Questions On Issues And Auditors

An implicit theme of this case that I want students to recognize is the contrast between the persistent and vigorous efforts of David Sokol to “get to the bottom” of the suspicious items he uncovered in JWP’s accounting records versus what Judge William Conner referred to as the “spinelessness” of JWP’s auditors. The JWP audits were similar to most problem audits in that the auditors encountered numerous red flags and questionable entries in the client’s accounting records but, for whatever reason, apparently failed to thoroughly investigate those items. On the other hand, Sokol refused to be deterred in his investigation of the troubling accounting issues that he discovered. The relationships that existed between members of JWP’s accounting staff and the Ernst & Young audit team apparently influenced the outcome of the JWP audits. Of course, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Professional auditing standards identify 5 “management assertions” that commonly underlie a set of financial statements. These 5 assertions are: occurrence, completeness, valuation/allocation, rights/obligations, and presentation/disclosure. With respect to the audit of Paragon’s construction project, some of these key assertions were overlooked by auditor Arthur Anderson. The main assertions that Anderson should have focused on for this audit include occurrence, valuation, and disclosure.

PCAOB describes professional skepticism as a general duty of care that needs to be applied by the auditor throughout the duration of the audit engagement. Professional skepticism involves the auditor having a clear and questioning mind regarding the assertions that are presented by management or other client personnel. The auditor is instructed to not take the words or data presented by management as sufficient and appropriate audit evidence but rather the auditor needs to thoroughly audit the evidence with a questioning mind to achieve reasonable assurance about the persuasiveness of the evidence. Skepticism is composed of three elements; auditor attributes, mindset and actions. The PCAOB

The auditor must remember that all information collected during the audit needs to be sufficient enough to further the audit process. The information must not only possess the two qualities, relevance and reliability, but it should also test various assertions. For instance, in the audit of Walmart, the auditor should make an attempt to acquire information such as financial statements from the company’s bank, as opposed to acquiring the statements from Walmart’s management. Taking such crucial information from Walmart’s management will put the reliability of that information into question. It is possible that management may manipulate the financial statements, so that they are more appealing to the public and investors. Management may do things

Grant Thornton should be held liable for its reckless negligence because it ultimately prolonged Keystone bank’s ability to continue to partake in fraudulent activities. If the accounting firm would have held itself to GAAS, generally accepted as the minimum standard of professional conduct in performing an audit, Thornton would have known to exercise “heightened skepticism” during this high risk of fraud. Secondly, GAAS required written confirmations from third parties servicing assets in regards to a bank’s balance sheet. Not only did Thornton fail to obtain this written requirement, it also recklessly relied on an oral statement. GAAS also required in a high risk audit that monthly remittances of interest income on assets being serviced by

The auditing firm Coopers & Lybrand was accused of failing to perform a proper GAAS audit. One strategy the auditors could have performed was to follow the trail of revenue vs expenses. The auditor should have notice large sums ($10 million) of revenue going into one particular expense (Suppliers/Inventory). Considering Phar-Mor filed that they lost money in fiscal year 1984 and 1985 and they never cleared

According to an article in the CPA Journal, the accounting profession has long contended that an audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) provides reasonable assurance that there are no material misstatements contained within financial statements. Suggest at least two (2) alternative methods that auditors can use to provide a more concrete level of assurance to investors. Provide support for your responses with examples of such methods in use.

Although this practice was not fraudulent, the plaintiffs insisted that Campbell had a responsibility to record a reserve or allowance in anticipation of substantial customer returns likely to result from theses “sales.” Despite the fact that a large percentage of product sold under guaranteed sales contracts was returned, the company’s accounting staff apparently never recorded appropriate reserves for those sales returns. The plaintiffs charged that PwC must have known about Campbell’s bogus sales, but

Elder, A. A., Beasley, M., & Elder, R. J. (2014). Auditing and assurance services (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

study guide. To download free internal audit effectiveness: an ethiopian public sector case you need

A review and an audit report are both a form of an attestation engagement. A Review, however, is less in scope so it provides a moderate level of assurance on the financial statements. It is considered a “sniff” of an audit, which comparatively provides reasonable assurance that no material misstatements occurred. Since a review deals with a limited scope, it does not provide the basis for expressing an opinion on the presentation of the

During the performance of this integrated audit, require numerous judgments about the internal control and overall financial reporting and how well it addresses risks of material misstatements within the financial statements (AICPA, 2014). After re-evaluating the previous errors found from the previous audit, the audit team found the corrective actions to be appropriate and justified in elimination of human error by implementing additional checks and balances within the manual process. No additional misstatements have been found and all internal controls off the financial reporting seem appropriate and just.

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident

Additional concerns have been made in regards to the red flags missed by auditors. First of all, auditors should have been alarmed by the size of the cash account held in the Cayman Islands. Auditors should have remained skeptical about the existence of this account. They should’ve addressed this red flag with

Professional skepticism practices as neutral but discipline approach to detection and investigation. Per SAS No. 1 it suggests that an auditor neither assumers that management is dishonest or assumes unquestionable honesty. Professional skepticism requires fraud examiners to “pull on thread” in which means Red flags are warning signal or something that demands attention or provokes an irate reaction. Red Flag symptoms of fraud may be divided into at least six categories: unexplained accounting anomalies, exploited internal control weaknesses, identified analytical anomalies where non