The regulator and the country's largest exchange have ended up on opposite sides of a question that directly determines trust in the debt market. The head of the Moscow Exchange's supervisory board, Sergei Shvetsov, proposes radically reducing the number of audit companies, while the Bank of Russia insists on tightening the requirements for entering the register. Investors may ultimately get more reliable issuer reporting — but companies will likely pay more for it.
Where Shvetsov's and the Central Bank's positions diverge
Elena Kuritsyna, the Moscow Exchange's senior managing director for interaction with issuers and government authorities, raised the issue of auditor liability at the exchange's corporate governance forum. She recalled a public company that appointed a new auditor at the end of last year and six months later suffered a series of technical and then actual defaults. In such situations, auditors issue an unqualified opinion, while the company itself avoids any communication with investors.
Central Bank First Deputy Governor Vladimir Chistyukhin called this an obvious violation on the auditor's part that will yet be assessed. Session participants did not name the issuer, but the description fits EuroTrans — the most high-profile insolvency case on the Russian debt market in 2026.
Chistyukhin explained that after a compromise with the Finance Ministry, the State Duma and the audit community, the requirements for entering the register remained minimal, and an auditor can be excluded only after a second problematic opinion. "Should this be changed? Yes, of course, this needs to be changed," he emphasized.
Shvetsov sees the root of the problem in an imbalance between supply and demand: the volume of business in Russia is several times smaller than the number of audit companies. "I am in favor of a radical reduction in the number of companies. That is, the volume of supply must correspond to the volume of demand," said the head of the Moscow Exchange's supervisory board. Otherwise, in his assessment, either price dumping arises, leading to a degradation of professionalism, or auditing "with eyes wide shut."
Chistyukhin disagreed with limiting the number of auditors to three or four companies, citing competition, but acknowledged that entry into the market should be made harder and more substantive. He recalled that Shvetsov advocates a closed system that is almost impossible to enter, and called for preserving competitive and freer access. Session moderator Kuritsyna noted that the speakers were talking about the same thing: the head of the supervisory board about the result, and the Central Bank representative about the instrument.
Why the issue matters for retail investors
Investors have already tried to protect themselves from unscrupulous auditors on their own: in October, the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry did not support the Bondholders Association's (AVO) idea to allow knowingly false opinions to be challenged in court. Stricter admission to the register without the right to sue could become the main protection for bondholders, especially since the AVO sees signs of false auditing at many issuers.
The cost of such an error is growing along with the market: in September, retail investors invested 210.6 billion rubles in bonds on the Moscow Exchange, while inflows into mutual funds grew 3.2 times over the year to 19.7 billion. The more individuals invest in debt securities and funds, the more their savings depend on the honesty of the auditors.
The reliability of intermediaries will become even more important for retail investors from December 1, when the Moscow Exchange plans to open cryptocurrency trading. The exchange will use a partner settlement digital depository, and unqualified investors will be able to buy only BTC, ETH and USDT within a limit of 300,000 rubles per year through a single intermediary.
Cryptalist analysis: The discussion reflects a fundamental conflict between audit quality and the competitiveness of the services market: a radical reduction in the number of players lowers the risk of false opinions but at the same time increases concentration and potentially raises the cost of audits for issuers. For the debt market, this is a signal of a move toward a stricter regulatory model, which in the medium term supports retail investor confidence but may increase issuers' costs and narrow their access to capital.