archive-com.com » COM » E » EY.COM

Total: 2294

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • EY 2014 Global Consumer Insurance Survey - EY - Global
    providers and what matters most across the lifecycle Their answers provide something of a roadmap for insurers seeking competitive advantage through stronger relationships and optimized cross channel experiences 14 Customers very satisfied with current outbound communications from insurers 38 Customers who are insurance company advocates who close policies or switch providers 44 Customers who have had no interactions with their insurers during the last 18 months 80 Customers willing to use digital and remote channel options for different tasks and transactions Key findings from the survey 1 High turnover and low trust signal serious relationship issues Insurers are less trusted than banks supermarkets car manufacturers and online shopping sites The survey results also reveal that far more insurance consumers actually switch insurers than express an intention to switch an almost unprecedented finding in market research 2 Just because they leave you doesn t mean they don t love you Traditional notions of loyalty and advocacy don t necessarily apply to insurance consumers Advocates are not necessarily loyal meaning that likelihood to recommend metrics are largely irrelevant That alumni consumers may be open to purchasing new policies in the future underscores the need for deeper more detailed customer intelligence across segments 3 Insurers have so few interactions with their customers that each one becomes a critical moment of truth Consumers have so few interactions with their insurers that even the simplest administrative tasks can become a moment of truth that shift the perception of insurers or brokers in the consumers minds How insurers perform in these instances can lead directly to coverage increases and new policy sales 4 Consumers want more frequent meaningful and personalized communications A full 57 of global insurance consumers across all product types prefer to hear from their providers at least semi annually Today only 47 receive that level of contact In an era when many consumers feel bombarded by push communications and suffer from information overload it is particularly interesting for survey respondents to express a desire for more communications 5 As consumers embrace digital insurers must rethink their distribution strategies and partner relationships While consumers still gravitate toward traditional contact methods digital and remote options are fast reaching parity for a range of tasks and inquiries No matter their precise distribution strategy and service models insurers need to offer consumers the right mix of channels to maintain healthy relationships and prepare to manage the potential channel conflict that is likely to result Regional report highlights Americas Consumers within Latin American developing markets report higher levels of complete and moderate trust of insurers 81 than North American customers 65 Two thirds of global customers say they are likely or very likely to recommend their current insurance provider however 38 of that group has closed policies or switched providers during the past 18 months Only one in six 17 across the Americas are very satisfied with the communications they receive from their insurers today 2014 Americas consumer insurance survey Asia Pacific Consumers in developing markets appear to

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Industries/Financial-Services/Insurance/ey-2014-global-customer-insurance-survey (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive


  • EY - EU audit legislation - Landing page - EY - Global
    Tax Advisory Global Trade Global Compliance and Reporting Human Capital Private Client Services Law Tax Accounting Tax Performance Advisory Tax Policy and Controversy Transaction Tax VAT GST and Other Sales Taxes Transfer Pricing and Operating Model Effectiveness Strategic Growth Markets How we help Entrepreneurship EY SGM Initial public offering Venture capital Family business services Transactions About Transaction Advisory Services Corporate Development Divestiture Advisory Services Lead Advisory Operational Transaction Services Restructuring Strategy Services Transaction Support Transaction Tax Valuation Business Modelling Specialty Services Climate Change and Sustainability Services CertifyPoint China Overseas Investment Network Family Business Services French Business Network Global Business Network Japan Business Services Careers Students The EY difference Your role here Your development Life at EY Joining EY Global Delivery Network Experienced Advisory Assurance Tax Transactions Industries The EY difference Your development Life at EY Joining EY Global Delivery Network Alumni Home Insights EU audit legislation EU audit legislation Navigation Inside Understand the legislation The legislation The baseline EU PIE definition The Member States implementation FAQs Learn more Featured article EU mandatory audit rotation facing up to a new reality Share The European Union EU recently approved a new legislation which imposes among other things mandatory audit firm rotation as well as significant restrictions on non audit services to Public Interest Entities PIEs in the EU and European Economic Area EEA countries Multinational companies headquartered outside of the EU also need to be aware of the requirements as they may apply to some of their EU subsidiaries Complying with the legislation will be challenging and will require advance planning to minimize any potential business disruptions Companies need to act now to have an adequate set of options and scenarios to Comply with the regulation timeline Navigate through a more complex environment across the EU Member States Manage cost implications Revisit

