DOL proposes changes to ESG investing and shareholder rights: What plan sponsors need to know

Read this if you are an employer that may have to close, or has closed, due to COVID-19.

Here is a brief recap of definitions and explanations of employee retention credits found in the CARES Act. If you have questions about your specific situation, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We’re here to help.

Eligible employer

The term ‘‘eligible employer’’ means any employer: 

For tax-exempt organizations described in section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, clauses (i) and (ii)(a) shall apply to all operations of such organization.

Generally, all organizations treated as a single employer under the controlled group or affiliated service group rules will be treated as one employer for purposes of this section.

If an eligible employer participates in the Paycheck Protection Program, such an employer is not eligible for the employee retention credits.

Amount of credit

There shall be allowed, as a credit against applicable employment taxes for each calendar quarter, an amount equal to 50 percent of the qualified wages with respect to each employee of such employer for such calendar quarter.

The amount of qualified wages with respect to any employee which may be taken into account by the eligible employer for all calendar quarters shall not exceed $10,000 (i.e., the maximum credit is $5,000 per employee).

If the credit exceeds the applicable employment taxes on the wages paid for such calendar quarter, such excess shall be treated as an overpayment that shall be refunded.

Qualified wages

The term ‘‘qualified wages’’ means:

Wages do not include amounts paid under the expanded sick/family leave provisions of the FFCRA.

Qualified wages paid or incurred by an eligible employer with respect to an employee who is not providing services may not exceed the amount such employee would have been paid for working an equivalent duration during the 30 days immediately preceding leave.

The term ‘‘qualified wages’’ shall include so much of the eligible employer’s qualified health plan expenses as are properly allocable to such wages.

CARES Act: Payroll tax payment delay

An extension of time to remit payroll taxes for the period beginning March 27, 2020 and ending before January 1, 2021 over a two-year period is allowed, with half due by December 31, 2021, and the remainder due by December 31, 2022.

If an eligible employer participates in the payroll tax delay programs, such an employer is not eligible for the employee retention credits.
 

Read this if you are a business owner, in management, or in HR at a company with less than 500 employees.

We have received many questions regarding the FFCRA and its provisions and how it affects different employers and their employees. Here are some of the questions our clients have asked the most. Please contact us if you have questions regarding your specific situation. We’re here to help.  

Besides compensation, what other costs paid by an employer are eligible for the credit (i.e., employer paid health insurance, employer payroll taxes)?
Employers can deduct the cost of providing continuing health care coverage, and the employer’s share of Medicare taxes related to the leave wages. Any compensation paid under the FFCRA is not subject to the employer’s portion of the Social Security tax.

How do you determine the total number of employees? 
In calculating the total number of employees, all full-time or part-time employees working within the US, including all US territories or possessions, are counted, including all employees on leave and temp employees who are jointly employed with another company as determined under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

How does a business know if it employs less than 500 employees and is subject to the FFCRA?
Generally, a private sector employer is subject to the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) if it employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year. The FAQs issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) indicate an employer has fewer than 500 employees if, at the time an employee’s leave is to be taken, there are fewer than 500 full-time and part-time employees within the United States, which includes any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States. 

In making this determination, an employer should include employees on leave; temporary employees who are jointly employed by you and another employer (regardless of whether the jointly-employed employees are maintained on only your or another employer’s payroll); and day laborers supplied by a temporary agency (regardless of whether you are the temporary agency or the client firm if there is a continuing employment relationship). Workers who are independent contractors under the FLSA, rather than employees, are not considered employees for purposes of the 500-employee threshold.

Where a corporation has an ownership interest in another corporation, the two corporations are separate employers unless they are joint employers under the FLSA with respect to certain employees. In general, two or more entities are separate employers unless they meet the integrated employer test under the FMLA.

Please check with your advisors if you believe the integrated employer test may apply to your businesses.

Which employees are entitled to the $511 payment under sick leave?
For an employee who is unable to work because of the coronavirus quarantine or self-quarantine or has COVID-19 symptoms and is seeking a medical diagnosis, the employee may receive sick leave wages equal to the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $511 per day and $5,111 in the aggregate, for a total of 10 days. Note that only employers who employ less than 500 employer are required to provide sick leave payments. Such employees may also receive a refundable tax credit for sick leave paid to employees.

