The $1.8 trillion question: How to audit Chinese companies

DiDi is just the latest flashpoint in a long-running dispute between Chinese and American securities regulators over reviewing the work of auditors who scrutinize public-company financial statements.

The Hong Kong skyline

Hong Kong has long been a center of audit work for Greater China. American officials say they don't have access to audit firms' reports.

Photo: Thom Masat/Unsplash

DiDi's stumbling debut on the American stock markets highlights a long-running, transnational battle that hasn't drawn much attention outside the green-eyeshade set — but could prove critical for Chinese companies seeking to tap U.S. capital markets and American investors hoping to bet on the growth of China's tech sector.

For years, regulators have sought more and better financial data on Chinese companies. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a nonprofit overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to review the work of firms auditing public companies. But China has not allowed this to happen, American officials say.

Much is at stake. Chinese companies that trade on U.S. exchanges via American depositary shares are worth nearly $1.8 trillion. Chinese firms have raised more than $76 billion over the last decade, and 37 companies have listed in the U.S. this year alone, raising $12.9 billion, according to Bloomberg data.

While Chinese companies listing in the U.S. have auditors, they are often based overseas. What standards do they meet? The PCAOB, whose budget and standards are set by the SEC, doesn't know, since it hasn't been able to inspect any auditor's work in China satisfactorily since 2007.

Concerns about the quality of audits aren't theoretical: Sound financial reporting undergirds the safety of American stock markets — the liquidity and high reputation Chinese companies have pursued by listing their shares abroad. Luckin Coffee, which listed its shares on the Nasdaq in May 2019, paid a $180 million fine to the SEC in December to settle charges it fabricated $300 million in revenue.

Many auditors in China lack strong incentives to provide accurate audits of companies, said Anne Stevenson-Yang, co-founder and research director at J Capital Research. "The auditors are paid by companies they audit," she said. "Of course they have a disincentive to say negative things."

American securities regulators have complained about the lack of access to Chinese audits going back a decade or more. But things came to a boil in December, when President Donald Trump signed the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act.

That law requires the SEC delist publicly-traded companies that hire accounting firms the PCAOB cannot oversee, after the accounting board has been unable to inspect the firms' work for three consecutive years. That would affect DiDi and a number of other Chinese companies, though not until 2024 at the earliest. DiDi warned investors in its prospectus about potential delisting under the act if the PCAOB can't inspect it.

The bill also requires additional disclosures in SEC filings, including any ownership by government entities and the presence of Chinese Communist Party officials on a company's board.

In March, the PCAOB revealed that it lacked access to audits of more than 200 companies based in China and Hong Kong.

But Beijing wants Chinese companies to tighten up disclosures of information to entities abroad. The new Data Security Law passed in June bans companies from sharing information to overseas law enforcement and regulators without approval. And following the DiDi debacle, Chinese securities regulators are considering a change that would allow them to block a Chinese company from listing overseas — even if it's technically incorporated outside of China using a structure known as a variable interest entity, or VIE. DiDi used a VIE called Xiaoju Kuaizhi to go public; Alibaba, the most valuable Chinese tech company traded in the U.S., listed shares using a VIE; and the structure's use by Chinese tech firms dates back to Sina Corp's listing on the Nasdaq in 2000.

Congress could go further in restricting Chinese listings. In May, Sens. Marco Rubio and Bob Casey introduced a bill to prohibit IPOs on U.S. exchanges for Chinese companies not complying with U.S. regulations, specifically citing lack of PCAOB access to audits as an issue that would block a listing and citing the Luckin fraud incident. In June, Rubio called for the SEC to block the IPO of DiDi because it did not have the same auditing oversight of U.S. companies.

This impasse has stretched on for years. In 2011, Chinese and American regulators met for a symposium on audit cooperation, and the next year, China agreed to "observational visits" by the PCAOB. In 2013, the PCAOB signed a memorandum of understanding with Chinese officials.

The board now says the 2013 MOU isn't helping. "Chinese cooperation has not been sufficient for the PCAOB to obtain timely access to relevant documents and testimony necessary to carry out our mission," it writes.

For its part, the China Securities Regulatory Commission said in August, in response to a U.S. government report, that it's been "showing full sincerity of cooperation."