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Governance-and-reporting/Public-policy/EY-eu-audit-legislation-landing-page (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EY - EU audit legislation - EU PIE definition - EY - Global
    audit legislation EU audit legislation Is my company covered by the baseline EU PIE definition Navigation Inside Understand the legislation The legislation The baseline EU PIE definition The Member States implementation FAQs Learn more Share Click on the questions below for further explanation Where are you governed and where are your securities issued and admitted a Are you governed by the law of an EU Member State References to companies that are governed by the law of a Member State are understood to mean companies that are legally incorporated in that Member State In some civil law regimes domestic provisions mean that corporate law applies to companies that have their operational headquarters in that country even though that company is incorporated elsewhere Any company to which such a provision applied would also be regarded as governed by the laws of that Member State Note that some uncertainty remains around the meaning of governed by the law The interpretation above should be treated as draft and will be updated as more information becomes available b Have you issued transferable securities Transferable securities are classes of securities that are negotiable on the capital market with the exception of instruments of payment For a definition see Appendix 1 c Are the transferable securities admit regulated marketed to trading on a in an EU Member State Regulated markets are defined in point 14 of Article 4 1 of Markets in Financial Instruments Directive MiFID Not all markets in the EU fall within this definition For a definition and a list of Regulated Markets see Appendix 2 If the answer to a b and c is yes you are an EU PIE If the answer to any of a b or c is no go to the next question Are you a credit institution A credit institution is an undertaking the business of which is to take deposits or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account Note that the EU audit legislation excludes from the EU PIE definition certain credit institutions For a list and definition see Appendix 3 If yes you are an EU PIE If no go to the next question Are you an insurance undertaking An insurance undertaking includes Direct insurers Life insurers Undertakings carrying on reinsurance business Insurance broking is not within the definition but a group captive insurer would be if it was established in the EU For a definition see Appendix 4 If yes you are an EU PIE If no go to EU Member States Even if the answer to any of the questions in this section is no you could still be a PIE depending on how the Member State in which you are located has implemented the EU PIE definition See EU Member States Considerations for branches and funds As explained above credit institutions and insurance undertakings in the EU are PIEs Where an EU credit institution or an EU insurance undertaking has branches anywhere inside the EU the

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Governance-and-reporting/Public-policy/EY-eu-audit-legislation-EU-PIE-definition (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EY - EU audit legislation - Member States PIE definitions - EY - Global
    No Add to NAS restrictions white list Possible Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation No Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion with 2014 Directive No Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Germany Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Yes not banks or insurance Permit MFR extension if joint audit No Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 7 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist No Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Yes Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion with 2014 Directive No Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Greece Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 5 for SIFIs Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Possible Permit MFR extension if joint audit Possible Joint audit mandatory Possible Key Audit Partner rotation period 4 or 5 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Possible Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Possible Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel Unclear PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion with 2014 Directive Possible Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Hungary Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 5 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender No Permit MFR extension if joint audit Possible Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 5 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Possible Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Possible Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion with 2014 Directive Possible Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Iceland EEA Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 TBC Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Unclear Permit MFR extension if joint audit Possible Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 7 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Possible Add to NAS restrictions white list Unclear Issues with the Cap Unclear Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Unclear Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel Unclear PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Yes Further expansion with 2014 Directive Possible Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Ireland Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Possible Permit MFR extension if joint audit Possible Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 5 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Possible Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Possible Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion with 2014 Directive Possible Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Italy Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 9 Maximum initial duration period years 9 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Unlikely Permit MFR extension if joint audit No Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 7 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist No Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap Possible Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Possible Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel Yes PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Yes Further expansion with 2014 Directive No Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Latvia Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Yes Permit MFR extension if joint audit No Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 7 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist No Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Possible Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Yes Further expansion with 2014 Directive Possible Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Liechtenstein Liechtenstein EEA Has reduced the scope of the 2006 EU PIE definition to Entities whose securities are traded on a regulated market in an EEA Member State Lithuania Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Yes Permit MFR extension if joint audit Yes Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 5 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Yes Add to NAS restrictions white list Possible Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Possible Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Yes Further expansion with 2014 Directive No Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Luxembourg Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Yes Permit MFR extension if joint audit No Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 7 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist No Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Yes Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion with 2014 Directive No Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition Malta Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Yes Permit MFR extension if joint audit No Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 7 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist No Add to NAS restrictions white list No Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Yes Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel Yes PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Yes Further expansion with 2014 Directive No Note Information as of 7 January 2016 Firm and partner rotation Maximum initial duration period Member States may adopt an initial engagement period that is shorter than 10 years Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender Member States may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 10 years following a competitive tender Permit MFR extension if joint audit Member State may allow an extension of the initial engagement period by up to 14 years where there is a joint audit Joint audit mandatory Joint audit is the expression commonly used to refer to the appointment of more than one statutory auditor or audit firm by the PIE The appointed auditors present a joint audit report to the audited entity and bear the full responsibility for the audit Key Audit Partner rotation period New firm rotation requirements does not replace the need to rotate audit partners There is still a requirement for key audit partners to rotate after a maximum of 7 years followed by a 3 year cooling off period Member States have the option to elect shorter partner rotation periods Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Member States have the possibility of prohibiting more non audit services than those in the black list if the services represent a threat to independence Add to NAS restrictions white list Member States may regulate those services that are still permitted i e by introducing a formal white list of permitted services Issues with the Cap Member States may establish stricter rules for the cap Permit Tax and valuation services derogation Member States can chose to derogate from the list of prohibited NAS to allow the provision of certain tax and valuation services when these services are immaterial or have no direct effect separately or in aggregate on the audited financial statements Legal Services interpretation will be narrow i e Just role of General Counsel Reflects if Member States have a narrow definition of what is meant by General Counsel i e the provision of a General Counsel rather than the provision of general legal advice PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive Identifies if Member States decided to expand the original PIE definition in 2008 Member States had the option to designate other entities as PIEs for instance undertakings that are of significant public relevance because of the nature of their business their size or the number of their employees Further expansion with 2014 Directive Identifies to what extent Member States are going to modify their decision made in 2008 on the original PIE definition The Netherlands Member State implementation click here for details about the Member States options Firm and Partner Rotation Minimum initial engagement period years 1 Maximum initial duration period years 10 Permit mandatory firm rotation MFR extension if tender No Permit MFR extension if joint audit No Joint audit mandatory No Key Audit Partner rotation period 5 Non audit services NAS Add to NAS blacklist Yes Add to NAS restrictions white list Yes Issues with the Cap No Permit Tax and valuation services derogation No Legal Services interpretation will be narrow ie Just role of General Counsel No PIEs Expanded definition in 2006 Directive No Further expansion