Which employees are entitled to the $200 payment under sick leave?
For an employee who is caring for someone with COVID-19, or is caring for a child because the child’s school or child care facility is closed, or the child care provider is unavailable due to the coronavirus, the employee may receive sick leave wages equal to two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day and $2,000 in the aggregate, for up to 10 days. Note that only employers who employ less than 500 employer are required to provide sick leave payments. Such employees may also receive a refundable tax credit for sick leave paid to employees.

Which employees are entitled to the $200 payment under the family leave portion of FFCRA?
For an employee who is unable to work because of a need to care for a child whose school or child care facility is closed or whose child care provider is unavailable due to the coronavirus, the employee may receive family leave wages equal to two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay, capped at $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate. Up to 10 weeks of qualifying leave can be counted towards the child care leave credit. Note that only employers who employ less than 500 employer are required to provide sick leave payments. Such employees may also receive a refundable tax credit for sick leave paid to employees.

What is “regular rate of pay” for purposes of the FFCRA?
For purposes of the FFCRA, the regular rate of pay used to calculate paid leave is the average of the employee’s regular rate over a period of up to six months prior to the date on which leave is taken. If an employee has not worked for the current employer for six months, the regular rate used to calculate paid leave is the average regular rate of pay for each week the employee has worked for the current employer.

If an employee is paid with commissions, tips, or piece rates, these amounts will be incorporated into the above calculation to the same extent they are included in the calculation of the regular rate under the FLSA.

You can also compute this amount for each employee by adding all compensation that is part of the regular rate over the above period and divide that sum by all hours actually worked in the same period.

What is the effective date of the sick leave/family leave provisions?
Employers must comply with the FFCRA from April 1, 2020, until it expires on December 31, 2020. Paid leave prior to April1, 2020 will not count. The IRS recently issued guidance indicating the tax credits for qualified sick leave wages and qualified family leave wages required to be paid by the FFRCA will apply to wages paid for the period beginning on April 1, 2020, and ending on December 31, 2020.

Who is considered a “health care provider”?
For the purposes of employees who may be exempted from paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave by their employer under the FFCRA, a health care provider is anyone employed at any doctor’s office, hospital, health care center, clinic, post-secondary educational institution offering health care instruction, medical school, local health department or agency, nursing facility, retirement facility, nursing home, home health care provider, any facility that performs laboratory or medical testing, pharmacy, or any similar institution, employer, or entity. This includes any permanent or temporary institution, facility, location, or site where medical services are provided that are similar to such institutions. 

This definition includes any individual employed by an entity that contracts with any of the above institutions, employers, or entities institutions to provide services or to maintain the operation of the facility. This also includes anyone employed by any entity that provides medical services, produces medical products, or is otherwise involved in the making of COVID-19 related medical equipment, tests, drugs, vaccines, diagnostic vehicles, or treatments. This also includes any individual that the highest official of a state or territory, including the District of Columbia, determines is a health care provider necessary for that state’s or territory’s or the District of Columbia’s response to COVID-19.

To minimize the spread of the virus associated with COVID-19, the DOL encourages employers to be judicious when using this definition to exempt health care providers from the provisions of the FFCRA.

For more information
If you have more questions, or have a specific question about your particular situation, please call us. We’re here to help. 

The President signed The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (hereinafter the “Act”) into law on March 18th and the provisions are effective April 2nd. You can read the congressional summary here. There are two provisions of the Act that deal with paid leave provisions for employees. Here are some highlights for employers.

The provisions of the Act are only required for employers with fewer than 500 employees. Employers with over 499 employees are not required to provide the sick/family leave contained in the Act, but could voluntarily elect to follow the new rules. The expectation is that employers with over 499 employees are providing some level of sick/family leave benefits already. In any case, employers with over 499 employees are not eligible for the tax credits. 

Employers with fewer than 500 employees are required to provide employees with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave over a two-week period if the employee:

• Self-isolates because of a diagnosis with COVID-19, or to comply with a recommendation or order to quarantine;
• Obtains a medical diagnosis or care if the employee is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms;
• Needs to care for a family member who is self-isolating due to a COVID-19 diagnosis or quarantining due to COVID-19 symptoms; or
• Is caring for a child whose school has closed, or childcare provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19.

