View from City Road: PI cover a threat to credibility
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Why would a company want to buy professional indemnity insurance for its own auditors?
The present spate of companies urging their shareholders to approve such a move seems bizarre in the extreme. Shareholders, after all, are not unknown to take their own legal action against auditors for negligence.
Vaux Group shareholders agreed in January to enable the company to provide PI for its auditors. Now Unilever wants to do the same thing. Apparently, PI cover is cheaper if purchased case by case, as opposed to insuring against negligence for all an accountancy firm's work. The audit fee might reasonably be expected to be lower for companies that approach the problem in this way. Some kind of a solution to spiralling PI rates, perhaps, but the idea is at best odd, and at worst a threat to any credibility that company accounts now have. Shareholders should turn it down.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments