Be protected from not protecting the others

We all learnt that many suffered from cases like Enron. We may feel sad for Andersen and we may feel that the consequence thereafter has been too much, too much for all accounting.

That is the fact of protecting investors. They trusted the auditors and their reports. Perhaps we can say that the auditors' charge had included the risks alongside with the responsibilities.

Now, according to "SEC accountant wants to limit liability", it is now the time to protect the auditors especially the remaining big four. Certainly, for big auditing firm, a mistake in a case should be counted for the whole organization. There should be many good auditors without such mistakes. I had said that there were many accountants in Andersen suffered greatly, especially those who had worked for couple of years. Without any mistakes, yet difficult to find another job for their age, the years of hard work to get the qualification and to build status in a big firm had been in vain. Time will not be recovered for them.

But, can we say that auditors should not be blamed for corporate fraud? If so, then can we trust the audited reports? Or, can it be a percentage of truth only because of limited liabilities?

We may have to consider what the meaning of audit. If we have to accept an auditor would not be responsible completely, then it is better not to have auditing at all. The difference in percentage will not help investors since either high or low percentage the risk is real.

This needs a better solution and much solid reasons to validate such claim as my title, "Be protected from not protecting the others".