These rules apply to all employees regardless of the length of time they have worked for the employer. The 80-hours would be pro-rated for those employees who do not normally work a 40-hour week. 

Employees who take leave because they themselves are sick (i.e., the first two bullets above) can receive up to $511 per day, with an aggregate limit of $5,110. If, on the other hand, an employee takes leave to care for a child or other family member (i.e., the last two bullets above), the employee will be paid two-thirds (2/3) of their regular weekly wages up to a maximum of $200 per day, with an aggregate limit of $2,000.

Days when an individual receives pay from their employer (regular wages, sick pay, or other paid time off) or unemployment compensation do not count as leave days for the purposes of this benefit.

Family and Medical Leave Act

Employees who have been employed for at least 30-days also have the right to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The Act requires that 10 of these 12 weeks (i.e., after the sick leave discussed above is taken) be paid at a rate of no less than two-thirds of the employee’s usual rate of pay. Any leave taken under this portion of the ACT will be limited to $200 per day with an aggregate limit of $10,000.

Exemptions

The Secretary of Labor has the authority to issue regulations exempting: (1) certain healthcare providers and emergency responders from taking leave under the Act; and (2) small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the requirements of the Act if it would jeopardize the viability of the business.

Expiration

The provisions of the Act are set to expire on December 31, 2020, and unused time will not carry over from one year to the next.

Tax credits 

The Act provides for refundable tax credits to help an employer cover the costs associated with providing paid emergency sick leave or paid FMLA. The tax credits work as follows:

• A refundable tax credit for employers equal to 100 percent of qualified family leave wages paid under the Act.
• A refundable tax credit for employers equal to 100 percent of qualified paid sick leave wages paid under the Act. 
• The tax credits are taken on Form 941 – Employer’s Quarterly Federal Income Tax Return filed for the calendar quarter when the leave is taken and reduce the employer’s portion of the Social Security taxes due. If the credit exceeds the employer’s total liability for Social Security taxes for all employees for any calendar quarter, the excess credit is refundable to the employer.

For more information

We are here to help. Please contact our benefit plan consultants if you have any questions or would like to discuss your specific situation. 

Editor’s note: Read this if you are a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Risk Officer, Chief Information Officer, or Controller.

Last month, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued its Semiannual Risk Perspective for Fall 2019. The report addresses key issues facing banks and focuses on those that pose threats to their safety and soundness. According to the report:

• Bank financial performance is strong due to a favorable credit environment and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history.
• Capital levels have reached historical highs.
• Return on equity was above its 2006 pre-crisis level for the first time at 12.7%.
• Net income grew 8.22% from the same period a year ago; however, net interest income grew only 4%, as loan growth is below historical averages and an increasing number of banks are facing a flat or declining net interest margin.
• There is continued weakness in residential and commercial real estate loan growth.
• Delinquent and nonperforming loans remain below their long-term averages.

Banks can thrive even with economic uncertainty

While these trends indicate that 2019 was by and large an excellent year, banks cannot afford to be complacent, as 2019 also saw increasing risks to the industry. For instance, in 2019 there was much discussion of the future cessation of the London InterBank Offer Rate (LIBOR). The OCC has indicated it will increase its regulatory oversight regarding the anticipated cessation, to ensure banks assess their exposure to LIBOR and are appropriately planning their transition from the widely used benchmark rate. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is also working on a project to address accounting issues that could arise from the transition from LIBOR.

And, although 2019 continued the longest economic expansion in US history, economic uncertainty exists due to, in part, the US-China trade conflict and ongoing Brexit discussions. This economic uncertainty has caused volatility in the interest rate environment. Aside from the yield curve inverting in 2019, banks also saw the Federal Funds target rate increase 25 basis points prior to decreasing 50 basis points. Given the typically asset-sensitive nature of banks’ balance sheets, the current interest rate environment will also put pressure on net interest margins. The current volatility of interest rates has caused the OCC to conclude interest rate risk is currently at heightened levels. 

