ECED 105 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Risk Assessment, Sarbanes–Oxley Act, Financial Statement

80 views3 pages

yellowherring829

13 May 2021

School

Ivy Tech Community College

Department

ECED

Course

ECED 105

Professor

brad

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Why doesn"t sarbanes-oxley apply to privately-owned companies? (the correct answer is not. "because it applies only to publicly held companies. ") Sarbanes- oxley act was passed in 2002 to protect all the outside investors of a company from the possible fraudulent accounting activities that could be done by the corporations where they have invested their money. This act was passed to put tighter controls on companies financial reporting so that they publish corrects financial data especially after the large-scale fraud that was committed by publicly owned companies, including enron. The act"s main purpose was to protect all the outside investors who invest in publicly owned companies. These laws do not apply to any privately owned companies who don"t have outside investors. If the reporting is done by a privately owned company it is for the owner and not public knowledge: discuss sarbanes-oxley and the five elements of internal control. Include unique examples and specific illustrations that are unique from your classmates.

Related Questions

1â28. Multiple Choice Questions
Select the best answer for each of the following items and give reasons for your choice.
a. Which of the following best describes the relationship between assurance services and
attest services?
(1) While attest services involve fi nancial data, assurance services involve nonfi nancial data.
(2) While attest services require objectivity, assurance services do not require objectivity.
(3) Both attest and assurance services require independence.
(4) Attest and assurance services are different terms referring to the same types of services.
b. