Daan van Baarsen, CFO Efteling, talks in this deepening interview about the controls of the Efteling, how it was impacted by the crisis, its exchange rate risks and future as well as the future of the accounting profession. Could you tell us something about yourself, your education and your career? After attending HEAO, I started working for Philips. They were pretty advanced in controlling their organization, so this is also where I learned the profession and started to like what I was doing. I learned being close to the management and providing them with useful information for decision-making. In 1991 I started working for the Efteling. At that time the organization was not that far advanced in controlling so I helped it gradually in reshaping from a pure accounting to a controlling organization. Are there any big differences in working for Philips as compared to the Efteling? At Philips you were a very small part of a big organization whereas the Efteling had only four-hundred-fifty employees when I started working here. Besides that, at that moment the Efteling just became a private company instead of a foundation so a lot of things were in the process of being automated as opposed to Philips where this automization was already in place. Furthermore the culture within the Efteling is very different from the culture of a big organization such as Philips. There is a sort of family culture, which we call: ‘The Efteling feeling’. It cannot be expressed into words, but one gets that feeling inside and it makes you not want to leave. Are there any remarkable differences concerning controls between the Efteling and Philips as they operate in such different industries? Yes, for example the renting of rooms at the hotel requires different controls, like checking on occupation, which I never saw at Philips. However the most important different control is the one for the entry tickets, because it is the main part of your revenue. You need to make sure that everyone has a ticket and that no one can fake or copy tickets. Most of the time these controls are automated. Finally, there is no international business; I never need to call an office in Germany or Malaysia, which I did have to do at Philips. Which financial considerations are taken before an attraction is bought? The first phase is analyzing the client’s needs and the available opportunities at the market. In the second phase a financial framework is made, which includes solvency, risks etc. During this phase the appearance and content of the attraction are developed, a factor in which the Efteling distinguishes itself from other theme parks. The third phase is the calculation phase where I decide upon an amount that can be spend. The general assembly and the commissioners have to approve this amount. Then in the next phase we make a final design and calculation. When the final calculation exceeds the budget we need approval from the commissioners again. In the last phase the design is completed and offers from tenders are being analyzed. We also decide if the new attraction allows us to raise the entrance price by discounting the future cash flows. Does the Efteling experience exchange risks? Yes sometimes it does. For example, ‘Aquanura’, the water show is built in cooperation with “Wet Design” in America, so it is susceptible to the exchange rate risk. However we are risk-averse and always hedge the risk. Afterwards it might turn out it was a stupid decision, and it would have been more profitable to not hedge it but at least you have a fixed and certain exchange rate. The new ‘dive coaster’ (Baron 1898) is being supplied by a Swiss company. As we all know the Swiss Franc is really high at the moment, luckily our contract is signed in euros. If we did not have this agreement I would be obligated to hedge it. How did the crisis influence the Efteling? Our number of visitor even increased with one million in 2009 due to the Albert Heijn promotion where we increased the discount from eight to ten euro. We have been able to keep this increased visitor amount which is very important in a crisis. However we did suffer from business to business, these results have halved from thirteen million (in 2007) to seven million. Also in golf we have suffered, mainly the business to business has collapsed. No account manager goes to play golf with his clients to do business anymore, that takes too much time. We always have been more or less countercyclical. The first thing people save on is a third vacation, then a second, they are not going to save on a trip to the Efteling. Now, however, we could ask ourselves the question whether we still are. Since in the earlier years a crisis lasted relatively short, around 3 years. Whereas now it commenced in 2007 and we are still in it. They call it the ‘new reality’, they say we will never go to the 2007 level, however I don’t believe that. I do believe that in the end we did feel some impact from the crisis. How do you think the Efteling will look like in ten years? At the moment there is a focus on becoming an international destination in ten years. In the earlier years we were the number one of Europe, nowadays we are not. Disney has opened in 1992 and has around thirteen million visitors. We have around four and a half million and want to grow to five million. We want to attract this growth mainly from Nordrhein-Westfalen, Belgium and England. We check the nationality of the visitors mainly by license plates. This check is executed manually at the moment but we are planning to automatize this in the future. To attract this target audience we spend on marketing and build new accommodations. In the earlier days a German could arrive easily at 10am and be home around 7pm
Accountant, a Sustainable Profession
