1. The Big 4 are way over their heads in law suits. As Francine says, it's a moot point which one falls 1st or for that matter whether they all fail. Whatever happens, it will have a massive impact on the profession as a whole. Where is the guidance?
2. The Big 4 are creating FUD that journalists suck up without question. It's disreputable.
3. This is a firm level issue. I am NOT leveling individual criticism. There are plenty of well intentioned and honourable people among the membership.
4. ICAEW is dependent for long term funding on the recruitment efforts of the Big 4 (that came from the horse's mouth.) In my experience money talks – everything else is idle chatter.
5. ICAEW is almost invisible in the public debate around the problems of fraud, tax evasion and incompetence, the cancers at the heart of the matter. Why? If the profession's own trade organization cannot acknowledge that firms representing a sizeable and important chunk of its membership are behaving less than ethically across these dimensions then what is the public at large supposed to think?
6. Perception is reality. Small firm members I speak with are suspicious and distrustful of Moorgate Place. That's been a running sore for more years than I can remember. Whether they should think that way is another matter. If ICAEW wishes to support them then it needs to be far more persuasive, transparent and visible than appears to be the case today.

How uptodate is your info as regards the composition of ICAEW Council and the influence that the Big 4 firms really have on ICAEW Policy?

It's a few years since I spent two years on Council during my time as Chairman of the Tax Faculty. I saw and felt no such influence then and suspect that, to the extent that it's different, there is even less such influence now. What makes you think otherwise? Are you perhaps impugning the integrity of the current President and Deputy President (who are both ex Big 4 partners)? I don't know either of them personally but I'd be surprised if they were partisan or had sufficient 'lock' on Council to dominate the sort of policies to which you refer. Previous and prospective presidents are not ex Big 4.

In my view ICAEW is already doing very much as you advocate. Earlier this year I attended one of a number of events organised by the ICAEW that certainly fits your objective that they “step in, advise and start shaping a new framework for 21st century audit…” There was no question of a Big 4 influence in my view. They were opening the eyes of auditors in smaller firms to the forthcoming changes, all of which are influenced by Europe and new Clarity ISAs.

I wrote a short review of the event on AccountingWeb – here: http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/item/196576 My final comments about the event were:
“The implication was clear; there are known developments and changes in prospect. These will have a major impact on small and medium sized practices. Firms that plan ahead will survive and thrive, and the ICAEW wants to help them.”

I don't think so. I think regulator and legislators should drop the facade and reveal the audit opinion for what it is: A government sanctioned confidence game providing false “assurances” to no one about nothing.

Let's find a more useful purpose for the skills and talents in the typical audit firm, one that really serves investors and other stakeholders. This new mission will be unlike what was supposedly promulgated during the financial crisis and the thousands of frauds and scams we've seen even since the big post-Arthur Anderson “be all end all” reform of Sarbanes-Ocxley and similar regulations globally.

1. The Big 4 are way over their heads in law suits. As Francine says, it’s a moot point which one falls 1st or for that matter whether they all fail. Whatever happens, it will have a massive impact on the profession as a whole. Where is the guidance?
2. The Big 4 are creating FUD that journalists suck up without question. It’s disreputable.
3. This is a firm level issue. I am NOT leveling individual criticism. There are plenty of well intentioned and honourable people among the membership.
4. ICAEW is dependent for long term funding on the recruitment efforts of the Big 4 (that came from the horse’s mouth.) In my experience money talks – everything else is idle chatter.
5. ICAEW is almost invisible in the public debate around the problems of fraud, tax evasion and incompetence, the cancers at the heart of the matter. Why? If the profession’s own trade organization cannot acknowledge that firms representing a sizeable and important chunk of its membership are behaving less than ethically across these dimensions then what is the public at large supposed to think?
6. Perception is reality. Small firm members I speak with are suspicious and distrustful of Moorgate Place. That’s been a running sore for more years than I can remember. Whether they should think that way is another matter. If ICAEW wishes to support them then it needs to be far more persuasive, transparent and visible than appears to be the case today.

I don’t think so. I think regulator and legislators should drop the facade and reveal the audit opinion for what it is: A government sanctioned confidence game providing false “assurances” to no one about nothing.

Let’s find a more useful purpose for the skills and talents in the typical audit firm, one that really serves investors and other stakeholders. This new mission will be unlike what was supposedly promulgated during the financial crisis and the thousands of frauds and scams we’ve seen even since the big post-Arthur Anderson “be all end all” reform of Sarbanes-Ocxley and similar regulations globally.