Comments on Proposed Rule:
Auditor Independence Requirements
Release Nos. 33-7870; 34-42994; 35-27193; IC-24549; IA-1884; File No. S7-13-00
Author: Dawn Badgley at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 7:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "File No.S7-13-00"
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt and the Securities and Exchange Commission re
File No. S7-13-00:
As an amateur investor and a professional real estate broker, the answer
to independent auditors does not seem so difficult to me.
Several years ago "undisclosed dual agency" was met by certain people in
the real estate industry with the same resistance as CPA's resisting
"auditor independence". My personal experience has been that the
regulation protecting buyers has been good for everyone and, in fact, may
even have increased sales because people feel less trapped and
manipulated by a system that works contrary to trust.
I would like to encourage the members of the Commission to require
accounting and consulting services of companies to be performed by
separate and independent accounting firms.
I applaud your attention to this matter and praise the courage of those
such as John Bogle of The Vanguard Group for taking an aggressive public
stand on this issue.
Thank you for reading my viewpoint.
Sincerely,
Dawn Badgley@home.com
Author: "Kurt W. Baumgartner" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 9:27 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear sir(s):
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Bogle on the issue of Auditor Independence,
and side with the SEC to review Auditor Independence as a high priority.
Keeping audits separate from consulting services can only assist
shareholders' security and the company's they own.
Kurt W. Baumgartner
"I must be cruel so as to be kind,
so that less bad begins and more remains behind."
- 'Liam "Bill" Spear-Shaker something or another'
Author: at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 12:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File Number S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am not a member of a Big Ten accounting firm. I don't even know anyone
who is. But I do have a modest amount of money invested, and I would like
to continue to do so in the future. Understanding the subtle workings and
shadings of a financial statement is a tiring task for me, and I work hard
to conquer its meaning. But over time I have gained a reasonable amount of
understanding with the shifts and movements seen in a company's quarterly
and annual statements. Without a basic confidence in the accuracy of these
tools I have available, any investment decision I would be able to make
would be more like a lottery bet than a financial decision.
For this reason I support the SEC and its current review of audit practices
and possible conflicts of interests surrounding the companies that perform
them. I know that the SEC is stepping on some very big financial toes. But
the SEC is the only group that I can depend on to keep the playing field
level for me and other individual investors. Without that I'd be forced
into less attractive investment instruments. In the long run this would not
be good for the investment community or the United States economy as a
whole.
Marcus Bell
Author: "Chuck Berry" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 7:22 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File no. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
i am not an expert but it appears to me to be a conflict of interest for an
auditor to accept fees for auditing a company and for "consulting" - however
that might be defined. and while there may be nothing wrong going on,
appearances, where money is involved, is very important.
regards,
Charles E Berry, 13835 Seaview Anacortes WA 98221-8558 (360)299-0922
ceberry@premier1.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 11:46 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to go on record in supporting the "Auditor Independence"
proposed by the SEC.
When consulting fees are growing faster than auditing fees year over year, I
think it is time to "lay all the cards on the table," and enforcement by the
SEC ont his matter will help achieve that end.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter and for your continued
efforts to try to protect the small investor. Kudos on the recent ruling to
end selective disclosure.
Respectfully yours,
Dorrin M. Birch, M.D.
27068 Oakmead Drive
Perrysburg, OH 43551
Author: annehans at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 5:42 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
Please consider the possiblility seriously of making auditors truly
independent of the companies they audit. Auditors who also consult for
the same companies are in a position to abdicate their trust. We need
as few of these problems as possible. We, as stockholders, remember the
fiasco of the Savings and Loan bailout, and we do not wish to bail out
auditors or companies who have been questionably audited through the
declining value of our stock or otherwise.
Thank you,
Anne Bruhner
Author: yuruo chen at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 11:15 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe the accounting service and consulting
service should be seperated to prevent conflicts of
interest. And company should release info to general
public instead of selected professionals, otherwise it
is against purpose of release company info to help
investor evaluate company's stock.
