![]() |
![]() |
![]()
|
Peer Review in an Era of Transparency Should peer review results be made public? A future AICPA referendum will give members an opportunity to vote on changes to the peer review program. At its spring 2004 meeting the AICPA’s governing Council approved a resolution supporting increased transparency in the peer review process. It also authorized a member awareness program to inform members about the issues surrounding peer review transparency and to assess how they feel about two possible ways to make peer review results more widely available:
Greater Transparency as a Badge of Honor In addition, many firms communicate their peer review results in their marketing literature, and some suggest that prospective clients request peer review reports from all firms they are considering. Confidentiality or Transparency Opponents of greater transparency argue that asking firms to make their peer review results public would violate these promises. Others, however, counter that in today’s environment of heightened accountability, this kind of confidentiality is becoming increasingly difficult to support. This view holds that the primary user of peer review has expanded from AICPA members alone to now include regulators, clients and credit grantors. These constituents expect greater transparency, but have no way of evaluating peer review results as long as they remain confidential. Another concern of some members is that by making peer review results public the AICPA would be taking on a responsibility that should be left to regulators. Some CPAs are also worried that making peer review results public will make reviewers less candid, rendering the recommendations less helpful to the reviewed firm. Members of the AICPA’s Center for Public Company Audit Firms (CPCAF) and the Alliance for CPA firms (PCPS), who already make their peer review results public, counter that full transparency actually improves the quality of peer review by ensuring that reviewers write thoughtful, helpful recommendations. They also believe that the quality of their firms’ work improves when people know a reviewer is going to come in every three years and that the information is going to be made public. Many members want the profession to increase transparency before the government steps in and does it for them. Another concern is whether this move would require structural changes, with a resulting increase in peer review fees. However, since an apparatus already exists to post peer review results for those firms that have agreed toe PCPS and CPCAF public files on the AICPA website, broader public disclosure should not appreciably add to the cost of peer review. We Need to Hear from You As part of the AICPA’s awareness program, more information on the subject is available online. An FAQ is available for download. Members are also invited to submit their comments and views to the MACPA
at peerreview@michcpa.org and to
the AICPA at
peerreviewtransparency@aicpa.org. |
![]() |
|||||||||||||
| PO Box 5068 Troy, MI 48007-5068 Phone: 248.267.3700 Fax: 248.267.3737 E-mail: macpa@michcpa.org |