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Governance-and-reporting/Public-policy/EY-eu-audit-legislation-member-states-PIE-definitions (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EY - EU audit legislation - Frequently asked questions - EY - Global
    Whom will the legislation affect A The legislation comprises a Directive amending the Statutory Audit Directive of 2006 applies to all statutory audits across the EU and a separate Regulation which applies additional requirements for the audits of EU PIEs These are defined as Entities governed by the laws of a Member State whose securities shares or debt are listed on a regulated market in the EU Credit institutions Insurance companies Note that a Member State may expand the definition of a PIE A The legislation applies to all statutory audits performed in the EU with additional requirements for the statutory audits of EU PIEs The legislation also applies to EU PIE subsidiaries of companies headquartered outside the EU All companies with EU operations wherever headquartered will have to establish whether they are an EU PIE or have an EU PIE in their group For help on how to determine if you are a PIE see our guide EU audit legislation Understanding the legislation and how it will affect you Q When will the new legislation come into effect Q What are the periods for mandatory rotation of auditors A EU Member States have until 16 June 2016 to implement the Directive into their national laws and decide which of a number of options in the Regulation they wish to adopt Longer transitional provisions are provided for mandatory rotation of auditors A Auditors may be appointed for an initial term of up to 10 years maximum Member States may extend this period to a maximum of 20 years if a tender process is conducted at the end of the initial term Member States may extend the initial term up to a maximum of 24 years if there is a joint audit Member States have a range of options at their disposal An understanding as to how Member States have adopted these options is essential in applying the legislation Q What date must be taken into account to calculate the length of the audit engagement Q What are the limitations on non audit services NAS A For a company that becomes a PIE e g through an IPO the audit relationship will be measured from the date of listing For a company that already meets the definition of a PIE the audit relationship will be measured from the date of initial appointment as auditor For takeovers mergers between groups the mandate of the auditors to the acquiring company will normally dictate the length of the relationship However legal advice will be essential A The legislation introduces significant new restrictions on the types of NAS a PIE can obtain from its auditor Member States have the option to add to the list of prohibited services and may also regulate those services that are still permitted NAS are limited to 70 of a PIE s average audit fees over the last three years Member States may elect to be more restrictive For the list of prohibited NAS see Article 5 1 of the

