Essay on ZZZZ Best Company, Inc.: Case Study

Scoping and Evaluation Judgments in the Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting 12.1 EyeMax Corporation . . Evaluation of Audit Differences

Best Buy Co., Inc. is a multinational company in the United States and it deals, with consumer electronics, and accounts 19% of the business. The company also operates in Mexico, Puerto Rico, China, and Canada. Some of the subsidiaries of the company include CinemaNow, Geek Squad, Pacific Sales, and Magnolia Audio Video and operates in both Future Shop label, and Best Buy in Canada. Best Buy Co. Inc and its subsidiaries operate more than 1,150 stores internationally and domestically. The company also operates more than 100 “ZoomShops” or Buy Express Automated retail Stores, operated by the Zoom Systems, in both malls and airports in the entire country of the U.S. The company is headquartered in Richfield, Minnesota, U.S (Scott,

There were two external auditors mentioned in the case that dealt with ZZZZ Best. The first was not a firm that was included in the Big Eight accounting firms at the time. George Greenspan was the sole practitioner who performed the first full-scope independent audit for ZZZZ Best. Greenspan insisted that he had properly audited Minkow’s company, and testified that while planning the audit he had performed various analytical procedures to identify unusual relationships in ZZZZ Best’s financial data. Greenspan’s procedures reportedly included comparing ZZZZ Best’s key financial ratios with its industry norms. Greenspan identifies “unusual relationships” but does not go into detail in order to explain these unusual relationships. This shows that Greenspan did not show enough professional skepticism while conducting the audit and just blew off these unusual relationships. Also Greenspan testified that he had obtained and reviewed copies of all key documents that pertained to the false insurance restoration contracts. It would have been hard for Greenspan to uncover the fraud through the contract paperwork because Minkow and Morze went through such great detail in creating false documents in order to cover the false contracts, but finer details were overlooked by Greenspan. A journalist found one of these finer details which caused the domino effect leading to the destruction of ZZZZ Best. This shows that the first auditor,

As indicated by PCAOB, the written representation cannot be a substitute for substantive procedures. Thus, auditors did not perform adequate procedures to test the management’s estimates. What’s more, inquires were heavily relied on the management’s integrity. Auditors ignored the professional skepticism. Finally, the 30 years and 15 years useful lives, which were adopted previously by Little Drummer, were not appropriately audited. Since the engagement team did not contact the predecessor auditors, the team did not get any audit documents from predecessor auditors regarding the assumptions of 30 years and 15 years. There was no evidence to show the reasonableness of these two assumptions.

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

The auditor’s report is a major source of information that officially evaluations an entity's financial status. In conjunction with the auditor’s official evaluation of the entity’s financial status, the auditor provides an assessment of the firm’s monetary position and future. Auditors can provide four types of reports: unqualified opinion, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, and a disclaimer of an opinion. An unqualified opinion (clean report) which is issued in most cases expresses the opinion that financial statements are presented in accordance with general accepted accounting principles and is void of misrepresentations. The unqualified

Please note that although the testing of the bank reconciliation provides further audit evidence over management’s

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate (Louwers & Reynolds, 2007). We believe that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.

1. There are numerous differences between performing a review and actual audit on the financial statements, but the major one is that the review does not contemplate obtaining an understanding of internal control structure. Also, a review does not assess control risk, tests of accounting records and responses to inquiries by obtaining corroborating evidence through inspection, observation or any other audit procedure. It can point out significant matters of the financial statements but does not provide assurance of their accuracy. The issue with ZZZZ Best case is that the auditors review was not sufficient enough to review any misstatements on the financial statements. Ernst & Whinney never questioned the internal control, reviewed

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.

This memo is regarding Hamilton Corporation and the fraud that occurred. When people make decisions they don’t always do it with the right mindset. There are limitations in our judgment processes and we can identify methods to mitigate bias and improve judgment (KPMG Judgment Framework). The four common tendencies that cause limitations in our judgment processes are, availability, confirmation, overconfidence, and anchoring. In this memo I will explain each of the four tendencies, talk about which tendency I believe to have manifested in the Hamilton case, clarify issues relating to auditing the warranty reserve and describe the alternatives that should be considered in auditing the warranty reserve, and finally provide factors that

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

As the Independent Auditor I would require from Pinnacle, the client a Management Representation Letter. This is a letter an auditor is required to obtain from management at the conclusion of fieldwork, confirming representations explicitly or implicitly given to the auditor, indicating and documenting the continuing appropriateness of such representations, and reducing the possibility of misunderstanding regarding the representations.

Ernst and Whitney never issued an audit opinion on financial statements of ZZZZ Best but did issue a review report on the company’s quarterly statements for the three months ended July 31, 1986. How does a review differ from an audit, particularly in terms of the level of assurance implied by the auditor’s report?

The chief executive of the company was closely working with the vendors whose confirmations were vital in the auditing work and hence they could have submitted false confirmations. The auditing firm established a national risk management program for its clients and so national reviews were done to identify the high risk items in the financial statement. The vendor allowances were particularly high but they were not documented. As such, the auditors were supposed to demand for the documentations and compare them with the real figures. It is however noted that most of the documentations received were non-standard and this could have led to a different audit report given that vendor allowances were earlier identified as a high risk area. Inventory management was found to be poor especially in the allowances for inventory reserves. The audit firm was therefore obliged to carry out a thorough evaluation of the inventory reserves and determine whether it was reasonable. The valuation was also supposed to include all classes of inventory but for the case of the company, the evaluation excluded instances where no sales had been made. Hence, this evaluation could not accurately represent the position of the inventory reserve in the company. (Waters,2003)