A recent survey of audit committee members suggests many are quite satisfied with information they are getting from their external auditors, even as audit committees have been getting plenty of advice lately on how to improve communication with auditors.

Corporate Board member and the Center for Audit Quality recently polled 228 audit committee members, two-thirds of whom serve for companies with revenues of $750 million or greater. Most audit committee members gave high marks for the level and quality of communications between their audit committees and their external auditors, and a majority gave high marks to management and external auditors alike for the information they provide to allow the audit committee to fulfill its duties.

More than half of the audit committee members who participated in the poll said their company has retained a secondary audit firm or other audit consultant in the last three years, and half have retained independent outside counsel. CAQ Executive Director Cindy Fornelli said the results provide a helpful snapshot of what audit committee members may be thinking about their communication with management and auditors.

Audit regulators and the CAQ have pursued various initiatives in the past year to enhance the dialogue between audit committees and their external auditors. As the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has pondered term limits or mandatory rotation for audit firms, the board said it heard from audit committee members that they have a hard time getting straight information from audit firms about their standing with the PCAOB, especially as a result of the regulatory inspection process.

The PCAOB produced guidance in 2012 targeted specifically at audit comittees to suggest some questions that might draw out the kind of information audit committees should want. The CAQ chimed in soon after with some similar guidance of its own suggesting ideas for candid dialogue on some sensitive issues around PCAOB inspection results and audit quality control.

The PCAOB also recently adopted Auditing Standard No. 16: Communications with Audit Committees to give auditors some specific instructions on how they should interact with audit committees and what kinds of information they should provide. It took effect for fiscal periods beginning after Dec. 15, 2012. Fornelli says she doesn't see the recent spate of guidance regarding communication as suggesting anything is amiss in the communication between auditors and audit committees. “All of these things are meant to spur those conversations in this important, linchpin relationship between external auditors and audit committees,” says Fornelli.

Topics