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Governance-and-reporting/Public-policy/EY-eu-audit-legislation-frequently-asked-questions (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EY - EU audit legislation - Learn more - EY - Global
    Services Tax About Our Global Tax Services Country Tax Advisory Cross Border Tax Advisory Global Trade Global Compliance and Reporting Human Capital Private Client Services Law Tax Accounting Tax Performance Advisory Tax Policy and Controversy Transaction Tax VAT GST and Other Sales Taxes Transfer Pricing and Operating Model Effectiveness Strategic Growth Markets How we help Entrepreneurship EY SGM Initial public offering Venture capital Family business services Transactions About Transaction Advisory Services Corporate Development Divestiture Advisory Services Lead Advisory Operational Transaction Services Restructuring Strategy Services Transaction Support Transaction Tax Valuation Business Modelling Specialty Services Climate Change and Sustainability Services CertifyPoint China Overseas Investment Network Family Business Services French Business Network Global Business Network Japan Business Services Careers Students The EY difference Your role here Your development Life at EY Joining EY Global Delivery Network Experienced Advisory Assurance Tax Transactions Industries The EY difference Your development Life at EY Joining EY Global Delivery Network Alumni Home Insights EU audit legislation EU audit legislation Learn more Navigation Inside Understand the legislation The legislation The baseline EU PIE definition The Member States implementation FAQs Learn more Share Find more information about EU audit legislation in the reports below Case study When strong relationships help address new regulation and improve company performance Learn how a leading global provider of office workspace overcomes the challenges it faced when implementing the new EU audit legislation FAQs 7 April 2015 Learn more about the EU audit legislation with this extended FAQs document helping you to understand the new requirements and how your company may be affected EU mandatory audit rotation facing up to a new reality As companies across the EU get ready for new audit legislation EY Netherlands Partner Auke de Bos draws on his experiences of Dutch audit rotation legislation to provide advice for audit committees

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Governance-and-reporting/Public-policy/EY-eu-audit-legislation-learn-more-new (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EY - Eurozone Forecast: Economic highlights - EY - Global
    Country Tax Advisory Cross Border Tax Advisory Global Trade Global Compliance and Reporting Human Capital Private Client Services Law Tax Accounting Tax Performance Advisory Tax Policy and Controversy Transaction Tax VAT GST and Other Sales Taxes Transfer Pricing and Operating Model Effectiveness Strategic Growth Markets How we help Entrepreneurship EY SGM Initial public offering Venture capital Family business services Transactions About Transaction Advisory Services Corporate Development Divestiture Advisory Services Lead Advisory Operational Transaction Services Restructuring Strategy Services Transaction Support Transaction Tax Valuation Business Modelling Specialty Services Climate Change and Sustainability Services CertifyPoint China Overseas Investment Network Family Business Services French Business Network Global Business Network Japan Business Services Careers Students The EY difference Your role here Your development Life at EY Joining EY Global Delivery Network Experienced Advisory Assurance Tax Transactions Industries The EY difference Your development Life at EY Joining EY Global Delivery Network Alumni Home Insights A broadening recovery points to a brighter future EY Eurozone Forecast December 2015 A broadening recovery points to a brighter future Inside Eurozone Forecast home Economic highlights Financial services forecast Compare economic data News and comments About the Eurozone Forecast Contacts and registration Share Heading into 2016 the Eurozone recovery is becoming broader based and more self sustaining After initially being led by consumer spending in 2014 15 conditions are now right for the rebound in capital investment that should underpin a steady if unspectacular recovery into the medium term We expect GDP growth of 1 5 in 2015 before it picks up to 1 8 in 2016 and 2017 Growing exports and rebounding domestic demand mean that capacity constraints are emerging in a number of sectors Alongside better access to credit and low interest rates for the foreseeable future this is driving increased loan demand We expect total fixed investment to grow 2 4 in 2016 the fastest rate since 2007 accelerating to 3 1 in 2017 In 2018 19 capital investment should grow by around 2 5 a year This is somewhat slower than in the decade to 2007 but because much of the capital accumulation that took place in this period was in housing a slower rate of investment growth need not necessarily mean slower potential growth As firms expand their capital stock workers will benefit from additional labor demand and increased productivity Both will support wage growth from 2016 onwards and although the temporary boost from lower energy prices will fade consumption growth should remain robust We expect consumer spending to grow 1 7 in 2015 and 1 6 in 2016 Over the medium term we expect spending growth of around 1 4 a year Additional capital investment should also complement the reforms to enhance competitiveness that have boosted exports from some Eurozone economies in recent years But the slowdown in emerging markets will have an impact upon export prospects So despite a more favorable exchange rate aided by an extension of asset purchases by the European Central Bank ECB as the path for price growth remains worryingly

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/eurozone-forecast (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive

