如何打破中美會計跨境監管僵局

????過去兩、三個月，美國上市公司審計委員會（PCAOB）及美國證監會（SEC）和中國監管機構在雙方存在爭議的問題上一直三緘其口，這些問題包括審計工作底稿的歸屬和對在美上市中國公司及其審計機構開展調查等事宜。

????7月初，事情一度發展到了非解決不可的地步。7月9日，SEC行政法法官就SEC起訴四大會計師事務所和德豪國際會計師事務所（BDO）一案召開聽證會。定于當周在華盛頓召開的中美戰略與經濟對話也將兩國證券行業監管機構僵持不下的問題列入了議事日程。

????中國監管機構率先做出讓步。中國證監會告知SEC，如果后者負擔郵費，他們就可以移交20箱與東南融通（Longtop Financial Technologies）有關的審計工作底稿。美國財政部長杰克?盧在中美戰略與經濟對話期間宣布了這一突破性進展。但這次對話未能就向PCAOB開放審計調查渠道一事達成協議。

????此前PCAOB曾和中國監管部門商定，雙方將共享與本次審查有關的文件，但在PCAOB開展調查方面雙方未能達成共識。審查只是PCAOB工作的一小部分，開展調查才是該機構的主要任務。

????SEC本打算通過華盛頓地方法院迫使德勤（Deloitte）移交與東南融通有關的審計工作底稿。但法院文件顯示，此案一直毫無進展。7月10日，SEC將中國證監會的態度告知該法院，隨后就再也沒有提交過任何文件。

????SEC于去年12月3日起訴四大和德豪國際。當時，SEC表示，法院將在300天內作出裁定。據我推算，這一天應該是今年9月29日。此外，SEC確實在聽證會上稱，通過中國證監會獲得審計工作底稿并不可行。

????我猜測中國證監會一直在忙著轉交審計工作底稿，所涉及的公司都是導致SEC起訴四大和德豪國際的罪魁禍首。我預計中方的舉動將使SEC撤訴，并且同意由中國監管機構來決定誰能接觸到中方的文件。SEC不會喜歡這樣的局面，但他們別無選擇。我的預測可能有誤，此案或許會在今后兩周內出現重大進展，也有可能推遲最終期限。

????我認為PCAOB在開展調查方面不會取得任何進展，中國監管部門也不會同意在中國境內實施聯合調查，而且已經有人告訴我中方官員做出了這樣的表態。我認為中方相信自己在審查方面做出了可以接受的讓步，而且這個問題已經得到了解決。這也是媒體和市場對局勢的理解。我覺得PCAOB不具備能在這方面進一步施加壓力的政治資本，原因是擺在這個機構面前的選擇似乎只有終極方案——取消中國公司的注冊資格，把它們趕出美國市場。這種做法過于激進。

????而投資者是最大的輸家。需要通過審查來重塑人們對審計誠信的信心。我認為四大需要主動提出解決辦法。我在這里想給他們指明一個出路。

????依照薩班斯-奧克斯利（Sarbanes-Oxley）法案成立PCAOB之前，對審計質量的監督都是在行業內部進行的。四大遵循自我規范機制開展相互審計。從薩班斯-奧克斯利法案的角度而言，這樣的自我規范并不奏效，于是才有了PCAOB。雖然我也認為自我規范存在一些問題，但它總好過完全依賴于公司的內部控制。

????我的建議是四大同意對彼此的美國業務進行質量控制審核，并由美國成員公司派遣審核人。這些美國成員公司了解PCAOB的標準以及美國通用的會計準則，而這是開展質量控制審核的必要條件。同時，審核結果應公諸于眾。

????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.