Matters to be discussed:
(i) Introduction regarding audit quality.
(ii) A reminder of the sources of requirements in relation to quality control
(iii) Recent developments in relation to quality control
(iv) Why is audit quality a concern?
(v) Tight deadlines and restrictions on audit fees.
(vi) Competence
(vii) Ethical dilemmas
(viii) Extensive use of judgement
(v) Tight deadlines and restrictions on audit fees.
(vi) Competence
(vii) Ethical dilemmas
(viii) Extensive use of judgement
(ix) Conclusion
__________________________________________________________________
(i) Introduction regarding audit quality.
1) Performing high quality audit = Audit risk is reduced and the audit firm is less
likely to issue an inappropriate audit opinion.
2) Periodic review by regulatory authorities on the work performed by audit firms
= Often conclude that audits performed are not always of high quality, despite
this being in the best interest of the audit firm.
1) Performing high quality audit = Audit risk is reduced and the audit firm is less
likely to issue an inappropriate audit opinion.
2) Periodic review by regulatory authorities on the work performed by audit firms
= Often conclude that audits performed are not always of high quality, despite
this being in the best interest of the audit firm.
(ii) A reminder of the sources of requirements in relation to quality control
1) The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued 2
documents relating to quality control.
- ISQC 1, Quality Control for Firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of
Financial Statements, and Other Assurance and Related Services Engagements.
(Applies to all firms of professional accountants in respect of audits and reviews
of financial statements, and other assurance and related services engagements)
[Should also be applied to non-audit engagements such as reviews of prospective
financial information and engagements to perform agreed upon procedures.]
- ISA 220, Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements.
(Specific to audit engagements and contains specific requirements that should be
adhered to in the performance of any audit)
2) ISA 220 contains requirements in relation to:
- Leadership responsibilities for quality on audits.
- Relevant ethical requirements, in particular independence
- Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and audit engagements.
- Assignment of engagement teams.
- Engagement performance, meaning the direction, supervision and review of an
audit, including consultation and engagement quality control reviews.
- Monitoring and documentation.
3) Candidates should be familiar with the contents of ISA 220.
(So that they can apply this knowledge to a given scenario and comment on
whether an audit has been performed in accordance with the requirements of the
ISA)
(iii) Recent developments in relation to quality control
documents relating to quality control.
- ISQC 1, Quality Control for Firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of
Financial Statements, and Other Assurance and Related Services Engagements.
(Applies to all firms of professional accountants in respect of audits and reviews
of financial statements, and other assurance and related services engagements)
[Should also be applied to non-audit engagements such as reviews of prospective
financial information and engagements to perform agreed upon procedures.]
- ISA 220, Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements.
(Specific to audit engagements and contains specific requirements that should be
adhered to in the performance of any audit)
2) ISA 220 contains requirements in relation to:
- Leadership responsibilities for quality on audits.
- Relevant ethical requirements, in particular independence
- Acceptance and continuance of client relationships and audit engagements.
- Assignment of engagement teams.
- Engagement performance, meaning the direction, supervision and review of an
audit, including consultation and engagement quality control reviews.
- Monitoring and documentation.
3) Candidates should be familiar with the contents of ISA 220.
(So that they can apply this knowledge to a given scenario and comment on
whether an audit has been performed in accordance with the requirements of the
ISA)
(iii) Recent developments in relation to quality control
1) IAASB makes specific reference to the issue of quality in its latest annual report
published in 6/2014.
2) IAASB chairman, in his chairman's statement, discusses audit quality as a key
issue that the IAASB is focussing on.
3) He refers to the IAASB publication entitled A Framework for Audit Quality, the
objective of which is to raise awareness of the key elements of audit quality,
encourage stakeholders to reflect on ways to improve audit quality; and facilitate
greater dialogue among stakeholders on the topic.
4) He also mentions the IAASB webpage, 'Focus on Audit Quality,' which was
launched in early 2014 to provide supplemental material supporting awareness
and use of the Framework.
(IAASB want to engage not only with auditors but with users and preparers of
financial statements to encourage debate on audit quality)
5) IAASB Work Plan for 2015-16 is entitled Enhancing Audit Quality and
Preparing for the Future, emphasising the prominence of audit quality in the
work programme of the IAASB.
6) The board recently commenced a survey on audit quality, focussing on how
audit firms apply ISQC 1 and the difficulties faced by smaller audit firms in
meeting the requirements.
7) Other regulatory bodies such as the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is
interested in promoting audit quality and its Annual Reports on Audit Quality
Inspections feature detailed commentary on the improvements that audit firms
can make to enhance audit quality.
(Not just the IAASB that perceives audit quality as a matter of debate)
(iv) Why is audit quality a concern?
published in 6/2014.
