Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (56932)	1/30/2002 8:49:32 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77397

I'm just saying you need an independent auditing body. The problem is the conflict of interest. I don't care who is running the audit, he is NOT going to a $100M/year client and say, "Sorry, we've got to qualify our opinion". Not going to happen. This has been a glaring (at least, to me) problem with the attest function since I was a 3rd year accounting student. There simply cannot be "audit independence" within the meaning of the Statements on Auditing Standards, as the guy you're auditing is also the guy who is paying the bill. Don't piss him off. All public companies should be made to pay a fee to a "pool". The pool would assign audit responsibility to qualified CPA firms randomly, but making sure there was no conflict due to other services being rendered to the auditee by the auditor. I believe this idea (which I claim as my own, since I've heard it from nobody else<g>) will solve the conflict of interest problem. It eliminates the fundamental problem of the auditee being the auditor's employer.