More handpicked essays just for you.
Auditors independence and accountability
Auditors independence and accountability
The importance of independence for auditors
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Auditors independence and accountability
Audit quality is often defined as the probability that auditors will detect and report misstatements or unintentional measurement errors in the financial statements (DeAngelo 1981). This stems from an auditor’s competence and independence, in both how they are perceived and in actuality (Watkins et al 2004). This is of vital importance to analysts because financial statements form the basis of forecast inputs. The outcome of a financial analysis model can only be as accurate as the values used to create said model. As such, if input values are inaccurate, the output (forecasts) would no doubt also be erroneous. Dang (2004) argues that by limiting errors in the historical data used to formulate forecasts, high quality audits will improve the …show more content…
Specifically, the Big 4 auditors represent high audit quality and non-Big 4 firms represent low audit quality. This relies upon the assumption that the Big 4 always provide higher quality audits that communicate the reliability of unobservable financial reports. Of course, this does not mean to suggest that non-Big 4 firms intentionally deviate from US GAAP or other relevant reporting standards. Nevertheless, Teoh and Wong (1993) find that the amounts of deviation of the reported numbers from true economic levels are higher for non-Big 4 auditors. DeAngelo (1981) identifies the Big 4 firms as a suitable proxy for high audit quality as the brand name and size carry an assumption of a greater reliability due to technical expertise. According to Sori et al (2006), the Big 4 employees are more skilled and have access to better financial resources, research facilities, and technology. This grants them a competitive advantage to conduct large or specialised audits and greater ability discover errors or misstatements. This argument is supported by the low levels of accounting restatements issued as opposed to that of non-Big 4 auditors (Eshleman and Guo 2014), and by their extensive specialised training programmes (Khurana and Raman
When it comes to the audit objectives, the public and the auditing profession maintain varying expectations. The public expects the prevention of fraud to be the auditor’s responsibility. However, the auditors believe that they are responsible for fraud detection, but not obliged to find all of it. In addition, the public views the fraud by the characteristics displayed by management and employees. For example, WoolEx Mills’ management wanted to exude a prevailing financial position and to uphold reputations. By committing financial statement fraud, it made the company look successful even though Sales and cash flows were decreasing. The public would view these particular characteristics as pressures to why the company committed fraud. Greed, recognition, and influences also impacted the public’s view of Wool Ex Mills’ fraud scheme. The CEO used authority to influence employees to take part in the fraud scheme. The public would see that the CEO utilized power to manipulate shareholders, which impacted their trust with WoolEx Mills (Cohen, Ding, Lesage, & Stolowy 2015) (Krishnan & Shah
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).
The purpose of an auditor's job is to make an assertion. In order to do so, evidence must be collected to authenticate said opinion. AS 1105 details the characteristics of audit evidence and the steps necessary to obtain an appropriate level of audit evidence. If the risk of material misstatement is high, the amount of required evidence collected also increases. Quality over quantity is another precept of audit evidence. The higher the quality, the less evidence is needed; whereas increasing the amount of substandard evidence collected does not bolster a position. The relevance and reliability are also two metrics used to evaluate audit evidence; both are required characteristics and must be
According to the article authored by Mark Rupert, what are the seven best practices in the roles and responsibilities of an internal audit function?
Humphrey, Moizer and Turley (1992), suggest that the common element in the various definitions of the gap is that auditors are performing in a manner that is at variance with the beliefs and desires of others who are party to or interested in the audit. The expectation gap may be decomposed into two components: the reasonableness gap and the performance gap. The former appears when people expect more of an audit than it can give in practical terms, such as detecting all instances of fraud. The latter refers to the gap between what auditors can reasonably be expected to do and what they are perceived to do. The ‘Performance gap’ can be further split into two – the deficient standards gap and the deficient performance gap.
The three main stages of the audit process are the pre-audit, audit, and post-audit. During the pre-audit the most important things are planning and execution. The first part of the pre-audit is scheduling the audit. Every facility in the organization will need to be audited so creating a schedule will allow for preparation time. Production schedules, management schedules, vacation time, and time between audits are all important and this needs to be organized to have an efficient audit. Proper communications goes hand in hand with scheduling. The auditor needs to communicate all that will be expected prior the audit to ensure that employees or other considerations are in place. The next thing that needs planned for is the number of auditors.
Throughout the years, the news covered stories of corporate scandals involving accounting unethical practices. These unethical corporate acts had a tremendous negative impact on these company’s stockholders, investors, employees and the whole U.S. economy. Most of these scandals would have been prevented, if the independent audits of these companies were conducted in an ethical manner. With this in mind, two corporate scandals will be the subjects of further review to understand that an auditor might encounter ethical dilemmas, if independence and objectivity are not part of the audit process.
According to the conceptual framework, the potential users of financial statements are investors, creditors, suppliers, employees, customers, governments and agencies, and the general public (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2006). The primary users are investors, creditors, and those who advise them. It goes on to define the criteria that make up each potential user, as well as, the limitations of financial reporting. The FASB explicitly states that financial reporting is “but one source of information needed by those who make investment, credit, and similar resource allocation decisions. Users also need to consider pertinent information from other sources, and be aware of the characteristics and limitations of the information in them” (Financial Accounting Standards Board, 2006). With this in mind, it is still particularly difficult to determine whom the financials should be catered towards and what level of prudence is necessary for quality judgment.
