Ever since the demise of Enron, I’ve wondered why the vote by shareowners to approve auditors is considered such a routine nonevent. Ask anyone who used to work for former big five firm Arthur Andersen LLP. Yet, “ratification” of auditors remains among the last holdouts of broker voting.
Who watches the watchers in the world of big business? That question is asked by corporate governance consultant Pirc in its Annual Stewardship Review. Reviewing voting results over the last five years, they couldn’t find a single instance of any vote of more than 20% against an auditor appointment. According to Alan MacDougall, managing director at Pirc:
We’re surprised that even after the financial crisis, shareholders don’t seem to make the connection between value destruction and the fairly closed world of auditing UK plc.
John Gray, a member of the investment panel of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets pension fund, says trustees and local authority panels need to devote far more time to their fiduciary duties. He shows faith in the newly formed
Association of Member-Nominated Trustees.
The FT article ends with a quote from Lord Myners: “You don’t wash or service a rented car because you expect to give it back. I still get the impression that shareholders treat their holdings like a rented car. For the efficient use of capital, that attitude has to change.”
via FT.com / FTfm / FTfm Structured Products – Review questions positon of auditors.
Pirc makes valid points that his American counterparts should also be raising. Where was/is the outpouring of votes against the auditors who dropped the ball in their audits of American banks during and proceeding the financial crisis? Shouldn’t we be voting down auditors who so obviously failed us?
The best solution I have seen is Mark Latham’s proposal that would allow shareowners to recommend auditors from a pool of qualified applicants, rather than asking us to approve one chosen by management. For an example, see Latham’s proposal to USG dated November 17, 2002 at VoterMedia.org.
I also like the idea of an Association of Member-Nominated Trustees. The closest the US comes to that, as far as I know, is the effort led by CalPERS and CalSTRS to develop a primarily digital resource, the Diverse Director DataSource (or 3D), devoted to finding untapped diverse talent to serve on corporate boards. (see 3D Advisory Panel Named)
It would be good to see this group or another also take on the additional aims of the UK’s Association, which include:
- To support the development of member nominees and to enable them to perform their role to the best of their ability.
- To provide member nominees with a collective voice, and if desired, to lobby on pension matters with the Regulator, within the pensions industry and through the professional associations and trade bodies.
- To provide or guide access to training services which meet member nominees’ needs.
- To help identify and champion best practice among pension schemes – including scheme governance, performance and communications.
- To provide a networking environment through which member nominees can share their experiences and challenges with other member nominees in confidence.
- To provide support for sponsors through targeted services – including for example a member nominee selection process.
- To conduct research or studies which may help MNs become more effective in their performance.
