The Roles Of Auditing And Assurance Services

The audit profession is a relative new comer to the accounting world. The Industrial Revolution, with the growing business sector, was the spark that resulted in auditing techniques being sought out and utilized. Initially, audit techniques and methods were adopted by companies to control costs and detect fraud, which is more closely aligned with internal auditing. However, the need for mandatory oversight of public companies was recognized after the great stock market crash of 1929 (Byrnes, et al., 2012). This brought about the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At that point, the SEC was tasked with

During fraud period, Arthur Andersen did not provide any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion (Freddie Mac 2002). It also failed to place a condition or qualification on its statement as well; for example, “the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Freddie Mac … for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, in conformity with GAAP” (Freddie Mac 2001). Arthur Andersen’s reputation was damaged due to its handling of the auditing of Enron, and it filed for bankruptcy at last. On March 2002, PwC took over auditing duties from Arthur Andersen, and refused to certify the company's books (Barta et al. 2003). It identified that these accounting policies were incorrect, prompting the Board an investigation. Also, PwC notified company of material weaknesses that existed in its internal controls over financial reporting during 2003 (Freddie Mac). According to the audit reports for 2004, 2005, and 2006, the financial statements fairly represented the performance except for some weaknesses of internal control pointed out by

For instance, the funds owed the company by the Rigas family went undisclosed in the statements, because the management at Adelphia deemed such disclosure as being “unnecessary” (Barlaup, Hanne, & Stuart, 2009). Given that Adelphia was a publicly traded company, the purposeful non-disclosure caused potential investors to rely on financial records that were grossly misleading. The inevitable result was the investors continued to inject money into a company that had all the appearances of profitability and sustained growth, but that was, in reality, rapidly becoming insolvent. Moreover, lending institutions also relied on the “independently-audited” financial statements, and they were more than eager to loan the company money, given Adelphia’s presumed state of financial “profitability.”

A decade ago the Lehman Brothers were the fourth largest investment bank in America. Dealing with Investment banking and investment management, the Lehman Brothers was one of the largest global financial service providers. Consequently, the subprime mortgage crisis left the company filing for the declaration of the chapter 11 bankruptcy protections, due to the unnecessary undertaken risk and obnoxious negligence accusations directed towards the group. Companies should utilize observational and analytical pundit functions in identifying the presence of crisis situations to avoid an economic downturn in the business (Pontell, 2014). The fraud would have prevented through stronger and better internal controls, which

Of these transactions, most of it was not in the interest of Enron of Enron’s shareholders; such as profits and cash flows were manipulated and grossly inflated which caused misleading to the investors. AA has also failed to recognise the Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP) – which is accounting rules used to prepare, present and report financial statements for a wide variety of entities used in United States. AA also did not advise Enron’s audit committee that Enron’s CFO – Andrew Fastow – and his helpers were involved in significant conflict of interests. Enron’s politics and internal control was also found out to be inadequate to protect the shareholders interests. These should have made known and clear as these are responsibilities of an auditor. AA has also make the mistake by which it did not act upon evidence found or neither has it find any audit evidence relating to the numerous share rights transferred to SPEs and the side deals between Enron and banks which remove the banks’ risk from transactions. In auditing, audit documentations are key part to the audit processes.

This case established that an auditor could be sued by a primary beneficiary for damages from negligence. A primary beneficiary is a party that has a direct benefit from the audit. Non-privity parties could also sue for gross negligence. This increased the auditor’s legal exposure to third parties. The SEC of 1934 reflected these changes and many others; one significant change was that auditor’s had a much higher litigation risk due to their new responsibility to third parties.

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

I was first introduced to the world of business through a book called Pipe Dreams: Greed, Ego, and the Death of Enron. At the time, though I had difficulty understanding all the complicated underlying causes for the energy giant’s collapse, I was struck by the fact that Arthur Andersen, Enron’s auditor, failed to fulfill their obligations to conduct proper audits, and ultimately lost their CPA licenses. This made me interested in the role of auditors and the reasons behind their significant—though not always positive—influence. It also motivated me to learn accountancy at the University of Hong Kong upon graduating from high school.

This essay explores the corporate collapse of Harris-Scarfe on April 3 2001, which before their collapse was Australia’s third largest retail group (Buchanan 2004, p. 55). It will explore the collapse in the context of the auditing framework. In particular, how the financial indiscretions were not discovered by the auditors, which were going on as early as six years prior to the collapse (Buchanan 2004, p. 62). To start with, we define what the auditing objective is in order to work out where it failed in this case. ASA 200.11/ISA 200.11 defines the auditing objective as one that needs to ascertain reasonable assurance that the financial report as a whole is free from misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. In doing so the auditor can give an opinion of whether the financial report was prepared in accordance with the financial reporting framework (Gay & Simnett 2012, p. 12).

The summary provided details surrounding the Lehman Brothers’ executives and the development of the Repo 105 transactions utilized to improve the financial statement results, however, more information is needed involving the auditing firm Ernst & Young (E & Y). William Schlich, the lead auditor, was intimately involved in the accounting and auditing acceptance of the Repo 105 process and his obstinacy with the bankruptcy examiner sheds negative light on E & Y. Schlich’s unreasonableness and obstructing the examiner from performing his duties only shows how E & Y was intimately involved, especially when these transactions were not noted in previous audits. Overall, the summary provided the detailed information needed to understand the intricacies

With professions having this tremendous knowledge regarding a company’s financial standing and not being able to disclose the information to the public it can create major investment errors. With these restrictions in place by the AICPA the accountants and auditors “… in a position of having to choose between earning a livelihood or making a proper ethical choice” (Synder, 2011).

Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

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.

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.