Opening Remarks at the Investor Advisory Group Meeting

Remarks as prepared for delivery 

Good morning. Thank you for joining today’s meeting of the Investor Advisory Group.

Before I begin, while I am here today in my official capacity as a Board Member of the PCAOB, the views I express today are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the PCAOB, other PCAOB Board Members, or PCAOB staff. I also want to thank the PCAOB staff for their hard work organizing and participating in today’s IAG meeting.

I want to thank the IAG members whose terms expire at the end of this year: Alicia Damley, David Knutson, Steven Grey, Satyam Khanna, Jeffrey Mahoney, Amy Copeland McGarrity, Sandra Peters, Nemit Shroff, and Gary Walsh. Your expertise, preparation, and candor have strengthened this group and enriched the Board’s considerations.

Whether or not you seek another term, I hope you remain engaged. Your perspectives will undoubtedly remain important to us.

The IAG strengthens the Board’s work by bringing investors’ perspectives to our regulatory agenda, the auditing profession, emerging risks, and other oversight matters. Its candid, well-supported advice promotes rigorous debate and informs better decisions. Views that challenge assumptions and identify tradeoffs help us advance investor protection and the public interest.

More broadly, investor input is essential to sound regulation. We need to hear from investors about the information they rely on and the audit-related risks they see. Input from other stakeholders, including audit committees, auditors, preparers, academics, and other market participants, also provides important context. Together, these perspectives help us understand practical effects, identify unintended consequences, and evaluate whether an action will advance audit quality and investor protection.

That input supports sound economic analysis. The Board should define the problem, evaluate reasonable alternatives, and assess expected benefits, costs, implementation challenges, and unintended consequences. Not every effect can be quantified. Qualitative evidence and informed judgment also must be considered. A strong, well-developed record helps the Board decide whether an initiative is necessary, appropriately designed and properly calibrated.

Effective stakeholder engagement also requires full transparency. The Board should clearly explain the problem it seeks to solve, disclose the evidence and assumptions on which it relies, identify the alternatives it considered, and address the expected benefits, costs, and tradeoffs. Without that information, stakeholders cannot provide fully informed comments. A complete record lets stakeholders test our reasoning, offer contrary evidence, identify overlooked consequences, and propose better approaches. It also strengthens public confidence in the Board’s decisions.

I also thank Chairman Logothetis for volunteering to serve as the Board-appointed co-chair. His service provides continuity and reflects the Board’s commitment to the IAG’s work.

This arrangement provides a helpful bridge while the Board considers whether a different longer-term structure is needed. Any structure should seek to share responsibility appropriately and preserve the IAG’s independent voice. Members should feel free to test assumptions, raise concerns, offer different views, and propose agenda items – even when their views differ from those of either co-chair. That independence is essential. It ensures the IAG’s advice reflects its members’ judgment and best serves the Board.

Thank you for your service and for the seriousness you bring to this work. I look forward to a candid discussion today.