Net interest income continues to be the most significant driver of net revenues for community banks, comprising nearly 80% of net revenues. With a difficult interest rate environment and lackluster loan growth in residential and commercial real estate, banks may face a difficult path ahead. Banks should tread cautiously, especially if this uncertainty persists. Asset-liability management will need be a significant focus (more than usual) as banks try to position themselves to not only maintain profitability through this uncertainty, but also come out stronger than before. Specifically, if lower rates persist, asset growth will need be a priority over deposit growth to maintain profitability at lower net interest margins. If loan growth continues to wane, this will prove to be difficult.

Innovations to compete with new lending sources

Adding to the list of threats to performance is the increasing amount of alternative financial resources available to borrowers. Banks have traditionally been the only source of credit for borrowers. However, technology has rapidly changed that landscape. Person-to-person (P2P) lending (also known as crowd lending, or social lending), allows people to borrow funds directly from another person, cutting out traditional lending sources (banks). Additionally, blockchain technology, if the hype is accurate, has the potential to eliminate the need of a financial intermediary altogether. 

Banks are adapting to this competition and to customers looking for more convenience and alternative services by offering new, unique services that differentiate themselves from others and provide added value to the customer. Banks have delivered through remote deposit, ATMs, and interactive teller machines (ITMs). Banks will need to continue to adopt innovative services to remain competitive. 

For instance, banks could offer video conferencing services, in which customers could have a live conversation with a bank representative through their smartphone. This convenience would allow a customer to conduct a transaction, such as apply for a loan, from the convenience of their home, while still maintaining human interaction throughout the transaction. Such a service would help banks compete with digital channels offered by non-banks, such as Quicken Loans, which is now the largest mortgage originator in the United States.

Strategies to protect against technological risks

These services all require the use of existing and new technologies, which have caused banks to hold more personally identifiable information (PII) digitally across an increasing number of digital platforms. As noted by the OCC, this digital exposure has created persistent cybersecurity risks for banks. Adopting a robust cybersecurity framework is no longer an option. 

Banks should bring cybersecurity to the forefront of their strategic planning. Any strategic plan must consider cybersecurity implications, as a single disaster can be detrimental to a bank’s reputation. And, given this rapidly changing environment, the cybersecurity conversation must be ongoing through relevant bank committees and the board of directors.

Furthermore, these technological solutions require partnerships with businesses that banks would not traditionally partner with. Financial technology (fintech) companies don’t just pose as a competitor to traditional banks. Many fintech companies are offering their technological solutions to traditional banks. However, outsourcing technological solutions to fintech companies and other businesses does not relieve a bank from performing its own due diligence and ensuring those companies meet the bank’s standards. 

Banks should evaluate potential vendors to ensure they comply with the bank’s vendor management policy. Since environments are constantly changing, this evaluation should be ongoing. Many vendors now provide System and Organization Controls (SOC) reports which detail the control environment at the vendor and involve independent third-party testing of those controls that exist at the vendor. SOC reports can provide a useful starting point for evaluating a vendor’s ongoing compliance with the bank’s vendor management policy. However, it is not a substitute for ongoing communication with a vendor.

There is no doubt 2019 was a successful year for banks. But past performance is not a guarantee of future success. Banks face many challenges, risks, and uncertainties, of which only a few have been outlined above. The current landscape may be challenging but it is also filled with opportunity. Banks should consider expanding their services, adopting new technologies, and partnering with other companies to leverage their strengths. Doing so should help position themselves for an exciting decade ahead.

If you have specific concerns about challenges facing your institution, please contact the team. 

The IRS announced plans to conduct examinations of the universal availability requirements for 403(b) plans (Plans) this summer. Noncompliance with these requirements results in operational errors for Plans―ultimately requiring correction. Plan sponsors should review their Plans for proper inclusion and exclusion of employees. Such review can help you avoid costly penalties if the IRS does conduct an examination and uncovers an issue with the Plan’s implementation of universal availability.