  • EY Eurozone Financial Services Forecast - EY - Global
    As the industry reshapes the bigger and more robust players will survive but they are now beginning a journey of transformation that will see them looking significantly different in the future In order to address the ongoing issues around profitability operational efficiency customer experience service and trust we expect them to embrace financial technology FinTech Banks will continue to drive innovation in payments customer experience and omnichannel models by integrating web mobile apps phone and face to face to engage and serve customers better and more responsively than ever before For wealth asset management businesses the rise of robo advisor technology will change product distribution advice and portfolio management with increasing use of exchange traded funds The impact this has will be seen to varying levels in both the mass market and in the high net worth segment Insurers will capitalize on technologies such as wearable connected devices telematics and driverless cars to transform their offerings While big data will challenge the historic notion of risk pooling with ever more granular risk data and rating variables opening up the opportunity for innovation in product design and community of interest based segmentation Moving forward the increasingly pervasive nature of technology will break down the traditional boundaries between Financial Services and other industries as new players move in from adjacent and ancillary sectors Online retail and payments services will meld into banking Insurance and health care will converge around wearable sensors and comparison sites will migrate from price comparison to automated algorithm driven apps to guide consumers selection of a diverse range of financial products As the regulatory and fiscal storm begins to subside some might have expected that the pace of change in the Eurozone Financial Services industry would do the same In fact the relative stability in the macro economy with such low growth and returns rates is fueling a new wave of FinTech inspired innovation and investment and so the real reshaping of the landscape post crisis may be only just beginning EY Eurozone forecast outlook for financial services Autumn 2015 Highlights from the final EY Eurozone forecast outlook for financial services Autumn 2015 Our autumn 2015 outlook for financial services sees firms responding to better export and consumer demand to increase capital spending Boosting GDP growth to 1 8 in 2016 marking a high point of recovery Growth will then begin to ease as the boosts from lower energy prices and a weaker euro fade Banking outlook Our economic outlook highlights how easing credit conditions and a return to growth in new lending to non financial businesses are positive for the Eurozone economy enhanced still further by the prospect of net loan growth rising for the first time this year Read the full banking viewpoint from Marie Laure Delarue EMEIA Banking Capital Markets Leader Marie Laure Delarue EMEIA Banking Capital Markets Leader Cautious Optimism In Q3 530b was wiped off global equity market capitalisation however our outlook highlights how easing credit conditions and a return to growth in new lending to non financial businesses are positive for the Eurozone economy enhanced still further by the prospect of net loan growth rising for the first time this year However as Figure 1 shows the pace of the pick up in lending varies sharply between different countries And looking across Europe as a whole the recovery is still not embedded with overall EU GDP only set to return to pre crisis levels this year Add in the fact that there is still no sign of monetary tightening and it s clear that there s little scope for European banks to grow their revenues significantly Moreover even if Eurozone interest rates did rise faster than expected this would not necessarily translate directly into revenue growth for banks Higher structural costs This situation is made more problematic for the banks by the fact that their costs are structurally higher than pre crisis Given that the overall revenue pool in Europe is not really growing banks must either do more to optimise their business as well as seek out new and innovative ways to grow revenues by increasing their share of wallet These goals demand that they differentiate themselves more clearly in the marketplace and find new ways to drive efficency To do this growing numbers of banks are seeking to harness the power of financial technology FinTech in their business operating and customer engagement models And their approach to doing this is changing To date banks efforts to develop digital capabilities and offerings in house as well as their ability to monetise them have achieved only patchy success Success has been hampered by an inability to create and sustain a culture of entrepreneurialism and innovation internally Partnering to create new products and services This is driving banks to increasingly look at partnering with both FinTech developers and each other to develop new digital products and services Some banks are also setting up FinTech accelerator programmes to pinpoint the best opportunities to harness new digital technologies across the business However banks still face a challenge to integrate disruptive innovations with their existing systems and processes Success in applying FinTech into traditional banking models will be central to organisations ability to respond to the pressures of today s macro environment low interest rates low growth intensifying regulation as well compete with new agile technology driven competitors Insurance outlook With the low interest rate environment set to remain in place for the next two or three years investment yields will remain limited especially given that 70 to 80 of Continental European investments are in bonds At the same time insurers in some countries are facing a need to pay high guaranteed bonuses to policyholders putting further strains on their already depleted reserves Read the full insurance viewpoint from Andreas Freiling Insurance Leader Andreas Freiling EMEIA Insurance Leader Time to adapt In our Spring forecast we highlighted the challenges that Eurozone insurers are facing from low interest rates to rising regulation and both of these continue

    Original URL path: http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Business-environment/eurozone-fso (2016-02-10)
    Open archived version from archive



  •