Author: "John Empsall" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 4:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7=13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
As a private investor, I place great reliance on reports that publicly traded
corporations file with the SEC. These reports are the most important information
a private individual has to evaluate corporations for investment purposes. In
the past, I felt these reports were reliable because they were reviewed and/or
prepared by independent outside auditors.
Several recent cases such as the Anderson-Waste Management episode suggest
auditors for large corporations may not be as independent as previously. Arthur
Anderson and other top auditors are deriving more revenue from consulting
services (Anderson Consulting) than from auditing fees from these corporations.
Until recently, I work for a large corporation which was audited by Arthur
Anderson, but paid considerably larger fees to Anderson Consulting.
While there has been no proof made public that auditing practices may be
influence by the more revenue import consulting services, there is an increasing
public perception that this may be the case. There is certainly a conflict of
interest. I believe a company that is acting as an independent auditor should
have no other business relationships with the corporation being audited. This is
almost universally followed in small businesses and other types organizations
that are routinely audited. In large corporations, where much larger financial
risk are at stake, I believe it is even more important to maintain the complete
independence of the auditor.
John Empsall
1551 E. Lookout Dr.
Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815
(208) 762-9956
Author: Ryan Gillespie at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 11:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
I will always have to agree with avoiding possibilities of conflicts of
interest, especially if large amounts of money are involved. If this is
the case with auditing/consulting firms, then I feel strongly about
changes in the SEC that could guarantee auditor independence as John
Bogle of The Vanguard Group discusses below:
"Of course there is no clear evidence on this
subject, but [the] proposal says very aptly
[that] studies cannot always confirm what common
sense makes clear.... The stakes are high, and
when consulting fees come to be many times more
important than audit fees, it just must be
obvious to anybody that independence is clearly
likely to be impaired. I
know it's subtle. I know it's a state of mind. But
when self-interests predominate, trouble comes
not far behind. And it seems to me it comes into
special focus as a profession becomes a
business.
"In this case, the profession of accounting
[has] turn[ed] into the business of consulting
and cross-selling. It has potentially very
adverse consequences to the public interest....
If you'll forgive me if I add a parallel to my own
experience in the mutual fund business, which
used to be a business of trusteeship and
investment management -- and has now
become a business of marketing, and the public
interest, in my judgment, has not been served
thereby. So I feel strongly about the divorce of
outside services from the audit services."
[Emphasis added.]
Thank you,
Ryan Gillespie
Author: "Rita J. Gillis" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 6:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File # S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I believe it is extremely important that the
information I read about a companies "audited" versus "unaudited" balance
sheets be unbiased and "just the facts." If large accounting firms, or small
ones for that matter, receive a large portion of their fees from consulting
services from the same companies to which they provide auditing services, it
would seem these firms would be under a great deal of financial pressure to
keep the customer's happy. As such, it also would seem that providing the
stock holders with a less than glowing audit report would NOT be the way to
keep the customers (public companies) happy. This predicament immediately
makes the accounting firms not only biased, but perhaps even unethical. If
an accounting firm can make more money through consulting fees, that firm
would be inclined to "assist" the customer company in improving that not so
great looking audit report.
I fully support the investigation into the practice of independent auditors
who also provide consulting services to the same company they are paid to
audit. And, I hope there are no illegal or unethical findings, but I
certainly want to know either way.
Author: "Robert Hanseman" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 12:16 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
As an investor and a taxpayer, I expect the SEC to rigorously police the
integrity of the auditing system in this
country. It defies common sense to expect a business that makes much more money
from "consulting" than from "auditing" to nonetheless place the auditing process
foremost in its collective mind. The company will also be placed in the
position of choosing an immediate, identifiable client over the public good (a
"client" which is widely disbursed and therefore somewhat invisible.
In short, John Bogle is exactly right, and I'd appreciate it if you would heed
his words.
Regards,
Robert Hanseman
Author: "JRatliff-SherWill-IM" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 7:48 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No, S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am convinced that a potential conflict of interest exists in situations where
"independent" audits are performed by firms that also provide consultative
services to the client they are supposed to be auditing. I support the SEC's
proposal for "Auditor Independence".