Corporate governance changed drastically after the case of Andersen Auditors, Enron’s auditing service showed that they contributed to the scandal. Andersen was originally founded in 1913, and by taking tough stands against clients, quickly gained a national reputation as a reliable keeper of the people’s trust (Beasley, 2003). Andersen provided auditing statements with a ‘clean’ approval stamp from 1997 to 2001, but was found guilty of obstructing justice by shredding evidence relating to the Enron scandal on the 15th June 2002. It agrees to cease auditing public companies by 31 August (BBC News, 2002).
Audit Risk is the risk that an auditor has stated an incorrect audit opinion on the financial statements. It may cause the auditors fail to alter the opinion when the financial statements contain material misstatement. The auditor should perform the audit to lower the audit risk to a sufficiently low level. In the auditor’s professional judgement, the auditor should appropriately state a correct opinion on the financial statement
Optimization of auditing processes has always been a priority for many organizations. Therefore, the audit group is often tasked with the responsibility of prioritizing and allocating limited resources, in order to keep the enterprise’s risk at a satisfactory level. However, Companies are constantly being bombarded with information, which makes it difficult to prioritize, analyze, and utilize data in a sophisticated manner. Using a risk-based modeling approach can help to create solutions that are logically applicable to the auditing process; this will ensure productivity, by helping the auditors to strategically target audit sites, and improve post-audit processes. In essence, a risk-based method, as it relates to auditing, would help to connect the limited resources to the business risks that are failing to meet company objectives. This project explores a real-world business problem that could be solved by using this method.
The evolution of auditing is a complicated history that has always been changing through historical events. Auditing always changed to meet the needs of the business environment of that day. Auditing has been around since the beginning of human civilization, focusing mainly, at first, on finding efraud. As the United States grew, the business world grew, and auditing began to play more important roles. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, people began to invest money into large corporations. The Stock Market crash of 1929 and various scandals made auditors realize that their roles in society were very important. Scandals and stock market crashes made auditors aware of deficiencies in auditing, and the auditing community was always quick to fix those deficiencies. The auditors’ job became more difficult as the accounting principles changed, and became easier with the use of internal controls. These controls introduced the need for testing; not an in-depth detailed audit. Auditing jobs would have to change to meet the changing business world. The invention of computers impacted the auditors’ world by making their job at times easier and at times making their job more difficult. Finally, the auditors’ job of certifying and testing companies’ financial statements is the backbone of the business world.
The burden for public companies to succeed at high levels may place undue stress and pressure on accountants creating balance sheets and financial statements. The ethical issue for these accountants becomes maintaining true reporting of company assets, liabilities and profits without giving in to the pressure placed on them by management or corporate officers. Unethical accountants could easily alter company financial records and maneuver numbers to paint false pictures of company successes. This may lead to short-term prosperity, but altered financial records will ultimately spell the downfall of companies when the Securities and Exchange Commission discovers the
The complete destruction of companies including Arthur Andersen, HealthSouth, and Enron, revealed a significant weakness in the United States audit system. The significant weakness is the failure to deliver true independence between the auditors and their clients. In each of these companies there was deviation from professional rules of conduct resulting from the pressures of clients placed upon their auditors (Goldman, and Barlev 857-859). Over the years, client and auditor relationships were intertwined tightly putting aside the unbiased function of auditors. Auditor careers depended on the success of their client (Kaplan 363-383). Auditors found themselves in situations that put their profession in a questionable time driving them to compromise their ethics, professionalism, objectivity, and their independence from the company. A vital trust relationship role for independent auditors has been woven in society and this role is essential for the effective functioning of the financial economic system (Guiral, Rogers, Ruiz, and Gonzalo 155-166). However, the financial world has lost confidence in the trustworthiness of auditor firms. There are three potential threats to auditor independence: executives hiring and firing auditors, auditors taking positions the client instead of the unbiased place, and auditors providing non audit services to clients (Moore, Tetlock, Tanlu, and Bazerman 10-29).
The major characters of the tradition audit are all information what is needed by auditors are on the paper and the manual calculators and without high communication technology. Auditors usually were limited by the place in the paper time. When a several people are working on the same auditing project for a client with offices in cities across the country, even worldwide, it takes a lots all time those auditors get the information which they need from the client, even there is risk paper information disappear for many reasons. on the another hand, mail paper information increase the auditing cost. The mistake caused by the manual calculators inevitably, no matter how fixed auditors concentrate on recalculate is, after all auditors are human. The global business become major in the modern business world, some example, several auditors who are in different locations are working a same auditing project, or auditors are in different city even country with the client, when there is issue among these auditors or between auditors and client, they only can communicate with each other by phone or be together and have meeting. Phone call can not make sure information been watched in the same time when the voice is talking about the issue, but having a meeting takes time and money make all people together, it increases auditing cost.