Overview of the support and opposition
| Europe | Africa | Asia/Oceania | Americas | Worldwide | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panel A. Overall agreement with the new Part 10 | ||||||
| Number of comment letters that clearly supported the new Part 10 | 2 (3.3%) | 3 (5%) | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (1.6%) | 4 (6.6%) | 11 (18.3%) |
| Number of comment letters that partially supported the new Part 10 | 15(25%) | 4 (6.6%) | 7 (11.6%) | 5 (8.3%) | 8 (13.3%) | 39 (65.0%) |
| Number of comment letters that unilaterally opposed the new Part 10 | 3 (5.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (1.6%) | 8 (13.3%) |
| Number of comment letters that did not comment directly on the issue | 1 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1(1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) |
| Total | 21 (35%) | 7 (11.6%) | 10 (16.7%) | 9 (15%) | 13 (21.7%) | 60 (100%) |
| Panel B. View of the proposed prohibition on the use of the ISA for LCEs for group audits when component auditors are involved, other than in limited circumstances in which physical presence is required | ||||||
| Number of comment letters that clearly agreed with the proposed prohibition | 6 (10%) | 4 (6.6%) | 3 (5.0%) | 3 (5%) | 5 (8.3%) | 21 (35%) |
| Number of comment letters that in principle agreed with the proposed prohibition but required modifications | 5 (8.3%) | 1 (1.6%) | 3 (5.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) | 11 (18.3%) |
| Number of comment letters that disagreed with the proposed prohibition | 10 (16.7%) | 2 (3.3%) | 4 (6.6%) | 6 (10.0%) | 6 (10.0%) | 28 (46.7%) |
| Total | 21 (35%) | 7 (11.6%) | 10 (16.6%) | 9 (15%) | 13 (21.6%) | 60 (100.0%) |
| Europe | Africa | Asia/Oceania | Americas | Worldwide | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of comment letters that clearly supported the new Part 10 | 2 (3.3%) | 3 (5%) | 1 (1.6%) | 1 (1.6%) | 4 (6.6%) | 11 (18.3%) |
| Number of comment letters that partially supported the new Part 10 | 15(25%) | 4 (6.6%) | 7 (11.6%) | 5 (8.3%) | 8 (13.3%) | 39 (65.0%) |
| Number of comment letters that unilaterally opposed the new Part 10 | 3 (5.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) | 2 (3.3%) | 1 (1.6%) | 8 (13.3%) |
| Number of comment letters that did not comment directly on the issue | 1 (1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1(1.6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) |
| Total | 21 (35%) | 7 (11.6%) | 10 (16.7%) | 9 (15%) | 13 (21.7%) | 60 (100%) |
| Number of comment letters that clearly agreed with the proposed prohibition | 6 (10%) | 4 (6.6%) | 3 (5.0%) | 3 (5%) | 5 (8.3%) | 21 (35%) |
| Number of comment letters that in principle agreed with the proposed prohibition but required modifications | 5 (8.3%) | 1 (1.6%) | 3 (5.0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) | 11 (18.3%) |
| Number of comment letters that disagreed with the proposed prohibition | 10 (16.7%) | 2 (3.3%) | 4 (6.6%) | 6 (10.0%) | 6 (10.0%) | 28 (46.7%) |
| Total | 21 (35%) | 7 (11.6%) | 10 (16.6%) | 9 (15%) | 13 (21.6%) | 60 (100.0%) |
Source(s): Table by the authors
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.