Look east for accounting’s next big thing

The Anglo-dominated accounting industry could soon have a Chinese flavour.

The emergence of Chinese banks is well documented but soon it will be the country’s accounting firms that rise to global prominence.

China’s accounting firms are being forced to localise in a move designed to end foreign control. This will largely affect what is known in the industry as the ‘Big Four’ – PwC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG – who are led and largely controlled by expatriates and foreign partners.

The Ministry of Finance (MoF) has just released rules requiring all accounting firms to localise by August. This means they must be led by local citizens and ensure the proportion of foreign partners does not exceed 40 per cent. By 2017, this drops to 20 per cent.

The rules are designed to place control of the largest firms into the hands of Chinese and ensure voting rights are dominated by locally-qualified accountants.

The ‘localisation’ of the Big Four has been widely anticipated and the timeline provided is more generous than many experts predicted.

It’s an important step in the rise of China’s accounting industry because the Big Four are the last great bastion of foreign-managed firms, with market-leader PwC approximately 3.5 times the size of China’s largest domestic firm.

Number Two

This year, China will eclipse the UK as the second largest accounting industry by headcount. In 2007, the UK’s leading 40 firms had 30,000 more accountants than China but in 2011 the difference was only 5,400, according to the International Accounting Bulletin, a publication that analyses accounting markets.

And, China’s workforce has grown by 166 per cent in the past five years compared with 113 per cent in the UK.

The Big Four and Grant Thornton are still bigger in the UK but their Chinese counterparts are catching up quickly. BDO, RSM International, Baker Tilly International, PKF International and Nexia International already have larger Chinese workforces.

Chinese ‘super firms’

The government’s plan for its accounting industry is to produce Chinese ‘super firms’ that can compete head-on with the PwCs and Deloittes of this world. These firms are to become ‘homegrown’ global advisers to Chinese companies expanding abroad.

To do this, the MoF has ‘encouraged’ large Chinese firms to aggressively grow via M&A with like-minded firms, which has led to a flurry of consolidation in the past three years.

The MoF is encouraging Chinese firms to partner with global ‘mid-tier’ accounting networks outside of the Big Four, such as BDO, Grant Thornton and RSM. The aim is that these global networks will help Chinese firms develop audit methodologies and international skills in accounting and auditing. In return, the networks gain a strong Chinese firm for the referral of work in and out of one of the most important economies.

This has led to China becoming one of the least concentrated accounting markets. If you take the largest 40 firms in China, the Big Four earn 59 per cent of market revenue. In the US, the Big Four earns 81 per cent and globally their share is 70 per cent.

It is conceivable that the next 10-20 years, the global accounting industry could revert back to a Big Five or Big Six, with a couple of Chinese-backed players.

The traditionally Anglo-dominated accounting industry could soon have a Chinese flavour.

Arvind Hickman is the  editor of the International Accounting Bulletin.

Photograph: Getty Images

Arvind Hickman is the editor of the International Accounting Bulletin.

Getty
Show Hide image

MPs Seema Malhotra and Stephen Kinnock lay out a 6-point plan for Brexit:

Time for Theresa May to lay out her priorities and explain exactly what “Brexit means Brexit” really means.

Angela Merkel has called on Theresa May to “take her time” and “take a moment to identify Britain’s interests” before invoking Article 50. We know that is code for the “clock is ticking” and also that we hardly have any idea what the Prime Minister means by “Brexit means Brexit.”

We have no time to lose to seek to safeguard what is best in from our membership of the European Union. We also need to face some uncomfortable truths.

Yes, as remain campaigners we were incredibly disappointed by the result. However we also recognise the need to move forward with the strongest possible team to negotiate the best deal for Britain and maintain positive relationships with our nearest neighbours and allies. 
 
The first step will be to define what is meant by 'the best possible deal'. This needs to be a settlement that balances the economic imperative of access to the single market and access to skills with the political imperative to respond to the level of public opinion to reduce immigration from the EU. A significant proportion of people who voted Leave on 23 June did so due to concerns about immigration. We must now acknowledge the need to review and reform. 