You are studying accountancy. A profession with over one hundred years of history, once founded in response to massive accounting scandals. A profession based on solid financial understanding and trust. A profession with respect, which makes the practitioner traditionally one of the notables of the village; together with the doctor, vicar and notary. Nowadays, the auditor often operates through large, international audit and advisory organizations. Famous names, read in neon letters on impressive office buildings, in prime locations along the highways. Large buildings with inside hundreds of professionals, swarming daily to their clients. Strong employers that demand the best of knowledge and commitment, but also offer the necessary concerning development opportunities and working conditions. Organizations that are attractive to young, ambitious professionals. For many students of economics or accountancy, starting a career at PwC, EY, Deloitte, KPMG, BDO, Mazars or another large office is an important first goal after completing their studies. Under Fire However, the accountancy student who reads the newspapers regularly (paper, digital or mobile), might have had mixed feelings over their choice of study over the past year. The accounting profession is under heavy fire. That’s nothing new, it began with Enron in the US, just after the turn of the century. Criticism of accountants has since become a permanent factor. But in 2014,criticism in our country was felt harder than ever before. This mainly had to do with coverage of a number of incidents where accounting firms played a role. That these incidents often related to work years ago, did not soften the negative image of the profession. “These were not isolated incidents,” emphasizes NBA chairman Huub Wieleman. “Several studies, both marked by the Financial Markets Authority and the NBA, clarify that the quality of the audit should be better. Files are not always complete, procedures are sometimes not being followed, and parts of the financial statements are not getting enough attention. That really needs improvement. ” In late September, the AFM came back with a critical report on the quality of controls at the four largest audit firms, with as consequence a storm of negative reports on accountants in all media. ’Leak for auditors is still not over’,’ The Hague fed up with accountant ‘,’ Down with culture of complacency,” are mere a couple of articles of De Financiële Telegraaf, that spent an entire front page to auditors. And you are studying accountancy. Improvement Plans Politics also had concerns about the quality and independence of the auditor. Therefore, Dutch Parliament sent the accounting profession in May 2014 home with a firm mission: improve the quality of audits, ensure adequate internal oversight of audit firms and restore confidence in auditors. The accountancy sector got four months to write an appropriate improvement plan; to be ready on the desk in September. “Our best decision then was to put the realization of that improvement plan into the hands of young accountants,” said Wieleman. “A group of young partners of audit firms has swept their agendas and has spent a long summer on the elaboration of the report In the Public Interest, a report containing 53 measures, which should result in the improvement of audit quality. But just as important as these measures, is that they first have thought carefully about the causes of inadequate quality. For weeks, the working group has discussed with regulators, scientists, investors, directors and officers, to get a good picture of what is not going well in the accounting profession and what solutions are seen before. ” Culture and Behavior How can controversial incidents occur in organizations with qualified professionals, in a strictly controlled environment? Again and again culture and behavior came up as the most important answer. “A culture in which commercial interest is seen as the main motive for all the action, is a breeding ground for making bad choices,” says Wieleman. “A favorable economic environment and years of fine revenue and profit increases have created a culture of complacency, in which the public interest was too easily ignored. The economic crisis and the introduction of independent supervision by the AFM show that those days are definitely over. The auditor must return to his roots: an attitude in which independence, professional skepticism and expertise form the basic principles, in which no concessions can be made; principles associated with the DNA of every accountant, auditor of each organization and thus our entire profession. ” The report of the working group stressed: individuals may make mistakes, but audit firms must provide an environment in which that risk is minimized, an environment where people are encouraged through appropriate incentives to deliver quality work and where errors are taught. Therefore culture and behavior get much attention in the report. Implementation The report In the public interest has been well received by politicians. Both Minister Dijsselbloem and Parliament have expressed compliments for the analysis and the proposed solutions. Now comes the rapid and vigorous implementation of the measures, which is already in full swing, says NBA chairman Wieleman: “Minister Dijsselbloem has taken a number of measures relating to the assignment by the Supervisory Board, to pour them into new legislation directly. The first bills are available this spring for consultation. The role of management in the selection and appointment of the auditor is over, the Supervisory Board is now in the lead. This requires a lot of the board members themselves. ” Other measures ask for effort by the NBA and the relevant accounting firms themselves. These firms are busy with the implementation of culture programs and appointing their own Supervisory Board. Not easy, if you look closely at the independence rules that have to be taken in consideration. The composition of the board should be changed, as are the rules for appraisal and remuneration of auditors: only quality can come first. The NBA sets up a monitoring committee, which will closely monitor the progress of the implementation by the accounting firms. Moreover, a digital monitoring tool will be developed together with the AFM, which should
We Don’t Need Number-Crunchers Anymore!
