????美國上市公司會計監(jiān)管委員會（PCAOB）主席詹姆斯?多蒂向《21世紀(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)報道》（21st Century Business Herald,中國主要財經(jīng)報刊）透露，PCAOB正在和香港方面協(xié)商，目的是打通渠道，以便對香港會計師事務(wù)所負(fù)責(zé)的中國公司上市工作進(jìn)行調(diào)查。雙方就此達(dá)成協(xié)議有可能化解中美監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)僵持不下的局面。如果在赴美上市的中國公司的審計報告上簽字的是這些會計師事務(wù)所的香港成員公司，對審計工作底稿的核查就有可能因為這項協(xié)議的簽署而成行。但這種做法的問題在于，中國證監(jiān)會（CSRC）和PCAOB都得對會計師事務(wù)所真正的所作所為睜一只眼閉一只眼。

????中國大陸方面一直禁止PCAOB赴香港調(diào)查內(nèi)地經(jīng)營企業(yè)的審計事務(wù)。大陸方面肯定已經(jīng)同意香港監(jiān)管部門和PCOAB展開協(xié)商，表明大陸監(jiān)管部門正在想辦法解決這個問題。

????大陸方面和PCAOB在審計調(diào)查問題上爭持不下的同時，香港證監(jiān)會也在和安永（Ernst & Young）打官司，原因是后者拒絕提交與標(biāo)準(zhǔn)水務(wù)（ Standard Water）一案有關(guān)的審計工作底稿。讓我感到意外的是此案一直到目前都還未審理完畢。5月份，大陸監(jiān)管部門和PCAOB曾就后者在調(diào)查過程中接觸審計工作底稿一事達(dá)成協(xié)議，我一度認(rèn)為這將促成香港證監(jiān)會和PCAOB達(dá)成類似協(xié)議。香港的會計監(jiān)管體系很薄弱，其中并不包括開展調(diào)查。

????要想讓PCAOB和香港方面達(dá)成協(xié)議，中國證監(jiān)會和PCAOB都得作出妥協(xié)，而這將產(chǎn)生副作用。雙方達(dá)成協(xié)議后，會計師事務(wù)所就可以把審計工作底稿從大陸轉(zhuǎn)移到香港，原因是我覺得大陸公司的審計決不會真的在香港進(jìn)行。雖然四大事務(wù)所的所有香港成員公司都已在PCAOB注冊，但全部，或者說至少大多數(shù)大陸企業(yè)的審計實際上是由它們的大陸成員公司負(fù)責(zé)。這就是香港證監(jiān)會起訴安永的根源所在。為了達(dá)成協(xié)議，大陸或許愿意在四大事務(wù)所將審計工作底稿轉(zhuǎn)移出去時網(wǎng)開一面。但如果不按現(xiàn)行法律操作，雙方所達(dá)成的就是一項糟糕的協(xié)議。

????另一個問題是，四大事務(wù)所的香港成員公司實際上沒有對在美國上市的中國公司進(jìn)行審計，所以它們不應(yīng)該在審計報告上簽字。這些香港成員公司分別作為在美國上市的大型中國國企的審計機(jī)構(gòu)在這些報告上簽了字。赴美上市的中國公司多半屬于海外私營發(fā)行人，四大事務(wù)所中有三家通過大陸成員公司在前者的審計報告上簽署審計意見。畢馬威（KPMG）比較另類，它的美國上市公司審計報告都在香港簽字，但我認(rèn)為畢馬威的大陸成員公司承擔(dān)了全部、或者說至少大多數(shù)審計工作。

????PCAOB審計準(zhǔn)則第543條要求審計機(jī)構(gòu)評估自身的參與程度是否足以讓自己成為審計工作的主要負(fù)責(zé)人。只在審計報告上簽字顯然達(dá)不到要求。而且，如果簽了字，審計工作底稿當(dāng)然最好就在你手中，這就是安永和香港證監(jiān)會產(chǎn)生矛盾的根源。要通過PCAOB和香港方面的協(xié)議來化解審計調(diào)查僵局，唯一的辦法就是中國證監(jiān)會對會計師事務(wù)所帶走審計工作底稿不聞不問，PCAOB也不追究香港成員公司本來不該在審計報告上簽字的問題。對于有效監(jiān)管來說，這是一個很虛弱的立足點(diǎn)。

