Investors Push for Tougher Auditor Regulation

European regulators should not be drawn by efforts to ‘water down’ audit regulation, say some of the world’s largest shareholders.

(September 20, 2012) — A panel of European investors has urged regulators to avoid bowing to pressure from lobby groups and maintain a push for stringent auditing rules that protect and inform potential and existing shareholders.

European institutional investors and investor associations – including the UK’s Universities Superannuation Scheme, RPMI Railpen, Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, and others, representing €750 billion in assets – have written to European Commissioner Michel Barnier to highlight concerns over the watering down of what they see as much‐needed reforms to the European audit industry.

The group said that in their current state the proposed reforms played into the hands of audit firms and companies, rather than helping potential and existing investors fully investigate accounts and reports and evaluate their holdings.

The letter highlights three main areas that the reforms either needed to tackle or would put shareholders at a disadvantage:

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

1. Improved Audit Committee transparency – investors need to know what the critical areas of debate have been between auditors and corporate audit committees.

2. Audit firm rotation at least every 15 years – regular audit firm rotation ensures a “fresh pair of eyes” and provides a necessary check on the incumbent audit firm’s work.

3. Limited non‐audit services – while some non‐audit work by audit firms may be permitted, it potentially threatens auditor independence. Non‐audit fees should therefore not exceed 50% of audit fees.

At the end of last year, associations representing corporations across Europe complained that reform proposals had gone too far and would unfairly punish business.

In December, several of these associations approached Commissioner Barnier, saying the proposals were unnecessary and would pile on costs for European businesses. These claims were echoed by the world’s largest auditing companies.

Today’s letter from investors hit back at these claims: “We are aware, of course, that the large audit firms have invested in an intense lobbying effort to weaken or reverse important reform proposals. We believe that it is vital that policy makers do not lose sight of the purpose of the audit. The audit is intended for shareholders, to permit them to rely on accounts as a basis for monitoring executives’ performance. The audit is not for executives, and it is not for the auditors.”

DoL Accuses Insurance Brokerage of Fleecing Pension

The lawsuit claims a Pennsylvania brokerage arranged a kickback scheme with an insurance company, resulting in a hospital pension being overcharged for an annuity purchase.

(September 19, 2012) – The United States Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit against Dietrich & Associates, a Pennsylvania-based insurance brokerage, for alleged “for violations of ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Securities Act] in connection with the purchase of a group annuity for a pension plan…sponsored and administrated by Memorial Hospital.” 

The complaint, officially filed by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, claims Dietrich rigged the bidding process for Memorial Hospital’s annuity purchase, presenting false final bids to ensure Hartford Life Insurance Company’s bid came in lowest and won. Hartford, in turn, had allegedly struck a kickback deal with Dietrich: the insurance company would pay a portion of the annuity’s purchase price to the brokerage, provided Hartford won. 

A total of six final submissions came in from insurance companies, and Hartford’s $26.1 million bid was the second highest. The complaint asserts that Dietrich increased the other bids by 2%, rendering Hartford the lowest bidder—even though its offer included an extra 2% kickback for Dietrich. 

In December 2003, Memorial Hospital selected Hartford to provide the annuity for its pension plan, which was in the process of closing. Roughly two months later, Dietrich allegedly received $522,047 from Hartford for “expense reimbursements” related to the annuity purchase. 

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Kurt E. Dietrich, the sole owner of his eponymous brokerage, has testified to elements of this account of events, according to court documents. His firm, under contract to arrange the bidding process, was prohibited from accepting compensation from insurance companies. 

The Department of Labor is suing Dietrich & Associates for violating ERISA. The prosecution is seeking $522,047 plus interest, a ban on Dietrich & Associates from acting as fiduciaries, and any other “such relief as may be just and equitable.” 

Attorneys for both parties failed to respond to requests for comment.

«