applying our standards under the current environment and coordinated closely with National Standard-Setters and IFAC to disseminate our work.

Our strategy seeks tighter coordination with the broader ecosystem—including securities regulators, inspection regimes, and standard-setters. Our reporting system will work better when the different parts of the system speak together. Indeed, the level of consultation has intensified over recent months and has allowed us to identity the public interest better on key topics.

Maybe the most intense coordination has occurred with my partners at IESBA, a path forged by my predecessor, Arnold Schilder, and Stavros. Indeed, the completion of our recent Quality Management standards benefited from alignment on many topics, including the key public interest issue of a mandatory cooling off period where both boards are aligned. I can honestly say that IESBA and IAASB are working together in all aspects of their work these days.

Finally, I highlight a reason for optimism that our collective efforts will generate greater trust in audit engagements. IAASB approved its new and revised suite of Quality Management standards last week. In doing so, we addressed the PIOB’s public interest issues and now await PIOB approval. The resulting suite of standards is aimed at a more robust System of Quality Management for firms using the IAASB’s standards, and is a significant evolution from a traditional, more linear approach to quality control.  What I think is maybe most significant about the new the standards is that they greatly enhance the expectations and accountability of firm leadership for quality management and create an appropriate culture committed to the consistent performance of quality engagements.

The new requirements reinforce firm leadership’s responsibility for ensuring the system operates efficiently and effectively. The standards require more rigorous monitoring of the system of quality management, understanding the root causes of deficiencies, and swift remediation of those deficiencies. A culture that facilitates proactive and regular self-scrutiny will help engagement teams feel supported in their goals for quality engagements and enable continual improvements in quality.

The PIOB has come a long way in 15 years. From my life at the IFRS Foundation and now at the IAASB, I recognize how challenging and crucial oversight is—it is an essential ingredient to an independent standard-setting process. I look forward to participating and working closely with the PIOB as it takes on its next 15.

Remarks to the Public Interest Oversight Board 15th E-Anniversary Seminar

IPSASB eNews: September 2020

English

The IPSASB held its third meeting of the year virtually on September 14-18 and 22, 2020.

COVID-19: Deferral of Effective Dates

The IPSASB approved COVID-19: Deferral of Effective Dates to defer the effective dates of the following standards and amendments by one year to January 1, 2023:

  • IPSAS 41, Financial Instruments;
  • IPSAS 42, Social Benefits;
  • Long-term Interests in Associates and Joint Ventures (Amendments to IPSAS 36);
  • Prepayment Features with Negative Compensation (Amendments to IPSAS 41);
  • Collective and Individual Services (Amendments to IPSAS 19); and
  • Certain amendments included in Improvements to IPSAS, 2019.

The option to early-adopt the above standards or amendments continues to apply.

ED 74, Non-Authoritative Amendments to IPSAS 5, Borrowing Costs

The IPSASB approved Exposure Draft (ED) 74, Non-Authoritative Amendments to IPSAS 5, Borrowing Costs, and agreed on an exposure period ending March 1, 2021. ED 74 proposes implementation guidance and illustrative examples to clarify how to determine the extent to which borrowing costs can be capitalized.

Public Sector Specific Financial Instruments

The IPSASB approved Non-Authoritative Amendments to IPSAS 41, Financial Instruments, which includes additional implementation guidance and illustrative examples to clarify the requirements for classifying, recognizing, and measuring public sector specific financial instruments.

The IPSASB agreed an effective date of January 1, 2023, to align with the effective date of IPSAS 41, Financial Instruments.

Leases–IFRS 16 Alignment

The IPSASB reviewed draft ED 75, Leases and the Request for Information on Concessionary Leases and Other Arrangements Similar to Leases. The IPSASB decided not to amend the lessee’s requirements in draft ED 75 on discount rates as no public sector specific issues were identified. The IPSASB intends to approve ED 75, Leases at its December 2020 meeting. 

ED 76 and ED 77, Conceptual Framework-Limited Scope Update and Measurement

The IPSASB continued developing its measurement hierarchy. The IPSASB agreed:

  • The hierarchy applies to subsequent measurement; 
  • The measurement bases and techniques in the hierarchy; and 
  • The allocation of measurement techniques to measurement bases. 

The IPSASB will review draft EDs reflecting these decisions at its next meeting. The IPSASB will also further consider the approach to measurement at initial recognition and whether the definition of value in use should continue to include non-cash-generating assets or whether an alternative public sector concept should be developed.

ED 79, Non-Current Assets Held for Sale and Discounted Operations

The IPSASB approved ED 79, Non-current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations. This ED will be issued together with ED 76, Conceptual Framework—Limited Scope Update, ED 77, Measurement, and ED 78, IPSAS 17 Update (Comprehensive ED bringing together changes to IPSAS 17 from Measurement, Infrastructure Assets and Heritage Assets); all of which are currently noted for approval by the end of 2020 on the IPSASB’s work program.