????多蒂還表示，和中國監(jiān)管部門的協(xié)商仍在進(jìn)行之中，雙方將在今后6-10個月內(nèi)會面。但如果在一定時間內(nèi)無法達(dá)成協(xié)議，PCAOB就需要采取恰當(dāng)?shù)男袆?。這可能意味著它要注銷會計公司的資格，進(jìn)而導(dǎo)致上市公司從美國證券交易所退市。換句話說，終極方案將重新擺到PCAOB面前。（財富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Charlie?

????PCAOB Chairman James Doty told 21st Century Business Herald (China’s leading business paper) that the PCAOB is negotiating with Hong Kong for access to do inspections of Hong Kong accounting firms on work related to Chinese listings. A deal to allow inspections in Hong Kong could provide a way out of the impasse between U.S. and Chinese regulators. If the audits of U.S. listed Chinese companies are signed by the Hong Kong member firm a deal might allow the working papers to be inspected. The problem with this kind of deal is that it requires both the CSRC and the PCAOB to turn a blind eye towards what is actually happening.

????Mainland authorities have blocked the PCAOB from coming to Hong Kong to inspect audits of companies with mainland operations. Hong Kong regulators must have been given permission by the mainland to have these negotiations, and that signals that mainland regulators are searching for a way out of the problem.

????In addition to the PCAOB standoff over audit inspections, Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission is in a court battle with Ernst & Young over its refusal to turn over working papers in the Standard Water case. I am surprised that case has not already been resolved. In May, Chinese regulators reached a deal with the PCAOB for access to working papers in connection with investigations, and I have thought that deal would have led to a similar deal with SFC by now. Hong Kong's weak regulatory system for accountants does not include inspections.

????A deal with Hong Kong will require compromises by both the CSRC and the PCAOB that will undermine the process. Any deal by the PCAOB with Hong Kong would have to allow the accounting firms to move working papers out of China into Hong Kong, since I don’t think any audits of mainland Chinese companies are actually done in Hong Kong. Although all of the Big Four’s Hong Kong member firms are registered with the PCAOB, most, if not all, of the audits are actually done by the member firms on the mainland. That is the crux of the SFC case against E&Y. To get a deal done, China may be willing to look the other way when the Big Four transfer working papers out of the mainland, but any deal that rests on non-enforcement of existing laws is a bad one.

????The other problem is that the Hong Kong Big Four firms actually don’t do the audits of U.S. listed Chinese companies so they should not be signing the reports. The Hong Kong member firm of the each Big Four firm is the signing auditor on the large state-owned enterprises that are listed in the U.S. For foreign private issuers, which constitute the majority of U.S. listed Chinese companies, three of the Big Four firms sign their audit opinions using their China member firms. KPMG curiously signs all of its audit reports on U.S. listed companies in Hong Kong, although I expect most, if not all, of these audits are actually done by its member firm on the mainland.

????PCAOB auditing standard AU 543 requires an auditor to evaluate whether his own participation in the audit is sufficient to enable him to serve as the principal auditor. Just signing the audit report is certainly not enough participation to justify doing so. And of course, if you sign the audit report, you better have audit working papers, which gets to the problem that E&Y is having with SFC. The only way a deal with Hong Kong solves the audit inspection quandry is if the CSRC ignores the firms taking the working papers out of China and the PCAOB ignores that the Hong Kong firm should never have signed the audit in the first place. That is a poor foundation for effective regulation.

????Doty also said that negotiations with China are continuing and the two sides will meet in the coming 6-10 months. But if no agreement is reached in a reasonable period, the PCAOB will need to take the appropriate action. That probably means deregistering the accounting firms, which leads to delisting the companies from U.S. exchanges. In other words, the nuclear option is back on the table.