In the How Mandatory is Mandatory Auditor Rotation article, the Public

Company Accounting Oversight Board raised some important issues surrounding

auditor client relationships. Their concern for looking for ways on how to improve
auditor independence, objectivity, and professional skepticism are valid and
completely understandable. However, there does not seem to be enough examples
and key concerns for this concept as opposed to the arguments and points raised
against it.
As mentioned in the article, the main concern about the auditor client
relationship is a conflict of interest, especially when the audit client pays the
auditor, particularly during a long-term relationship (Pinnell, 14). Because of the
elongated relationship between the two as time goes on, the level of comfort may
compromise the needed objectivity involved. Furthermore, setting limits on auditor
client relationships could enable auditors to provide more transparency in the
auditing process (Pinnell, 14). These two points are mentioned as obvious benefits
for this particular point of view.
However, when compared to the areas of concern AGAINST the auditor client
rotation, there are far more arguments against this potential policy. During this
period, potential problems that could arise include how time-consuming the process
is, the extensive education required, losing out the efficiencies gained with
repetition and familiarity, conflicting judgements, and limited options. There
appears to be more potential problems that could arise than any actual benefits;
thus, are public accounting firms speaking out against this? What is the general
consensus and attitude towards this new policy? Most importantly, there must be a
way to determine whether or not mandatory auditor rotation will truly be productive
or detrimental.