LONDON (MarketWatch) -- Another day, another accounting mess.

The report on the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy -- and the "Repo 105" accounting trick that seems to have made $50 billion disappear from the balance sheet in the blink of an eye -- doesn't just raise questions as to the liability of Ernst & Young, Lehman's auditor; it raises questions about the entire foundation of public reporting.

What precise purpose does it serve to have a supposedly independent auditor (paid for by the company) sign off on accounts?

From Enron to Lehman to Satyam SAY, +12.50% to Parmalat, it's clear that the major accountants lack either the skill or the determination (or both) to ferret out fraud.

AM Report: What Was Lehman Hiding?

And given that the credit crunch was largely predicated on the lack of faith that not just investors, but banks themselves, had in the quality of accountant-vouched-for assets, there seems to be little value in what these firms provide.

Company executives already are forced to sign off on their accounts. When they are caught lying, companies face liability over disclosure.

So the threats that keep (some) companies honest are there regardless of whether the reports are audited. The outside auditors themselves are assigned a negligible value by the market.

A solution? Here are two admittedly out-there solutions that the Securities and Exchange Commission probably won't adopt.

One is quite simple: get rid of accountants. Who cares? They add no value, and their expenses weigh on the bottom line.

The other would be for someone else to hire the accountant. How about the company's top five shareholders? While the likes of Fidelity would grumble about the added costs and the free-rider benefit to smaller shareholders, they would certainly have an interest in securing a far tougher audit.

In any case, nothing could be worse than the present system: an illusion of transparency and the reality of a black box on financial affairs.

-- Steve Goldstein