Last week I went to the US for participating in a research conference. When I finally ended up at the desk of the customs officer, he asked me about my plans in the US. I answered that I would participate in a research conference about accounting. He quickly replied with the words ‘Accounting, that’s just number-crunching!’. I am quite sure that every accountant has had such an experience when telling about his/her job. Also, if you search for cartoons that make fun of accounting or accountants, most cartoons make the connection with numbers. A cartoon as the one below is definitely no exception. The question arises whether ‘number-crunching’ (or being good in dealing with numbers) is really the most important characteristic of an accountant? And if other characteristics are proposed as important, do we have reliable evidence which shows the importance of these characteristics? The goal of this opinion is to provide you with an answer on these two questions. Let’s be clear from the beginning: being good in dealing with numbers is (and will always be) an important characteristic of accountants. However, if we look at how accounting firms are organized, it becomes clear that accountants also should have well-developed leadership skills. Specifically, compared to other professions, young accounting professionals have to take up a leadership position quite early in their career. For instance, it is no exception that accountants with only 3 years of experience have the lead of an audit engagement. Of course, the final responsibility resides with the audit partner, but as the audit partner is not that often present ‘on the floor’ the real leader is the young accounting professional. As human beings are quite heavily influenced by their leaders, it can be expected that the behaviour of young accounting professionals that lead an audit team has a considerable impact on the behaviour of the younger accounting professionals they have to supervise. Walking The Talk Together with my colleague at the accounting department of Tilburg University Sofie Vandenbogaerde, I decided to investigate whether the leadership of the young accounting professional, who often has the title ‘Senior Associate’, has an impact on the behaviour of the accountants they supervise, who often have the title ‘(Junior) Associate’. We decided to investigate how the leadership style of senior associates has an impact on the job satisfaction of associates because job satisfaction is known to be a very good predictor of staying at the organization or the industry. Investigating the relationship between leadership and job satisfaction can thus help us to come to a better understanding of the reasons why a lot of young (and often very talented) accountants leave the profession early in their career. The leadership style that we investigated is called ‘behavioural integrity’ and reflects the extent to which the senior associate ‘walks his/her talk’ or ‘practices what he/she preaches’. A lack of (general) behavioural integrity emerges, for instance, when the senior associate does not get managed to have more accountants on the audit engagement although he has promised more accountants to the currently understaffed team. Another example of a lack of (audit-specific) behavioural integrity is when the senior associate does not strictly follow an audit procedure because he is very busy although he/she always emphasizes to his/her associates that being busy is not a good excuse for not following the audit procedures. We send our survey to all the first and second year associates of a Big4 accounting firm in the Netherlands and received 160 responses. The most important finding of our study is that behavioural integrity matters and that associates are more satisfied with their job when the senior associate ‘walks the talk’. Interestingly, we find that the effect of behavioural integrity on job satisfaction of associates goes through two different paths. First, when the senior associate ‘walks the talk’, a team environment emerges in which associates can openly discuss the problems he/she experienced (or even commit errors) without fearing for personal consequences because matching words and deeds is perceived as a signal of trust. Our results further reveal that this open team environment increases the job satisfaction of the associates. Second, we find that the behavioural integrity of the senior associate also has a positive impact on the strictness with which associates follow the audit procedures. This strictness has then also a positive impact on the job satisfaction of the associate. Thus, our results reveal that a senior associate who walks the talk has a positive influence on the job satisfaction of associates through creating a better learning environment and through increasing the strictness with which audit procedures are followed. Focus On Leadership The results of our study are important because they show that the behaviour of senior associates can help to address the problem of talented young accountants leaving the accounting profession. Also, our results suggest that behavioural integrity has the power to influence two aspects of the accounting setting (i.e. the strictness with which audit procedures are followed and the openness of the culture) that the council ‘Toekomst Accountantsberoep’ proposes to address in order to restore the trust in the accountant. Our main advice for the accounting firms is that they should use leadership capability as a selection criterion when hiring new accountants or promoting associates to the senior level. Also, accounting firms and universities should offer training programs that are focused on developing the leadership skills of young accounting professionals. The interesting feature of behavioural integrity is that it is a very intuitive leadership characteristic that does not need very long (and expensive) leadership trainings. We truly hope that these research findings find their way to the accounting profession and that these findings help to keep the most talented accountants in the profession, as such an evolution is important to restore the trust in the auditor. An interesting by-product of developing accountants that are also good leaders is that we will not be accused anymore for being number-crunchers by customs officers, cartoonists, and the general public! Readers interested in