ED 78, IPSAS 17 Update, Heritage and Infrastructure

The IPSASB completed its review of issues identified by constituents when accounting for heritage and infrastructure assets. The IPSASB agreed the proposed authoritative guidance, implementation guidance and illustrative examples would support constituents in applying the Property, Plant and Equipment principles to infrastructure and heritage items in practice. 

The IPSASB will consider the proposed guidance in its entirety at its December 2020 meeting as part of its review of ED 78.

Natural Resources

The IPSASB agreed that a government’s sovereign power to issue licenses is not, in and of itself, an asset. The IPSASB also provided feedback on the staff’s survey to gather information regarding various jurisdictional legal frameworks for subsoil resources exploration, development and extraction, and on the draft structure of the consultation paper, its introduction and first chapter.

Next Meeting

The next meeting of the IPSASB will take place in December, 2020. For more information, or to register as an observer, visit the IPSASB website (www.ipsasb.org). 

Non-Authoritative Support Materials: Using Automated Tools & Techniques in Performing Audit Procedures

The publication assists auditors in understanding whether a procedure involving automated tools and techniques may be both a risk assessment procedure and a further audit procedure. It also provides specific considerations when using automated tools and techniques in performing substantive analytical procedures in accordance with International Standard on Auditing 520, Analytical Procedures. 

This publication does not amend or override the ISAs, the texts of which alone are authoritative. Reading the publication is not a substitute for reading the ISAs.

IAASB
English

New Support Materials Available from IAASB for Using Automated Tools and Techniques in Audit Procedures

New York, New York English

The Technology Working Group of the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) today released non-authoritative support for using automated tools and techniques when performing audit procedures

The publication assists auditors in understanding whether a procedure involving automated tools and techniques may be both a risk assessment procedure and a further audit procedure. It also provides specific considerations when using automated tools and techniques in performing substantive analytical procedures in accordance with International Standard on Auditing 520, Analytical Procedures.

This publication does not amend or override the ISAs, the texts of which alone are authoritative. Reading the publication is not a substitute for reading the ISAs.

With New Standards in Place, Proactive Quality Management Will Underpin the Next Era of Audit Transformation

New York, New York English

Following a vote by the IAASB during the last day of the September meeting, IAASB Chair Tom Seidenstein explains why the new quality management standards respond to:

  • The changing environment;
  • Challenge the effectiveness of the IAASB’s pre-existing quality control standards; and
  • Growing market participant needs.

The resulting suite of standards are aimed at a more robust system of quality management for firms using the IAASB’s standards, and marks an evolution from a traditional, more linear approach to quality control.

     Read the Article on LinkedIn     

New article from IAASB Chair Tom Seidenstein

Ian Carruthers to Continue Leading IPSASB Through 2024

English

The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) is pleased to announce the re-appointment of its independent Chair, Ian Carruthers, for a third term through 2024.

Mr. Carruthers will continue to lead the Board as it continues to focus on delivering high-quality financial reporting standards for the public sector, inspiring their implementation, and, thereby, strengthening public financial management globally. In the coming four years, he will continue to advance the Board’s ambitious standard-setting agenda while remaining responsive to emerging stakeholders needs and building on the current implementation momentum.  

“There have been few times in history when public sector accountability has been more important than now, as governments worldwide face the huge economic challenges arising from COVID-19,” said Mr. Carruthers. “With many pivotal initiatives on our agenda now and in the next few years, as well as the building implementation momentum globally, I look forward to continuing to lead the IPSASB in serving the public interest, and helping governments to address these challenges effectively and transparently. In doing so, it is a pleasure to work with such a talented Board and staff, and to benefit from the ongoing advice from both IPSASB’s Consultative Advisory Group, and the Public Interest Committee.”

“As the global standard setter for public sector accounting, the IPSASB must continually challenge what it does, and how it delivers timely, relevant and high-quality international standards. Mr. Carruthers’ reappointment assures continuation of the IPSASB’s strong track-record under his leadership,” said James Gunn, Managing Director, Professional Standards.

Mr. Carruthers was initially appointed as IPSASB Chair in 2016. His current term ends in 2021, and his re-appointment is for a final term ending on December 31, 2024.

About the IPSASB
The International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) works to strengthen public financial management globally through developing and maintaining accrual-based International Public Sector Accounting Standards® (IPSAS®) and other high-quality financial reporting guidance for use by governments and other public sector entities. It also raises awareness of IPSAS and the benefits of accrual adoption. The Board receives support from the Asian Development Bank, the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, the New Zealand External Reporting Board, and the governments of Canada and New Zealand. The structures and processes that support the operations of the IPSASB are facilitated by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). For copyright, trademark, and permissions information, please go to permissions or contact permissions@ifac.org.