2) IAASB chairman, in his chairman's statement, discusses audit quality as a key
issue that the IAASB is focussing on.
3) He refers to the IAASB publication entitled A Framework for Audit Quality, the
objective of which is to raise awareness of the key elements of audit quality,
encourage stakeholders to reflect on ways to improve audit quality; and facilitate
greater dialogue among stakeholders on the topic.
4) He also mentions the IAASB webpage, 'Focus on Audit Quality,' which was
launched in early 2014 to provide supplemental material supporting awareness
and use of the Framework.
(IAASB want to engage not only with auditors but with users and preparers of
financial statements to encourage debate on audit quality)
5) IAASB Work Plan for 2015-16 is entitled Enhancing Audit Quality and
Preparing for the Future, emphasising the prominence of audit quality in the
work programme of the IAASB.
6) The board recently commenced a survey on audit quality, focussing on how
audit firms apply ISQC 1 and the difficulties faced by smaller audit firms in
meeting the requirements.
7) Other regulatory bodies such as the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is
interested in promoting audit quality and its Annual Reports on Audit Quality
Inspections feature detailed commentary on the improvements that audit firms
can make to enhance audit quality.
(Not just the IAASB that perceives audit quality as a matter of debate)
(iv) Why is audit quality a concern?
1) Regulatory bodies have a role to play in promoting audit quality.
(As this will in turn increase public confidence in the audit process and in
financial reporting)
2) It is surprising to find that when inspections are carried out on the conduct of
audits, the regulatory bodies come across many instances where audit quality
is lacking.
(As it is in best interests of audit firms to conduct a high quality audit)
3) Audit firms are faced with great pressures which may lead to them
compromising audit quality.
(Pressures can be in the form of tight deadlines and restrictions on audit fees,
issues relating to competence, ethical dilemmas, and the extent of judgement
that is required when auditing certain balances and transactions)
(v) Tight deadlines and restrictions on audit fees.
1) FRC comments in its 2011-2012 Annual Report on Audit Quality Inspections
that 'a company's audit should represent value for money. Nevertheless,
substantial fee reductions may lead the auditor to reduce valuable audit work
and therefore compromise audit quality.'
2) Fee pressures are a commercial reality and audit firms will react to fee pressure
by seeking efficiencies in the audit.
(E.g. Reducing the sample sizes, and increasing materiality levels especially in
group situations)
3) A particular way to make the audit more efficient is to 'offshore' certain audit
procedures in an arrangement.
(Whereby some of the audit work is performed by audit personnel who are not
'full' members of the audit team, they may be located in a foreign country where
the labour cost are lower.)
4) This 'offshore' practice raises audit quality issues in that these personnel may
not have a good knowledge of the audit client and the quality evidence produced
may be questionable.
(vi) Competence
1) If auditors are not technically competent to perform audit work there is a clear
impact on the quality of work performed.
(E.g. IAASB comments in its 2015-16 Work Plan that audit inspections have
found instances where the person selected to perform engagement quality
control reviews was not competent to do so.)
2) Using inexperienced auditors to perform such reviews can create a potentially
serious hazard for the audit firm in that it is much more likely that an
inappropriate opinion could be issued.
(Given that engagement quality reviews are conducted for high risk audit
engagements)
(vii) Ethical dilemmas
1) The audit firms provides non-audit services to the audited entity.
(Audit firms should be familiar with the concept that providing non-audit
services creates a threat to objectivity, in particular a self-review threat, and
audit firms also should be accustomed to assessing the significance of the risk
and responding with the use of appropriate safeguards or by not providing the
non-audit service)
2) There may be circumstances where the threat is overlooked, so compromising
audit quality.
[E.g. An audited entities changes status and becomes listed (A public interest
entity), then while it may previously have been acceptable to provide a non-
audit service with the appropriate safeguards, the provision of the non-audit
service may not be acceptable given the new status of the audited entity]
[This issue was picked up by the FRC in its 2014 round of audit quality
inspections.]
(viii) Extensive use of judgement (Link to professional scepticism)
1) Audit inspectors often comment that the audit of judgemental balances is
lacking in quality. (Such as fair values and impairment)
2) The FRC's 2014 Annual Report on Audit Quality Inspections states that
- 'Limited evidence that (audit) firms have robustly challenged management
particularly in respect of the appropriateness of key assumptions and other
judgements was a key concern.'
- 'Firms, with the assistance of audit committees, should ensure they
appropriately challenge management.'
3) The report comments that audit firms often fail to challenge the feasibility
of biz plans prepared by management.
(As well as assumptions relating to fair value, impairment and the valuation
of tangible and intangible assets)
[The objective of the inspections is to highlight the weaknesses in audit quality
and to recommend improvements.]
[It is up to the audit firm whether or not to do so, and there are calls by the
IAASB to formalise the means by which audit firms demonstrates that they have
taken such recommendations on board.]