Interview Ron Dohmen
In a world where countries and corporations are becoming increasingly interlinked, Ron Dohmen enlightens us about the international role of the FIOD in monitoring, investigating and prosecuting individuals as well as organizations who undertake fraudulent activities. He talks us through the skills and classification differences to normal accountancy practices and provides an insight into big cases he has worked on. Could you tell us something about yourself, your study and your career? After my time at the HEAO, I worked in the administration of a bank. In 1995 I switched to the Ministry of Social Affairs and worked in labor inspection.Since early 2000 I have been employed by the FIOD and commenced my study for RA in 2001. I can honestly say that working at the FIOD is a great pleasure.I started there as a detective and worked on a project with the conduct of disciplinary proceedings against an accountant on behalf of the Public Prosecution Service. I enjoyed it so much that for three years. Now, I have been supporting the prosecutors ‘almost fulltime. I am also a mentor , I train new colleagues to become detectives, and I work at Nyenrode. What exactly is the difference between a forensic accountant and a normal accountant? Forensic literally means judicial, or for judicial inquiry. Forensic accountants are also trained to a higher standard for fraud-related inquiries. Regular auditing is more system oriented. If you want to prove something in a crime, system checks are not adequate; you need to have much more detailed background in the matter. Could you briefly describe the tasks of the FIOD? The FIOD is an investigation authority of the tax authorities. We detect criminal offenses and frauds.In addition, the FIOD is hired by other ministries or supervisors that do not have their own investigative authorities. We are only hired if there is suspicion of fraud, we do not have to search for it. When a certain signal is given, then, if we have the capacity and priority, we will investigate what is going on. What is your position within the FIOD, when are your skills required? I coordinate disciplinary matters and am part of the special cases team that focuses on very large and complex cases that are sensitive to both politics and the general public. I am also deployed in investigations involving suspects with a high status or when they expect questioning to be very difficult. Last year for example, a colleague and I interrogated the office manager of an accounting firm which lasted for six or seven days. How many employees work on a case simultaneously and how long does an inquiry last? Generally we work on several cases simultaneously with at least two people a case, however this can significantly expand. A big case requires around four to six people. The largest case we have ever had was the ‘’Klimop’’ case where the Philips pension fund was ripped off by their own directors. Over time we developed into a team of 150 full time employees working on the case. Furthermore, the time we spend on research differs. Small cases are completed within a few weeks whereas large cases can last half or even a full year.The ”Klimop” case even has persisted for three and a half years.. What do you classify as ‘fraud’ within your profession? Fraud is a generic term. There are three elements that recur. Firstly, it must be carried out with a specific intention and purpose; secondly it has to be illegally obtained for the parties own advantage and finally it is a form of deception. When these elements are present then we find different forms of fraud; embezzlement, bribery etc. You have collaborated with many parties like the AFM, the Nederlandsche Bank, several ministries and foreign investigation services. How does this work? The FIOD collaborates with other services, mainly due to the sharing and diffusion of knowledge and expertise. The FIOD cooperates with the AFM, DNB, Tax Authority, OM, the police and the FIU. Together they form the FEC (Financial Expertise Centre). Fraud involves multiple domains. Furthermore it does not stop at the domestic border. We travel all over the world to perform research since foreign countries are frequently involved in our large domestic cases. As detection officers, we have similar authorities to police officers’ and are also authorized to arrest people. Once we cross domestic boarders we no longer hold authority, so if we want to conduct an inquiry internationally, we need to ask an investigation service in that specific country to conduct the inquiry for us. Because it often requires specific knowledge to understand a case, we frequently travel abroad to help with the inquiry. For example, the ‘Klimop’ case involved working together with the FBI in Chicago. The past couple of years a lot has changed due to digitalization, in what way do you notice this at FIOD? I think nowadays it is impossible to investigate a somewhat large fraud case without the help of digital technology. In the past, a case for a company involved sorting through many files, now everything is kept in the cloud. Earlier we accomplished a lot through phone tapping. Nowadays, a lot of conversations are carried out through Skype, so we are now also tapping into the behavior of people on the internet, through e-mails and through faxes they send. Additionally, more is expected from us, we are required to do more simple things ourselves. For example, I will soon take a course covering the extraction of information from a smartphone. When we raid an individual or company, we always seize their data or simply take their whole laptop, copying even the deleted files from their network. Which fraud case has made the greatest impression on you? That would be the ‘Klimop’ case. We started the case with only eight colleagues from Eindhoven, but this has expanded rapidly, peaking at around 600 people researching on more than 50 places simultaneously in several different countries. We have tapped over