Universal availability requires that, if you permit one employee to make elective deferrals into a 403(b) plan, then all other employees must receive the same opportunity. There are a few exceptions to this rule. Plan sponsors may exclude employees who meet one of the following exceptions:

• Employees who will contribute $200 annually or less
• Employees eligible to participate in a § 401(k), 457(b), or other 403(b) plan of the same employer
• Employees who normally work less than 20 hours per week (the equivalent of less than 1,000 hours in a year)
• Students performing services described in Internal Revenue Code § 3121(b)(10)

Of these exceptions, errors in applying the universal availability requirements are typically found with the less than 20 hours per week exception. Even if an employee works less than 20 hours per week (essentially a part-time employee), if this employee works 1,000 hours or more, you must allow this employee to make elective deferrals into the Plan. Further, you can’t revoke this permission in subsequent years―once the employee meets the 1,000 hour requirement, they are no longer included in the less than 20 hours per week employee class.

We recommend Plan sponsors review their Plan documents to ensure they are appropriately applying elected eligibility provisions. Further, we recommend Plan sponsors annually review an employee census to ensure those exceptions (listed above) remain appropriate for any employees excluded from the Plan. For instance, if you note that an employee worked 1,000 hours during the year, who was being excluded as part of the “less than 20 hours per week” category, you should ensure you notify this employee of their eligibility to participate in the Plan. In addition, you should retain documentation regarding the employee’s deferral election or election to opt out of the Plan. Such practices will help ensure, if your Plan is selected for IRS examination, it passes with no issues.

For more information: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/403b-plan-fix-it-guide-you-didnt-give-all-employees-of-the-organization-the-opportunity-to-make-a-salary-deferral
 

LIBOR is leaving—is your financial institution ready to make the most of it?

In July 2017, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority announced the phasing out of the London Interbank Offered Rate, commonly known as LIBOR, by the end of 2021¹. With less than two years to go, US federal regulators are urging financial institutions to start assessing their LIBOR exposure and planning their transition. Here we offer some general impacts of the phasing out, some specific actions your institution can take to prepare, and, finally, background on how we got here (see Background at right).

How will the phase-out impact financial institutions?

The Federal Reserve estimates roughly $200 trillion in LIBOR-indexed notional value transactions in the cash and derivatives market². LIBOR is used to help price a variety of financial services products,  including $3.4 trillion in business loans and $1.3 trillion in consumer loans, as well as derivatives, swaps, and other credit instruments. Even excluding loans and financial instruments set to mature before 2021—estimated by the FDIC at 82% of the above $200 trillion—LIBOR exposure is still significant³.

A financial institution’s ability to lend money is largely dependent on the relative stability of its capital position, or lack thereof. For institutions with a significant amount of LIBOR-indexed assets and liabilities, that means less certainty in expected future cash flows and a less stable capital position, which could prompt institutions to deny loans they might otherwise have approved. A change in expected cash flows could also have several indirect consequences. Criticized assets, assessed for impairment based on their expected future cash flows, could require a specific reserve due to lower present value of expected future cash flows.

The importance of fallback language in loan agreements

Fallback language in loan agreements plays a pivotal role in financial institutions’ ability to manage their LIBOR-related financial results. Most loan agreements include language that provides guidance for determining an alternate reference rate to “fall back” on in the event the loan’s original reference rate is discontinued. However, if this language is non-existent, contains fallbacks that are no longer adequate, or lacks certain key provisions, it can create unexpected issues when it comes time for financial institutions to reprice their LIBOR loans. Here are some examples:

• Non-existent or inadequate fallbacks
  According to the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, a group of private-market participants convened by the Federal Reserve to help ensure a successful LIBOR transition, "Most contracts referencing LIBOR do not appear to have envisioned a permanent or indefinite cessation of LIBOR and have fallbacks that would not be economically appropriate"⁴.
  
  For instance, industry regulators have warned that without updated fallback language, the discontinuation of LIBOR could prompt some variable-rate loans to become fixed-rate², causing unanticipated changes in interest rate risk for financial institutions. In a declining rate environment, this may prove beneficial as loans at variable rates become fixed. But in a rising rate environment, the resulting shrink in net interest margins would have a direct and adverse impact on the bottom line.

• No spread adjustment
  Once LIBOR is discontinued, LIBOR-indexed loans will need to be repriced at a new reference rate, which could be well above or below LIBOR. If loan agreements don’t provide for an adjustment of the spread between LIBOR and the new rate, that could prompt unexpected changes in the financial position of both borrowers and lenders³. Take, for instance, a loan made at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR), generally considered the likely replacement for USD LIBOR. Since SOFR tends to be lower than three-month LIBOR, a loan agreement using it that does not allow for a spread adjustment would generate lower loan payments for the borrower, which means less interest income for the lender.
  