(ix) Conclusion
1) The IAASB is making it clear that audit quality is something to be taken
seriously. (By emphasising the issue of audit quality in its current Work Plan)
2) Higher quality audits and public confidence in audit reports issued should
reduce the 'expectation gap'.
3) It is easy to see why audit quality is often compromised.
(As audit firms coming under pressure to cut fees, produce competitive tender
documents and provide 'added value' to the audit in the form of non-audit
services)
4) Future changes to make the requirements of ISQC1 and ISA 220 more robust
could help, as will promoting the use of professional scepticism in the conduct
of all audits.
(As this will in turn increase public confidence in the audit process and in
financial reporting)
2) It is surprising to find that when inspections are carried out on the conduct of
audits, the regulatory bodies come across many instances where audit quality
is lacking.
(As it is in best interests of audit firms to conduct a high quality audit)
3) Audit firms are faced with great pressures which may lead to them
compromising audit quality.
(Pressures can be in the form of tight deadlines and restrictions on audit fees,
issues relating to competence, ethical dilemmas, and the extent of judgement
that is required when auditing certain balances and transactions)
(v) Tight deadlines and restrictions on audit fees.
1) FRC comments in its 2011-2012 Annual Report on Audit Quality Inspections
that 'a company's audit should represent value for money. Nevertheless,
substantial fee reductions may lead the auditor to reduce valuable audit work
and therefore compromise audit quality.'
2) Fee pressures are a commercial reality and audit firms will react to fee pressure
by seeking efficiencies in the audit.
(E.g. Reducing the sample sizes, and increasing materiality levels especially in
group situations)
3) A particular way to make the audit more efficient is to 'offshore' certain audit
procedures in an arrangement.
(Whereby some of the audit work is performed by audit personnel who are not
'full' members of the audit team, they may be located in a foreign country where
the labour cost are lower.)
4) This 'offshore' practice raises audit quality issues in that these personnel may
not have a good knowledge of the audit client and the quality evidence produced
may be questionable.
(vi) Competence
1) If auditors are not technically competent to perform audit work there is a clear
impact on the quality of work performed.
(E.g. IAASB comments in its 2015-16 Work Plan that audit inspections have
found instances where the person selected to perform engagement quality
control reviews was not competent to do so.)
2) Using inexperienced auditors to perform such reviews can create a potentially
serious hazard for the audit firm in that it is much more likely that an
inappropriate opinion could be issued.
(Given that engagement quality reviews are conducted for high risk audit
engagements)
(vii) Ethical dilemmas
1) The audit firms provides non-audit services to the audited entity.
(Audit firms should be familiar with the concept that providing non-audit
services creates a threat to objectivity, in particular a self-review threat, and
audit firms also should be accustomed to assessing the significance of the risk
and responding with the use of appropriate safeguards or by not providing the
non-audit service)
2) There may be circumstances where the threat is overlooked, so compromising
audit quality.
[E.g. An audited entities changes status and becomes listed (A public interest
entity), then while it may previously have been acceptable to provide a non-
audit service with the appropriate safeguards, the provision of the non-audit
service may not be acceptable given the new status of the audited entity]
[This issue was picked up by the FRC in its 2014 round of audit quality
inspections.]
(viii) Extensive use of judgement (Link to professional scepticism)
1) Audit inspectors often comment that the audit of judgemental balances is
lacking in quality. (Such as fair values and impairment)
2) The FRC's 2014 Annual Report on Audit Quality Inspections states that
- 'Limited evidence that (audit) firms have robustly challenged management
particularly in respect of the appropriateness of key assumptions and other
judgements was a key concern.'
- 'Firms, with the assistance of audit committees, should ensure they
appropriately challenge management.'
3) The report comments that audit firms often fail to challenge the feasibility
of biz plans prepared by management.
(As well as assumptions relating to fair value, impairment and the valuation
of tangible and intangible assets)
[The objective of the inspections is to highlight the weaknesses in audit quality
and to recommend improvements.]
[It is up to the audit firm whether or not to do so, and there are calls by the
IAASB to formalise the means by which audit firms demonstrates that they have
taken such recommendations on board.]
(ix) Conclusion
1) The IAASB is making it clear that audit quality is something to be taken
seriously. (By emphasising the issue of audit quality in its current Work Plan)
2) Higher quality audits and public confidence in audit reports issued should
reduce the 'expectation gap'.
3) It is easy to see why audit quality is often compromised.
(As audit firms coming under pressure to cut fees, produce competitive tender
documents and provide 'added value' to the audit in the form of non-audit
services)
4) Future changes to make the requirements of ISQC1 and ISA 220 more robust
could help, as will promoting the use of professional scepticism in the conduct
of all audits.
No comments:
Post a Comment