The Evolution and Implementation of Accounting Standards within The United Nations
Hiranand Purkait talks us through the development of accounting standards and how they have been shaped to embrace the nonprofit organizational structure of United Nations. These accounting practices are implemented first hand by Hiranand himself and are aimed at facilitating a transparent and effective reporting structure. The evolution of accounting standards at The United Nations dates back to the early 1990’s. At that time, there were no international accounting standards for non-profit organizations. In the absence of such standards, the Panel of External Auditors to the United Nations recommended that The UN system develop its own accounting standards. The General Assembly, in its decision 46/445 of 20 Dec 1991 requested the Secretary General to propose a set of accounting standards for common application to the UN system. In 1993, the Administrative Committee on Coordination approved the common inter-organization accounting standards. UNSAS was developed largely based on International Accounting Standards (IAS). However, the difference is that UNSAS is based on a modified accrual basis. In 2004 the High Level Committee on Management (HLCM) approved the study of the future of UNSAS, recognizing these standards had not kept up with the latest developments in accounting matters. The study was to consider the desirability of moving from UNASAS to a set of external standards. The result of this study was a recommendation by the HLCM’s Task Force on Accounting Standards to adopt International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS). IPSAS is developed by an independent standard setting board. This independence is seen as a vital component to the maintenance and enhancement of credibility, transparency and accountability of the financial processes within the United Nations. IPSAS is based on full accrual accounting (as against UNSAS, which was on modified accrual basis) which is now the acceptable best practice world-wide. The result will be more timely and accurate reporting of costs related to the use of capital assets and employee benefits due to the shift in practices. All of which will result in better information for results based management. In comparison to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which is more widely recognized and used, IPSAS is tailored better for the United Nations system organizations as IPSAS is developed for the public sector. Consequently we can improve the tracking of the non-commercial nature of the United Nations system activities. All organizations of the UN system initially aimed to adopt IPSAS by the latest 2010 but the time frame was further extended. As of now, most of the organizations of the UN system have adopted IPSAS. Adoption of IPSAS required activity on two levels – at the system-wide level and at the individual organization level. The system-wide project was responsible for developing the broad accounting policies to ensure consistency among UN system organizations. At the system-wide level, common implementation issues were addressed. Primary responsibility for successful IPSAS adoption remains at the level of individual organizations. Each individual organization is responsible for attaining governing body approval, determining its individual budget and creating its project team, project plan etc. Additionally, each organization develops detailed accounting procedures based on the IPSAS compliant policies/guidance adopted at the system-wide level. Each individual organization is also responsible for the deployment of IPSAS training and to initiate the relevant changes to its IT system and it FR&R. IPSAS adoption presented many challenges for accounting and financial reporting within UN organizations. IPSAS adoption requires: – Changes to a full accrual basis under which all liabilities are recognized – Changes to the basis of expense recognition (from cash outlays and obligations to ‘delivery’ for items under our capitalization threshold and to depreciation/amortization for PP&E and intangibles) – Recognize: PP&E, inventories intangibles and have clean starting data and the related accounting processes in place for depreciation, impairment testing – Recognize employee benefit liabilities. We have already recognized end of service and post retirement liabilities e.g. ASHI in our 31 December 2006 financial statements. – Recognize a liability when funds are received or receivable for conditional funding agreements. This liability will need to be discharged and revenue recognized as performance is delivered. For amounts that are granted under unconditional arrangements, we will have to record an immediate expense IPSAS 24 requires preparing a statement of reconciliation of expenses on an accrual basis (while the budgets are prepared on cash basis). The implications of moving to accrual budgeting will be reviewed however, currently the budget will continue to be on a cash basis and this means that reconciliation will need to be presented. The new accounting policies and recommended accounting practices establish a broad theoretical framework with general concepts. There is a need for advanced IT tools to incorporate these concepts into practice for the recording of transactions and the preparation of financial reports. Thus, IPSAS adoption is closely linked to the implementation of the new ERP system and the two projects must work in close coordination.
