Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Surbanes-oxley act
Businesses today are required to follow set guidelines and regulations when it comes to keeping and reporting business transactions. The goal of these guidelines and regulations is to ensure the accuracy of a business accounting reports and to also make sure that company assets are not misappropriated or misused by its employees. Internal controls within a company fall under various categories; in this paper I will discuss the establishment of responsibility, physical, mechanical, and electronic controls, segregation of duties, and independent internal verification. In addition to internal controls I will also discuss acts of Congress that have paved the way for the current internal controls, and the limitations of internal controls. The first items that I will discuss are the different types of internal controls. Internal controls that companies use include but are not limited to; establishing responsibility, using physical, mechanical and electronic controls, segregation of duties, and independent internal verification. All of these internal controls work together to ensure that company assets are not being misused by employees, as well as making sure that the financial reports are as accurate as possible. The basis for establishing responsibility is to help eliminate the problem of not being able to find out which employee is responsible for a miscalculation. For example, a cashier is required to start a new cash drawer at the beginning of the night and close out that same cash drawer at the end of their shift, this accountability makes the process simple if the cash drawer is over or under in money at the end of the shift. The use of physical, mechanical and electronic controls helps to monitor and limit propert... ... middle of paper ... ...he sale to be for a lesser amount. The goods were shipped to the wrong address and the sales price was altered to say it was a greater amount and more commission on the item was paid, all the while the goods are at another employee’s house. Another limitation on internal controls is the fact that some businesses might not have the money or the manpower to allow for separation of duties, if this happens then the internal controls put into place will not be as affective. In conclusion, the goal of these guidelines and internal controls is to ensure the accuracy of a business accounting reports and to also make sure that company assets are not misappropriated or misused by its employees. When appropriately followed and adhered to internal controls enable companies to effectively and efficiently safeguard company assets and provide accurate financial statements.
Internal controls is defined as a process, effected by an entity’s board of directors, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance
Target Corporation must also ensure the its accounting procedures prevent fraud occurrence. The most effective method for combating potential fraud is to develop substantive internal accounting policies. For the most part, the company has done a good job in establishing the principles and procedures necessary to prevent material
Internal controls are in place to protect entities against theft from dishonest workers and outside predators. They are also an accurate series of checks and balances and are in place to find discrepancies.
The purpose of the internal audit is to protect Costco 's assets through evaluating the acceptability and efficiency of internal controls; recognizing areas of possible risk, revenue improvement and/or cost reductions; and making sure transactions are authorized, completed, and logged as proposed. The internal auditors are accountable for guiding audits of all Costco’s local and global activities, its affiliates, and other entities Costco conducts business with as deemed necessary by management.
Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts are important legislations in the corporate world because of their link to public and privately held companies. Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in publicly traded companies. On the contrary, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to disentangle the confused web of financial service company valuations. Actually, these valuations are usually hidden by complex and unclear financial instruments. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley Act was fueled by recent incidents of accounting frauds by top executives of major corporations such as Enron. In contrast, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted as a response to the tendency by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, rating agencies, and accounting companies to serve up harmful offer of ruined assets and liabilities brought by systemic non-disclosure (Anand, 2011, p.1). While these regulations have some similarities and differences, they have a strong relationship with the financial markets.
George W. Bush called the SOX Act “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt”.
In July of 2002, Congress swiftly passed the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investors Protection Act at the time when corporations like Arthur Anderson, Enron and WorldCom fell due to fraudulent accounting practices and bad internal control. This bill, sponsored by Mike Oxley (R-OH) and Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), became known as Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).It sought to restore public confidence in publicly traded companies and their accounting practices, though the companies listed above were prosecuted on laws that were already in place before SOX. Many studies have examined the effects of SOX on corporations in the past eleven years. The benefits are hard to quantify and the cost are rather hard to estimate including the effect on market efficiency.
Individual Article Review Lily Cobian LAW/421 March 31, 2014 Ramon E. Ortiz-Velez Individual Article Review Introduction My article review is based on Sarbanes-Oxley and audit failure, a critical examination why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was established and why it is not a guarantee to prevent failure of audits. Sarbanes-Oxley Act talks about scandals of Enron which occurred in 2001 and even more appalling the company’s auditor, Arthur Anderson, found guilty of shredding company documents after finding out Enron Company was going to be audited. The exorbitant amounts of money auditors get paid to hide audit discrepancies was also beyond belief. The article went on to explain many companies hire relatives or friends to do their audits, resulting in fraud, money embezzlement, corruption and even the demise of companies. Resulting in the public losing faith in the accounting profession, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 by congress was designed to restrict what company owners and auditors can and cannot do. From what I gathered in the article, ever since the implementation of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act there has been somewhat of an improvement but questions are still being asked as to why there are still issues that are not being targeted in hopes of preventing more audit failures. The article also talked about four common causes of audit failure: unintentional auditor mistakes, fraud, fatigue and auditor client relationships. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct clearly states an independent auditor because it produces a credible audit, however, when there is conflict of interest, the relation of a former employer, or a relative or even the fear of getting fire...
In conclusion, internal controls include separation of duties, assignment of responsibilities, third-party verification and the use of mechanical and physical controls. In and of themselves, these tactics stop and prevent much abuse of the bookkeeping and accounting systems. The addition of Sarbanes-Oxley requirements in 2002 require that a company enact internal controls and assign responsibility of the control system to executives and directors, further providing insurance that financial reporting is accurate. Without this insurance that reports are accurate, company stock will fall and investors will be lost. Even with intrinsic limitations, the positive aspects of good internal controls far outweigh the negative implications. Good internal controls equal accurate financial records and future company success.
In the John Deere case, they were calling a lot of things overhead that weren't truly overhead (e.g. scrap, which is probably proportional to the amount produced). We discussed with my group how the internal transfer pricing arrangement probably encouraged the managers to think this way, since it awarded contracts on the basis of direct costs but, by the books, the actual transfer price was supposed to be the full price. In summary, the John Deere case was an exercise in thinking about how not to make pricing decisions.
ensure that management is doing what it can to establish means of effective internal controls by having to report on them.
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
In this approach, the focus will be on the internal control objectives so that the control design can be well assessed. First, the auditor will define the control measures and objectives and then find out which measures already installed meet the objectives (Tyrer, 1994).
It is not detected, prevented or modified on a timely basis by client’s internal control system. It will occur in account balance, disclosure or class of transactions. This risk is a function of the effectiveness of the design and operation of an entity’s internal control. The control risk may not be zero, it may be minimal. Some control risk may always exist, it is due to the inherent limitations of internal control.
Overall, the company is having ineffective controls regarding different departments and in the whole organization. An effective internal audit department should be established within the organization which should test the effectiveness of these controls on regular basis and make it sure that all controls are working effectively and efficiently with the different departments of the organization. Also the Internal auditor should implement the most effective processes and measures to prevent and detect the fraud, corruption and non compliance with the laws and regulations in the organization. Establishment of internal audit committee would be helpful in this regard which comprises of executive and non executive directors.