Number of P2P firms producing audited statutory accounts
Feb 10, 2020 21:07:00 GMT
via mobile
09dolphin likes this
Post by MT on Feb 10, 2020 21:07:00 GMT
This may not be of interest to anyone else, but I was intrigued to look into what proportion of UK based P2P platforms produced audited statutory accounts.
Of the 33 UK P2P platforms I looked at, only 11 were audited. Of those, six were audited by one of the big six audit firms, with the remaining five audited by smaller practices.
PWC and EY have the biggest clientele, auditing Funding Circle/Zopa and RateSetter/Kuflink respectively.
If anyone wants to see the full list, let me know and I'll post or message you the link.
My personal views are that a greater level of oversight would be welcomed in the P2P market to improve investor confidence.
Admittedly auditors can get it wrong (e.g. Lendys auditors signed off accounts prepared on a going concern basis just months before Lendys collapse), but my view is that some kind of independent third party oversight is better than nothing.
I wonder whether there would be some benefit in lowering the bar of when a statutory audit is required for firms who accept client investments.
Alternatively, perhaps some kind of mandatory agreed upon procedures specific to P2P firms such as a review of the robustness of the credit underwriting function.
I can see a key argument against either option would be that the cost involved for small growing companies may be seen as too high or unnecessary, though my counterargument would be that higher barriers to entry into the market would not necessarily be a bad thing if it improves investor confidence.
Intrigued to hear others thoughts.
Of the 33 UK P2P platforms I looked at, only 11 were audited. Of those, six were audited by one of the big six audit firms, with the remaining five audited by smaller practices.
PWC and EY have the biggest clientele, auditing Funding Circle/Zopa and RateSetter/Kuflink respectively.
If anyone wants to see the full list, let me know and I'll post or message you the link.
My personal views are that a greater level of oversight would be welcomed in the P2P market to improve investor confidence.
Admittedly auditors can get it wrong (e.g. Lendys auditors signed off accounts prepared on a going concern basis just months before Lendys collapse), but my view is that some kind of independent third party oversight is better than nothing.
I wonder whether there would be some benefit in lowering the bar of when a statutory audit is required for firms who accept client investments.
Alternatively, perhaps some kind of mandatory agreed upon procedures specific to P2P firms such as a review of the robustness of the credit underwriting function.
I can see a key argument against either option would be that the cost involved for small growing companies may be seen as too high or unnecessary, though my counterargument would be that higher barriers to entry into the market would not necessarily be a bad thing if it improves investor confidence.
Intrigued to hear others thoughts.