“KPMG will be the new norm of the accounting sector”
An exclusive interview with Jan Hommen. He gives his opinion on a variety of topics like the developments within KPMG and what he would like to achieve during his time as CEO. He talks about the future of the accounting profession in general. Moreover, he reveals his view on whether to overhaul the current partner-model within accountancy. Furthermore, he explains his career and working experiences. What did you study at Tilburg University and how was your time here? I started my studies in 1963 and graduated in 1970. Before I started my studies I was an officer in the military. During my studies I worked and I practiced lot of sports, which did not always correspond with my study schedule. And after your studies here, how did your career develop? After my studies I became controller and later on Financial Director at LIPS Aluminum in Drunen, which later became Alcoa Nederland. I then worked at Alcoa’s head office based in the US for 20 years; the last 6 years as CFO. From there I moved to Philips as CFO and Vice Chairman of the board for eight years. After retirement I accepted several board positions, for instance Ahold, TNT, Reed Elsevier, the hospital of Maastricht University, Tias and ING. I have been Chairman of the board for many of these organizations. Starting early 2009 ING requested me to lead them through the financial crisis, which I did in the position as CEO until October 2013. After starting as external advisor to the Board of Management of KPMG in May 2014, I became their CEO in June 2014. How do you remember your time as CEO of the ING group? It was a difficult, but also a very exciting time, and a lot of work had to be done. The impact of the crisis was felt deeply. We had to incorporate many measures that were imposed by the European Commission due to the fact that ING had received financial support from the Dutch government. It was a difficult task because we were required to reorganize, restructure and reduce the size of the entire company. To split up the company ING executed around 1100 projects. Today, I believe ING is worth around €44 billion, this contrasts to its value of around €10 billion when I initially started my tenure. So it is clear that ING’s value expansion has been exponential over this period. Despite the difficult circumstances at the time, I believe we made ING a very strong bank, which is well positioned in Europe today. Recently it was announced that ING chose KPMG as auditors, do you think it has anything to do with your position now at KPMG? No nothing at all. The procedure to search for a new auditor began just after I had left ING and at KPMG I deliberately did not participate at all in the process. You have made a lot of changes at ING, what do you think will be the difference with KPMG? The task at ING involved a financial restructuring of the balance sheet and also splitting up and disposing of large parts of the company. KPMG has more of a reputation and cultural problem. We need to revamp the governance and put strong leadership in place. When you have your own internal people on the board overviewing an organization for a long time, the standards and culture of the organization erodes. We are now shifting to a governance structure with greater emphasis on external supervision, transparency and open communication that will help develop a higher level of professional management within the company. Will KPMG be governed from outside the company? We have already appointed two external Board members, a CFO and an HR Officer. In my opinion, for an organization as KPMG, it is necessary to have HR on the Board which, until now, was never the case. The Supervisory Board will be made up exclusively with external people and will supervise the Board of Management and the organization. They will nominate, dismiss, reward and monitor the board and ensure the process is in place so that the right partners are appointed. Besides these changes to the Board, several other change processes have been put into place, in which many KPMG volunteers cooperate and contribute. Changes involve our culture, the improvement of quality, the business model, regaining public trust, remuneration, governance and communication. The changes were also initiated due to the report by the AFM and the report ‘In the public interest’. What do you think of these reports? The reports were quite clear; a lot of things went wrong in the past. The audit quality control process, whether on an individual level or as a system as a whole, needs to be of better standards. Quality is a zero tolerance issue: we cannot accept poor quality performance. Last May, we started analyzing KPMG and the areas that needed changing. This analysis shows parallel results to the AFM report and has prompted the implementation of new methods to overcome issues within the KPMG workforce. At KPMG we want to set the standard and become the new norm for our sector within three years. Nowadays firms must change auditors within 8 years, which probably will be 10. What is your opinion about this? I agree that this should be done occasionally; however, I believe it is inconvenient that this must happen all at the same time in some cases as I fear that the quality of audits might decrease due to a lack of knowledge of the operational activities of a company within other firms. Is the accounting profession a disappearing profession by the rise of IT? No, I do not think so. The accounting profession shifts naturally with the development of technology. There is a need to review processes. Therefore, the core activities and the need for an auditor will remain. The methods of auditing will change through the use of more advanced electronic tools. The need to understand how a company’s core operations