"It should be noted that the Chinese side has never prohibited or prevented relevant accounting firms from providing audit working papers to overseas regulators," Chinese officials wrote. The agency said in December that the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act's disclosure provisions were "obviously discriminatory."

In January, the NYSE was caught in a crossfire from Trump administration officials over delisting three Chinese companies: China Telecom, China Mobile and China Unicom. While that debate was over purported connections to the Chinese military, it highlighted the growing geopolitical risks of cross-border listings.

Beijing wants to maintain as much control of Chinese companies as possible and deems audit records state secrets, said Stevenson-Yang of J Capital.

Initially, gaining lucrative access to capital markets appealed to Beijing, but when capital started to flow outwards in 2015, everything changed, she said. "As money became more demanding, Chinese authorities said, 'We can get money within China. Why don't we do that instead?'"


The tools that make you pay for not getting stuff done

Some tools let you put your money on the line for productivity. Should you bite?

Commitment contracts are popular in a niche corner of the internet, and the tools have built up loyal followings of people who find the extra motivation effective.

Photoillustration: Anna Shvets/Pexels; Protocol

Danny Reeves, CEO and co-founder of Beeminder, is used to defending his product.

“When people first hear about it, they’re kind of appalled,” Reeves said. “Making money off of people’s failure is how they view it.”

Keep Reading Show less
Lizzy Lawrence

Lizzy Lawrence ( @LizzyLaw_) is a reporter at Protocol, covering tools and productivity in the workplace. She's a recent graduate of the University of Michigan, where she studied sociology and international studies. She served as editor in chief of The Michigan Daily, her school's independent newspaper. She's based in D.C., and can be reached at

Sponsored Content

Foursquare data story: leveraging location data for site selection

We take a closer look at points of interest and foot traffic patterns to demonstrate how location data can be leveraged to inform better site selecti­on strategies.

Imagine: You’re the leader of a real estate team at a restaurant brand looking to open a new location in Manhattan. You have two options you’re evaluating: one site in SoHo, and another site in the Flatiron neighborhood. Which do you choose?

Keep Reading Show less

Elon Musk has bots on his mind.

Photo: Christian Marquardt/Getty Images

Elon Musk says he needs proof that less than 5% of Twitter's users are bots — or the deal isn't going ahead.

Keep Reading Show less
Jamie Condliffe

Jamie Condliffe ( @jme_c) is the executive editor at Protocol, based in London. Prior to joining Protocol in 2019, he worked on the business desk at The New York Times, where he edited the DealBook newsletter and wrote Bits, the weekly tech newsletter. He has previously worked at MIT Technology Review, Gizmodo, and New Scientist, and has held lectureships at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. He also holds a doctorate in engineering from the University of Oxford.


Nobody will help Big Tech prevent online terrorism but itself

There’s no will in Congress or the C-suites of social media giants for a new approach, but smaller platforms would have room to step up — if they decided to.

Timothy Kujawski of Buffalo lights candles at a makeshift memorial as people gather at the scene of a mass shooting at Tops Friendly Market at Jefferson Avenue and Riley Street on Sunday, May 15, 2022 in Buffalo, NY. The fatal shooting of 10 people at a grocery store in a historically Black neighborhood of Buffalo by a young white gunman is being investigated as a hate crime and an act of racially motivated violent extremism, according to federal officials.

Photo: Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The shooting in Buffalo, New York, that killed 10 people over the weekend has put the spotlight back on social media companies. Some of the attack was livestreamed, beginning on Amazon-owned Twitch, and the alleged shooter appears to have written about how his racist motivations arose from misinformation on smaller or fringe sites including 4chan.

In response, policymakers are directing their anger at tech platforms, with New York Governor Kathy Hochul calling for the companies to be “more vigilant in monitoring” and for “a legal responsibility to ensure that such hate cannot populate these sites.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.

We're answering all your questions about the crypto crash.

Photo: Chris Liverani/Unsplash

People started talking about another crypto winter in January, when falling prices had wiped out $1 trillion in value from November’s peak. Prices rallied back in March, restoring some of the losses. Then crypto fell hard again, with bitcoin down more than 60% from its all-time high and other cryptocurrencies harder hit. The market’s message was clear: Crypto winter was no longer coming. It’s here.

If you’ve got questions about the crypto crash, the Protocol Fintech team has answers.

Keep Reading Show less
Latest Stories