中美可能借道香港解决会计跨境监管难题

    美国上市公司会计监管委员会（PCAOB）主席詹姆斯•多蒂向《21世纪经济报道》（21st Century Business Herald,中国主要财经报刊）透露，PCAOB正在和香港方面协商，目的是打通渠道，以便对香港会计师事务所负责的中国公司上市工作进行调查。双方就此达成协议有可能化解中美监管机构僵持不下的局面。如果在赴美上市的中国公司的审计报告上签字的是这些会计师事务所的香港成员公司，对审计工作底稿的核查就有可能因为这项协议的签署而成行。但这种做法的问题在于，中国证监会（CSRC）和PCAOB都得对会计师事务所真正的所作所为睁一只眼闭一只眼。

    中国大陆方面一直禁止PCAOB赴香港调查内地经营企业的审计事务。大陆方面肯定已经同意香港监管部门和PCOAB展开协商，表明大陆监管部门正在想办法解决这个问题。

    大陆方面和PCAOB在审计调查问题上争持不下的同时，香港证监会也在和安永（Ernst & Young）打官司，原因是后者拒绝提交与标准水务（ Standard Water）一案有关的审计工作底稿。让我感到意外的是此案一直到目前都还未审理完毕。5月份，大陆监管部门和PCAOB曾就后者在调查过程中接触审计工作底稿一事达成协议，我一度认为这将促成香港证监会和PCAOB达成类似协议。香港的会计监管体系很薄弱，其中并不包括开展调查。

    要想让PCAOB和香港方面达成协议，中国证监会和PCAOB都得作出妥协，而这将产生副作用。双方达成协议后，会计师事务所就可以把审计工作底稿从大陆转移到香港，原因是我觉得大陆公司的审计决不会真的在香港进行。虽然四大事务所的所有香港成员公司都已在PCAOB注册，但全部，或者说至少大多数大陆企业的审计实际上是由它们的大陆成员公司负责。这就是香港证监会起诉安永的根源所在。为了达成协议，大陆或许愿意在四大事务所将审计工作底稿转移出去时网开一面。但如果不按现行法律操作，双方所达成的就是一项糟糕的协议。

    另一个问题是，四大事务所的香港成员公司实际上没有对在美国上市的中国公司进行审计，所以它们不应该在审计报告上签字。这些香港成员公司分别作为在美国上市的大型中国国企的审计机构在这些报告上签了字。赴美上市的中国公司多半属于海外私营发行人，四大事务所中有三家通过大陆成员公司在前者的审计报告上签署审计意见。毕马威（KPMG）比较另类，它的美国上市公司审计报告都在香港签字，但我认为毕马威的大陆成员公司承担了全部、或者说至少大多数审计工作。

    PCAOB审计准则第543条要求审计机构评估自身的参与程度是否足以让自己成为审计工作的主要负责人。只在审计报告上签字显然达不到要求。而且，如果签了字，审计工作底稿当然最好就在你手中，这就是安永和香港证监会产生矛盾的根源。要通过PCAOB和香港方面的协议来化解审计调查僵局，唯一的办法就是中国证监会对会计师事务所带走审计工作底稿不闻不问，PCAOB也不追究香港成员公司本来不该在审计报告上签字的问题。对于有效监管来说，这是一个很虚弱的立足点。

    多蒂还表示，和中国监管部门的协商仍在进行之中，双方将在今后6-10个月内会面。但如果在一定时间内无法达成协议，PCAOB就需要采取恰当的行动。这可能意味着它要注销会计公司的资格，进而导致上市公司从美国证券交易所退市。换句话说，终极方案将重新摆到PCAOB面前。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie 

    PCAOB Chairman James Doty told 21st Century Business Herald (China’s leading business paper) that the PCAOB is negotiating with Hong Kong for access to do inspections of Hong Kong accounting firms on work related to Chinese listings. A deal to allow inspections in Hong Kong could provide a way out of the impasse between U.S. and Chinese regulators. If the audits of U.S. listed Chinese companies are signed by the Hong Kong member firm a deal might allow the working papers to be inspected. The problem with this kind of deal is that it requires both the CSRC and the PCAOB to turn a blind eye towards what is actually happening.

    Mainland authorities have blocked the PCAOB from coming to Hong Kong to inspect audits of companies with mainland operations. Hong Kong regulators must have been given permission by the mainland to have these negotiations, and that signals that mainland regulators are searching for a way out of the problem.

    In addition to the PCAOB standoff over audit inspections, Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission is in a court battle with Ernst & Young over its refusal to turn over working papers in the Standard Water case. I am surprised that case has not already been resolved. In May, Chinese regulators reached a deal with the PCAOB for access to working papers in connection with investigations, and I have thought that deal would have led to a similar deal with SFC by now. Hong Kong's weak regulatory system for accountants does not include inspections.

    A deal with Hong Kong will require compromises by both the CSRC and the PCAOB that will undermine the process. Any deal by the PCAOB with Hong Kong would have to allow the accounting firms to move working papers out of China into Hong Kong, since I don’t think any audits of mainland Chinese companies are actually done in Hong Kong. Although all of the Big Four’s Hong Kong member firms are registered with the PCAOB, most, if not all, of the audits are actually done by the member firms on the mainland. That is the crux of the SFC case against E&Y. To get a deal done, China may be willing to look the other way when the Big Four transfer working papers out of the mainland, but any deal that rests on non-enforcement of existing laws is a bad one.

    The other problem is that the Hong Kong Big Four firms actually don’t do the audits of U.S. listed Chinese companies so they should not be signing the reports. The Hong Kong member firm of the each Big Four firm is the signing auditor on the large state-owned enterprises that are listed in the U.S. For foreign private issuers, which constitute the majority of U.S. listed Chinese companies, three of the Big Four firms sign their audit opinions using their China member firms. KPMG curiously signs all of its audit reports on U.S. listed companies in Hong Kong, although I expect most, if not all, of these audits are actually done by its member firm on the mainland.

    PCAOB auditing standard AU 543 requires an auditor to evaluate whether his own participation in the audit is sufficient to enable him to serve as the principal auditor. Just signing the audit report is certainly not enough participation to justify doing so. And of course, if you sign the audit report, you better have audit working papers, which gets to the problem that E&Y is having with SFC. The only way a deal with Hong Kong solves the audit inspection quandry is if the CSRC ignores the firms taking the working papers out of China and the PCAOB ignores that the Hong Kong firm should never have signed the audit in the first place. That is a poor foundation for effective regulation.

    Doty also said that negotiations with China are continuing and the two sides will meet in the coming 6-10 months. But if no agreement is reached in a reasonable period, the PCAOB will need to take the appropriate action. That probably means deregistering the accounting firms, which leads to delisting the companies from U.S. exchanges. In other words, the nuclear option is back on the table.