About the Public Interest Committee
The governance and standard-setting activities of the IPSASB are overseen by the Public Interest Committee (PIC), to ensure that they follow due process and reflect the public interest. The PIC is comprised of individuals with expertise in public sector or financial reporting, and professional engagement in organizations that have an interest in promoting high-quality and internationally comparable financial information.

 

IFAC and ICAEW Release First Installment of Six-Part Anti-Money Laundering Educational Series

English

Together with ICAEW, The International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) today released the first installment in its Anti-Money Laundering: The Basics educational series: Installment 1: Introduction to Anti-Money Laundering for Professional Accountants.  

The publication is part of a 6-month short series helping professional accountants enhance their understanding of how money laundering works, the risks they face, and what they can do to mitigate these risks and make a positive contribution to the public interest. The series, with its focus on accessibility and ease of use, will be a resource for Small and Medium Practices (SMPs,) and accountants less familiar with AML, while also providing guidance for those looking for a quick refresher or reference.

“Fighting money laundering—a key priority of IFAC—allows millions of professional accountants worldwide to make a real difference for the public good every day.” said Scott Hanson, Principal, Public Policy & Regulation at IFAC.  “Events like the recent FinCEN leaks serve as another timely reminder of the importance of remaining vigilant on this important issue.”

Sophie Wales, Director, Technical Strategy, Tax, Ethics and Law Group, at ICAEW, said: “We are pleased to launch this new educational series with IFAC, which we hope will help chartered accountants improve their understanding of money laundering. Accountants are the gatekeepers to the financial system and play a crucial role in identifying the red flags when it comes to economic crime, so it’s vital we do what we can to ensure criminals can’t find someone else to clean their dirty money.”

Anti-Money Laundering: The Basics will be featured on both the IFAC and ICAEW websites and available for download for free. To be globally relevant, the series uses the risk-based approach of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) – the global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog – as a starting point. 

The series is the latest in IFAC’s ongoing commitment to promote AML in the public interest, following the organization’s Point of View on fighting corruption and money laundering –  and its recently released joint report with CPA Canada on Beneficial Ownership Transparency.

For more information about IFAC, visit www.ifac.org.

For more information about ICAEW, visit https://www.icaew.com/.

Segment Provides Introduction to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) for Professional Accountants

IAASB Seeks Feedback on Fraud, Going Concern in Financial Statement Audits

New York, New York English

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) today opened a public consultation, Fraud and Going Concern in an Audit of Financial Statements: Exploring the Differences Between Public Perceptions About the Role of the Auditor and the Auditor’s Responsibilities in a Financial Statement Audit. The consultation will remain open until January 12, 2021. [Please note the comment period deadline has changed. The consultation will now remain open until Feb. 1, 2021.]

As the auditor’s role in relation to fraud and going concern in audits of financial statements continues to receive heightened public attention, amplified by high-profile corporate failures in recent years, the IAASB has recognized the need to further explore these topics. This Discussion Paper is aimed at gathering perspectives from a broad range of stakeholders across the financial reporting ecosystem about the role of the auditor in relation to fraud and going concern in an audit of financial statements. Stakeholders are asked for their perspectives on whether the auditing standards related to fraud and going concern need to be updated to reflect the rapidly evolving external reporting landscape, and, if so, in what areas.

“Issues related to fraud and going concern are consistently raised as areas requiring attention and potential improvement in order to enhance confidence in audits. These two topics are priorities in our recently issued strategy and work plan,” said IAASB Chair Tom Seidenstein. “This Discussion Paper is an important step in understanding the needs of users of financial reports, how changes in the financial reporting environment impact the role of the audit in terms of fraud and going concern, and the limitations of the existing standards.”

The feedback collected will inform decisions about possible further actions on these topics. The IAASB is also hosting a roundtable discussion on September 28 that will explore fraud and going concern expectations. The roundtable discussion will be live streamed on the IAASB’s YouTube channel, with un-aired breakout sessions shared via YouTube in October.

The IAASB invites all interested stakeholders to respond to this Discussion Paper, including, but not limited to, investors and other users of financial statements, those charged with governance of entities, preparers of financial statements, national standard setters, professional accountancy organizations, academics, regulators and audit oversight bodies, and auditors and audit firms.

Stakeholders can submit responses through the “Submit a Comment” button online.

About the IAASB
The IAASB develops auditing and assurance standards and guidance for use by all professional accountants under a shared standard-setting process involving the Public Interest Oversight Board, which oversees the activities of the IAASB, and the IAASB Consultative Advisory Group, which provides public interest input into the development of the standards and guidance. The structures and processes that support the operations of the IAASB are facilitated by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). For copyright, trademark, and permissions information, please go to permissions or contact permissions@ifac.org.