Author: "Elaine Langer" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 10:11 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: at Internet
Subject: File # S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I am sending this e-mail to voice my support for the SEC in its desire to
separate auditing functions from lucrative non-auditing services that
Independent Auditors provide for their client firms. It seems self-evident that
it is all too easy for an Independent Auditor to be influenced in a client's
favor, albeit not intentionally, when other, non-auditing, very lucrative
services provided to that same client may be affected by the outcome of the
audit, especially if the latter reveals any problems or discrepancies. Although
it would be very difficult to obtain "hard" evidence to "prove" this connection,
I believe it is only logical to suspect that this might be the case more than
most investors realize.
Sincerely,
Elaine Langer
1128 N. 27 St.
Allentown, PA 18104
eclanger@enter.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 12:20 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that CPA firms provide a valuable service to their audit clients
when providing needed consulting services. The Profession has a set of Rules
of Conduct that monitors compliance with independence. While these rules are
not perfect they are a standard that Firms are held accountable to. If the
rule is passed would a CPA firm be precluded from even providing management
recommendations in the form of a management letter? Where do you draw the
line between auditing and consulting? Are you suggesting that CPA firms that
perform audits become like IRS and look only for mistakes and never make
suggestions that can help a business do a better job of managing it's
resources? The few audit failures that occur each year are not enough of a
reason to change the present system of self-regulation. It is not broke -- do
not fix it!
George Marthinuss, CPA, CFP
Investor
Author: "sander b. shipper" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 5:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: s7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
sander b. shipper
sbshipper@onebox.com - email
(310) 754-6000 x1102 - voicemail/fax
Dear S.E.C.;
As a long time investor, I applaud your recent "full disclosure" ruling.
I am now expressing my support for similar rules concerning Auditors,who
may also receive compensation for consulting. There must be a system
of check and balance for any regulatory rules to be effective and fair.
Thank you-SBS
--
sander b. shipper
sbshipper@onebox.com - email
(310) 754-6000 x1102 - voicemail/fax
--
sander b. shipper
sbshipper@onebox.com - email
(310) 754-6000 x1102 - voicemail/fax
Author: "Shawn Stufflebeam" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 9:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I trust your judgement. I support your actions on this issue. I am proud
that the SEC is taking seriously the sacred trust of the citizens of the
United States. It makes me proud to see a department of our government
actually protecting the interests of the people.
Don't get me wrong - I LIKE big businesses. But when they will not regulate
their own actions, they must be regulated. Of the people, by the people, for
the people.
Thank you for doing your job.
Sincerely,
Shawn C. Stufflebeam
Author: "Patricia Tice" at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 8:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am deeply concerned about the extent to which auditing firms have become
consultants to the very firms that have contracted them to certify their
financial activities. It is my understanding consulting now accounts for a
greater percent of the revenues of these large accounting firms than does
auditing.
An auditor must act on behalf of the investor, not at the behest of management.
Auditors must be free to speak and act in support of the truth, independent of
influence by corporate interests. Else the stability of our financial markets
is threatened.
It is essential that the public be certain of the truth of the numbers in
corporate audits. It is up to the SEC to insure that there are rules which
prevent auditing services from being influenced by the business interests of
consulting services provided to the same firm.
Yours truly,
Patricia G. Tice
10505 Streamview Court
Potomac, MD 20854
Author: K & C at Internet
Date: 09/10/2000 7:01 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
TO: Kevin Torman at Internet
Subject: File No. S7-13-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I believe that audit information should be released to the shareholder
at the same time you uncover errors and not be delivered to consulting
firms who may leverage the price of the stock for their gain. Also,
because I lost many dollars when you restricted trade on Gencore for an
auditing problem from its overseas division, that your should alert the
stock owners at the same instant all the parties hear the fatal news. It
would be better to do nothing except alert everyone and let us all
scramble to sell at once and thereby choose when we want to take the
loose. If you agency would allow online 24 hour stock trading, 7 days a
week this would level out the potential of gain or loss from the
problems we have with fraudulent practices.
Thank you,
Kennth L. Torman
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0910b01s.htm