Internal Audit And External Audit

In October 2001, Enron Corporation which was one of the world major energy, commodities and service companies with claimed revenues of nearly 111 billion dollars during 2000 collapsed under the weight of massive fraud in that it has become largest bankruptcy recognition in the US economy. Enron’s earning report was extremely skewed that losses were not represented in their entirety, prompting more and more wishing to participate in what seemed like a profitable company. After collapse of Enron, Auditor independence has become a social issue that weather auditor has to be independent or not. In addition, while auditing must consider matters objectively with dispassion, there were still doubts whether it implemented well. Further, there has been much speculation about the need for the mandatory rotation of auditors or audit firm rotation to warn false accounting between audit firm and client. By examining Enron case, this essay will discuss about advantages and drawbacks of the mandatory rotation of

An auditor’s role in an audit is very important. An auditor must be able to collect enough evidence to supports their finding, and also be on the lookout for fraud. Company’s may or may not know the law, but it is the job to know the law, and be able to educate and report findings properly. Since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there have been provisions that have directly affected auditors. This paper will include the details of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, how ethics and independence have affected auditors, as well implementation of new standards based on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

There are numerous threats to the independence of auditors which have been identified in the multiple studies and discussions both in Australia (such as the Ramsay report, CLERP 9 Paper) and internationally by IFAC, the European Commission

In the case against Enron, one of the most influential accounting scandals, investors sued the corporation and its external auditor Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen). The collapse of Enron at the end of 2001 revealed that accounting fraud sustained its reported financial health and consequently Andersen’s validation of Enron’s financial statements covered up the fraud. Further investigation uncovered large amounts of revenues from consulting fees paid to Andersen by Enron; parallel to a long-standing business relationship between Andersen and Enron that fundamentally robbed the auditor of its independence. In turn nullifying the highest role, Andersen supposedly played as Enron’s external auditor, delivering strong independent verification of its financial reports. Subsequently, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) mandating reform in the accounting profession, to protect investors. While SOX, is vital to fraud deterrence, audit failure attributed to the lack of independence is still at large. Two distinguishable components yield auditor independence. One, “the auditor must maintain independence in mental attitude” (AU 202.01) known as possessing independence in fact and two, “Independent auditors (…) should avoid situations that may lead outsiders to doubt their independence” (AU 202.03) referred to as independence in appearance. This raises the question, is auditor independence authentic? No- the reforms made by SOX is deficient in ensuring auditors’ independence in fact, the structure of the auditor client relationship neglects auditors’ independence in appearance, and a psychological element exists that challenge auditors’ independent opinion.

An audit is based when management prepares the financial statements, maintain internal control over financial reporting, and provide relevant information and access to the auditor.

In a free and open market, listed companies are required by law to provide their stakeholders with financial information that is credible. One method that can be used to obtain a trustworthy and objective financial reporting is through statutory auditing. However, the recent financial scandals and crisis have renewed concerns regarding the tenure of auditors and its impact on their audit quality and independence. Regulators and other experts have become concerned that the familiarity created between management and auditors over time and the need to retain client firms weakens the independence of auditors, and adversely affect the quality of their audit reports (Arel 2013: 16). On the other hand, those opposing mandatory audit firm rotation claim that the costs incurred as a result of frequently changing auditing firms surpasse its benefits by far (Beasley et al., 2009:67). Pozen (2012:11) points out that the chances of audit failures are greater during the early stages of an auditor-client relationship since the new auditor may not have auditor knowledge regarding operations, processes, and client-specific risks. The role of audit firm rotation as a means of sustaining the independence and reliability of financial reporting will be discussed in the paper as well as the views of stakeholders regarding the rotation rule and make recommendations on how to improve audit quality and independence will be considered.

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Apollo Shoes, Inc. as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the related statements of income, shareholder’s equity and cash flow for the two years in the period ended December 31, 2007. Apollo Shoes’ management is responsible for the financial statements presented, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of internal control.

The auditing profession by nature entails a person to be as trustworthy as they can possibly be since the need to be free from “undue influence” is not only expected but should exceed all expectations. The need for an auditor to have a clear mind, free from all distractions, can be compared to a surgeon attempting to perform a high-risk surgery where his actions would ultimately determine whether the person undergoing the surgery lives or dies. Saving lives is a universal principal and almost everyone acts upon it and so we have more lives saved than lost. Similarly stakeholders’ trust that auditors will act with integrity and honesty, which will enable them to see beyond the greed of money, therefore, act in the appropriate manner that will sustain the livelihood of the stakeholders. Relating to the importance of honesty, the authors highlighted Immanuel Kant theory, ‘Kant’s first categorical imperative, the universalizability principle: ‘act so you can will the maxim of your actions to be a universal law.’ Which supports the notion that it is also in the best interest for auditors to be ethical and trustworthy in order to sustain the functions of auditing. For example, if every auditor was to engage in dishonesty and unethical practices, they run a high risk of undermining the confidence and trust that stakeholders have placed on them. Without this public trust, the whole institution of

Internal auditing is an independent objective assurance and consulting acitivity designed to add value and improve an organizations operations.

Internal auditors cannot effectively provide an analysis on the company’s internal dealings as they are part of the company. External auditors, however, can observe these processes from the outside and then determine where the funds of the company and whether the dealings adhere to the regulations. Using external auditors in a company prevents conflict of interest from happening. Conflict of interest is a situation where an individual or organization has multiple interests and of those multiple interests, one could possible corrupt the motivation for an act on the other when the auditor has any kind of beneficial interest in their client’s performance. In other circumstances, there is also the threat of familiarity where auditors become

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of external auditing in promoting good corporate governance. The role of auditors has been emphasized after the pass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a response to the accounting scandal of Enron. Even though auditors are hired and paid by the company, their role is not to represent or act in favor of the company, but to watch and investigate the company’s financials to protect the public from any material misstatements that can affect their decisions. As part of this role, the auditors assess the level of the company’s adherence to its own code of ethics.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), (2011), the internal auditing is a team of consultants, a department and a division or other practitioner which independent, have objective assurance and conduct a consulting activity which is designed to add value and improve the organization operations. The internal auditor can help an organization in achieving its objectives by bringing a discipline and systematic approach in order to improve and evaluate the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance process.

The lack of independence for external auditors will lead to the neglect of auditing risks (William R.K., 2003), which are the main reasons for the failure of certified accountants and professional accounting organizations. The consequence of the external auditors deprived of independence would be very serious. And there are many cases, which aroused by the failure of external auditors and most are related to the lack of independence. One famous example is the bankruptcy of Enron and the role played by its external auditor, Arthur Andersen (Todd, S., 2003). Arthur Andersen was once one of the biggest accounting companies in the world, and was canceled for the involvement in the Enron bankruptcy scandal.

This paper critically analyses the independence of the internal audit function through its relationship with management and the audit committee. Given the growing role of internal auditing in contemporary corporate governance and independence has gained renewed attention.

A company prepares financial statement to provide information about its financial position and performance. This information is in turn used by a wide range of stakeholders (such as investors, banks, customers, suppliers etc) in making economic decisions with respect to respective economic interest in the company. Typically, in terms of ownership by investment in shares of the company, shareholders though own the company but do not manage it. Therefore, the shareholder and other such stakeholders to get comfort in taking sound decision need independent assurance from the auditors that the financial statements reflect true and fair view of the company affairs in all material respects. Hence, in order to enhance the level of