We know that the single market is founded upon the so-called "four freedoms", namely the free movement of goods, capital, services and people & labour. As things stand, membership of the single market is on an all-or-nothing basis. 

We believe a focus for negotiations should be reforms to how the how the single market works. This should address how the movement of people and labour across the EU can exist alongside options for greater controls on immigration for EU states. 

We believe that there is an appetite for such reforms amongst a number of EU governments, and that it is essential for keeping public confidence in how well the EU is working.

So what should Britain’s priorities be? There are six vital principles that the three Cabinet Brexit Ministers should support now:

1. The UK should remain in the single market, to the greatest possible extent.

This is essential for our future prosperity as a country. A large proportion of the £17 billion of foreign direct investment that comes into the UK every year is linked to our tariff-free access to a market of 500 million consumers. 

Rather than seeking to strike a "package deal" across all four freedoms, we should instead sequence our approach, starting with an EU-wide review of the freedom of movement of people and labour. This review should explore whether the current system provides the right balance between consistency and flexibility for member states. Indeed, for the UK this should also address the issue of better registration of EU nationals in line with other nations and enforcement of existing rules. 

If we can secure a new EU-wide system for the movement of people and labour, we should then seek to retain full access to the free movement of goods, capital and services. This is not just in our interests, but in the interests of the EU. For other nation states to play hardball with Britain after we have grappled first with the complexity of the immigration debate would be to ignore rather than act early to address an issue that could eventually lead to the end of the EU as we know it.

2. In order to retain access to the single market we believe that it will be necessary to make a contribution to the EU budget.

Norway, not an EU member but with a high degree of access to the single market, makes approximately the same per capita contribution to the EU budget as the UK currently does. We must be realistic in our approach to this issue, and we insist that those who campaigned for Leave must now level with the British people. They must accept that if the British government wishes to retain access to the single market then it must make a contribution to the EU budget.

3. The UK should establish an immigration policy which is seen as fair, demonstrates that we remain a country that is open for business, and at the same time preventing unscrupulous firms from undercutting British workers by importing cheap foreign labour.  

We also need urgent confirmation that EU nationals who were settled here before the referendum as a minimum are guaranteed the right to remain, and that the same reassurance is urgently sought for Britons living in mainland Europe. The status of foreign students from the EU at our universities must be also be clarified and a strong message sent that they are welcomed and valued. 

4. The UK should protect its financial services industry, including passporting rights, vital to our national prosperity, while ensuring that the high standards of transparency and accountability agreed at an EU level are adhered to, alongside tough new rules against tax evasion and avoidance. In addition, our relationship with the European Investment Bank should continue. Industry should have the confidence that it is business as usual.

5. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s employment legislation. People were promised that workers’ rights would be protected in a post-Brexit Britain. We need to make sure that we do not have weaker employment legislation than the rest of Europe.

6. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s environmental legislation.

As with workers’ rights, we were promised that this too would be protected post-Brexit.  We must make sure we do not have weaker legislation on protecting the environment and combatting climate change. We must not become the weak link in Europe.

Finally, it is vital that the voice of Parliament and is heard, loud and clear. In a letter to the Prime Minister we called for new joint structures – a Special Parliamentary Committee - involving both Houses to be set up by October alongside the establishment of the new Brexit unit. There must be a clear role for opposition parties. It will be equally important to ensure that both Remain and Leave voices are represented and with clearly agreed advisory and scrutiny roles for parliament. Representation should be in the public domain, as with Select Committees.

However, it is also clear there will be a need for confidentiality, particularly when sensitive negotiating positions are being examined by the committee. 

We call for the establishment of a special vehicle – a Conference or National Convention to facilitate broader engagement of Parliament with MEPs, business organisations, the TUC, universities, elected Mayors, local government and devolved administrations. 

The UK’s exit from the EU has dominated the political and economic landscape since 23 June, and it will continue to do so for many years to come. It is essential that we enter into these negotiations with a clear plan. There can be no cutting of corners, and no half-baked proposals masquerading as "good old British pragmatism". 

The stakes are far too high for that.