如何打破中美会计跨境监管僵局

    过去两、三个月，美国上市公司审计委员会（PCAOB）及美国证监会（SEC）和中国监管机构在双方存在争议的问题上一直三缄其口，这些问题包括审计工作底稿的归属和对在美上市中国公司及其审计机构开展调查等事宜。

    7月初，事情一度发展到了非解决不可的地步。7月9日，SEC行政法法官就SEC起诉四大会计师事务所和德豪国际会计师事务所（BDO）一案召开听证会。定于当周在华盛顿召开的中美战略与经济对话也将两国证券行业监管机构僵持不下的问题列入了议事日程。

    中国监管机构率先做出让步。中国证监会告知SEC，如果后者负担邮费，他们就可以移交20箱与东南融通（Longtop Financial Technologies）有关的审计工作底稿。美国财政部长杰克•卢在中美战略与经济对话期间宣布了这一突破性进展。但这次对话未能就向PCAOB开放审计调查渠道一事达成协议。

    此前PCAOB曾和中国监管部门商定，双方将共享与本次审查有关的文件，但在PCAOB开展调查方面双方未能达成共识。审查只是PCAOB工作的一小部分，开展调查才是该机构的主要任务。

    SEC本打算通过华盛顿地方法院迫使德勤（Deloitte）移交与东南融通有关的审计工作底稿。但法院文件显示，此案一直毫无进展。7月10日，SEC将中国证监会的态度告知该法院，随后就再也没有提交过任何文件。

    SEC于去年12月3日起诉四大和德豪国际。当时，SEC表示，法院将在300天内作出裁定。据我推算，这一天应该是今年9月29日。此外，SEC确实在听证会上称，通过中国证监会获得审计工作底稿并不可行。

    我猜测中国证监会一直在忙着转交审计工作底稿，所涉及的公司都是导致SEC起诉四大和德豪国际的罪魁祸首。我预计中方的举动将使SEC撤诉，并且同意由中国监管机构来决定谁能接触到中方的文件。SEC不会喜欢这样的局面，但他们别无选择。我的预测可能有误，此案或许会在今后两周内出现重大进展，也有可能推迟最终期限。

    我认为PCAOB在开展调查方面不会取得任何进展，中国监管部门也不会同意在中国境内实施联合调查，而且已经有人告诉我中方官员做出了这样的表态。我认为中方相信自己在审查方面做出了可以接受的让步，而且这个问题已经得到了解决。这也是媒体和市场对局势的理解。我觉得PCAOB不具备能在这方面进一步施加压力的政治资本，原因是摆在这个机构面前的选择似乎只有终极方案——取消中国公司的注册资格，把它们赶出美国市场。这种做法过于激进。

    而投资者是最大的输家。需要通过审查来重塑人们对审计诚信的信心。我认为四大需要主动提出解决办法。我在这里想给他们指明一个出路。

    依照萨班斯-奥克斯利（Sarbanes-Oxley）法案成立PCAOB之前，对审计质量的监督都是在行业内部进行的。四大遵循自我规范机制开展相互审计。从萨班斯-奥克斯利法案的角度而言，这样的自我规范并不奏效，于是才有了PCAOB。虽然我也认为自我规范存在一些问题，但它总好过完全依赖于公司的内部控制。

    我的建议是四大同意对彼此的美国业务进行质量控制审核，并由美国成员公司派遣审核人。这些美国成员公司了解PCAOB的标准以及美国通用的会计准则，而这是开展质量控制审核的必要条件。同时，审核结果应公诸于众。

    It has been very quiet the past couple of months on the confrontation between the PCAOB/SEC and Chinese regulators over audit working papers and inspections for U.S. listed Chinese companies and their auditors.

    The issues were coming to a head in early July. The SEC case against the Big Four and BDO went to a hearing before the administrative trial judge of the SEC on July 9 and the standoff between U.S. and Chinese regulators was on the agenda of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (SED) between the United States and China that was scheduled that same week in Washingtion.

    Chinese regulators blinked first in the standoff. CSRC told the SEC they would turn over 20 boxes of working papers related to Longtop Financial Technologies provided the SEC sent them money for postage. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced the breakthrough at the SED. No agreement was reached at the SED on access to conduct audit inspections by the PCAOB.

    The PCAOB had earlier reached agreement to share documents with Chinese regulators in connection with investigations, but reached no agreement on inspections. Investigations are a small part of the PCAOB mission; inspections are its main function.

    According to the court file, there have been no developments in the separate SEC case in U.S. District Court in DC where the SEC was seeking to compel Deloitte to turnover the working papers on Longtop. The SEC informed the Court of the CSRC notice on July 10 and nothing has been filed since.

    The SEC actions against the Big Four and BDO were filed on December 3, 2012, and the SEC said that a decision was to be made within 300 days. By my count, that is September 29. The SEC did say during the hearings that obtaining working papers through the CSRC was not workable.

    I speculate that the CSRC has been busy turning over the working papers for each of the companies that gave rise to the SEC charges against the Big Four and BDO. I expect that leads to the SEC dropping the case and accepting that access to Chinese documents will be at the discretion of Chinese regulators. The SEC won’t like that, but they are not getting an option. I could be wrong, and the case could blow up in the next two weeks, or the deadline could be extended.

    I do not believe that the PCAOB is going to make any further progress on inspections. I don’t believe Chinese regulators will agree to joint inspections on sovereignty grounds, and I have been told of Chinese officials saying as much. I think China believes it made an acceptable compromise in the investigations deal, and that the issue is settled. That is how the press and the markets have interpreted the situation. I don’t think the PCAOB has the political capital to push the issue any harder, since the only option they seem to have is the nuclear option – to deregister firms and kick Chinese companies off the U.S. market. The nuclear option is a step too far.

    Investors are the big losers. Inspections are needed to help restore confidence in the integrity of audits. I think that the Big Four firms need to step up and offer a solution. I offer a suggested way out.

    Before the PCAOB was formed by Sarbanes-Oxley, audit quality was monitored by peer review. The Big Four firms would audit each other in a system of self-regulation. With Sarbanes-Oxley the view was that self-regulation does not work and that gave rise to the PCAOB. While I agree that self-regulation has problems, it would be better than relying totally on internal firm controls.

    I propose that the Big Four agree to conduct quality control reviews on each other’s U.S. listings, using reviewers from the U.S. member firms. The U.S. member firms have the expertise in PCAOB standards and U.S. GAAP that is necessary to conduct the reviews. The findings of the reviews should be made public.