英语论文网

European non-big five average 62.6% 59.6% 18.6% 19.0% 18.7% 21.4%
Asian non-big five average 58.3% 59.7% 18.6% 22.0% 23.1% 18.3%
Source form:  International Accounting Bulletin
On June 2000, the Panel of Audit Effectiveness was appointed by the Public Oversight Board (POB) to thoroughly examine the current audit model. As reported by the Panel of Audit Effectiveness, the revenue mix of the Big 5 firms has shifted toward consulting services. The growth of consulting services is illustrated by the following table, showing those firms’ mix of practice as a percentage of gross fees:

This indicates that, for SEC audit clients, the ratio of accounting and auditing revenues to consulting revenues dropped from approximately 6 to 1 in 1990 to 1.5 to 1 in 1999.
For 1999, 75% of the Big 5 firms’ SEC audit clients received no consulting services from their auditors, down from 80% in 1990. Four percent of those firms’ SEC audit clients had consulting fees that exceeded audit fees, up from one percent in 1990.
Similarly, the growth of consulting in the next three largest firms is shown below
NAS’s Impact on Audit Independence:
At the request of SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, the POB appointed the eight-member Panel in 1998, arming it with a mandate to review and evaluate the way independent audits are performed and the effects of recent trends in auditing on the public interest. The Panel concluded as’ the Panel is not aware of any instances of NASs having caused or contributed to an audit failure or the actual loss of auditor independence.’ ‘Our Panel on Audit Effectiveness emphasized that difficulty in late May of 2000 when we issued and Exposure Draft Report that identified no such evidence, even after we examined a large sample of audits.’
Moreover, the panel reported that ‘The evolution of specialty skills into consulting practices was a logical extension of services as firms began hiring specialists for audit support. Expanding the scope of the specialists’ activities helped firms attract and retain people with skills that were increasingly important to effective auditing. Providing services beyond the audit were profitable; it also led to increased overall knowledge of the client’s business.’ This is the evidence to disprove Levitt’s opinion that NAS are only the products of accountancy companies’ profit seeking tendency. In fact, NAS can enhance the performance of an audit.
 
As Palmrose and Saul (2003) stated, ‘our panel’s report noted that, in about 25 percent of the engagements in which audit firms provided both audit and NAS, the NAS had a positive impact on the effectiveness of the audits.’ They continued to state that, under certain circumstances, NAS improved audit effectiveness. And it is very important to recognize the importance of attracting a staff of non-auditors to provide those services. ‘What was missing from the commission’s proposal was an understanding of how American business now depends upon systems using information technology (IT) to manage and control their complex globalized activities. To audit the systems requires the help of specialists in it and other areas. The auditing firm is often in the best position to supply a NAS that, in the words of our report, “facilitates the performance of an audit, improves the client’s financial reporting process, or is otherwise in the public interest.” There was nothing but lip service giv本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。