  Not allowing for a spread adjustment on reference rates lower than LIBOR could also cause a change in expected prepayments—say, for instance, if borrowers with fixed-rate loans decide to refinance at adjustable rates—which would impact post-CECL allowance calculations like the weighted-average remaining maturity (WARM) method, which uses estimated prepayments as an input.

What can your financial institution do to prepare?

The Federal Reserve and the SEC have urged financial institutions to immediately evaluate their LIBOR exposure and expedite their transition. Though the FDIC has expressed no intent to examine financial institutions for the status of LIBOR planning or critique loans based on use of LIBOR³, Federal Reserve supervisory teams have been including LIBOR transitions in their regular monitoring of large financial institutions⁵. The SEC has also encouraged companies to provide investors with robust disclosures regarding their LIBOR transition, which may include a notional value of LIBOR exposure².

Financial institutions should start by analyzing their LIBOR exposure beyond 2021. If you don’t expect significant exposure, further analysis may be unnecessary. However, if you do expect significant future LIBOR exposure, your institution should conduct stress testing using LIBOR as an isolated variable by running hypothetical transition scenarios and assessing the potential financial impact.

Closely examine and assess fallback language in loan agreements. For existing loan agreements, you may need to make amendments, which could require consent from counterparties². For new loan agreements maturing beyond 2021, lenders should consider selecting an alternate reference rate. New contract language for financial instruments and residential mortgages is currently being drafted by the International Securities Dealers Association and the Federal Housing Finance Authority, respectively³—both of which may prove helpful in updating loan agreements.

Lenders should also consider their underwriting policies. Loan underwriters will need to adjust the spread on new loans to accurately reflect the price of risk, because volatility and market tendencies of alternate loan reference rates may not mirror LIBOR’s. What’s more, SOFR lacks abundant historical data for use in analyzing volatility and market tendencies, making accurate loan pricing more difficult.

Conclusion: Start assessing your LIBOR risk soon

The cessation of LIBOR brings challenges and opportunities that will require in-depth analysis and making difficult decisions. Financial institutions and consumers should heed the advice of regulators and start assessing their LIBOR risk now. Those that do will not only be better prepared―but also better positioned―to capitalize on the opportunities it presents.

Need help assessing your LIBOR risk and preparing to transition? Contact BerryDunn’s financial services specialists.

¹ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2017/07/27/acdd411c-72bc-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?utm_term=.856137e72385
² Thomson Reuters Checkpoint Newsstand April 10, 2019
³ https://www.fdic.gov/regulations/examinations/supervisory/insights/siwin18/si-winter-2018.pdf
^{4 https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2019/04/libor-transition-panel-recommends-fallback-language-for-key-instruments/
5} https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-libor/fed-urges-u-s-financial-industry-to-accelerate-libor-transition-idUSKCN1RM25T

In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.

A brief definition

The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.

Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.

Why does it matter? Audit quality.

First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.

These questions not only help the auditor appropriately apply professional standards, but also help the auditor gain a deeper understanding of your business. This will enable the auditor to provide insights and value-added services an auditor who doesn’t apply the right degree of skepticism may never identify.

Therefore, as the white paper notes, audit committees, management, and investors should be asking “How hard do our auditors get pushed on fees, and what effect does that have on the quality of the audit?” If your auditor is overly concerned with completing the audit within a fixed time budget, professional skepticism and, ultimately, the quality of the audit, may suffer.

Applying skepticism internally

By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.

However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.

Specific to the financial statement reporting function, these stakeholders should be assessing the financial statements and ask questions that can help prevent or detect flaws in the financial reporting process. For example, when considering significant estimates, management should ask: are we considering all relevant information? Are our estimates unbiased? Are there alternative accounting treatments we haven’t considered? Can we justify our selected accounting treatment? Essentially, management should start by asking itself: what questions would we expect our auditor to ask us?

It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.

The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate. Although it receives a lot of attention in the audit profession, it is a concept that, slightly altered, can be of value to other audit stakeholders. Doing so will help you create a stronger relationship with your auditor and, ultimately, improve the quality of the financial reporting process—and resulting outcome.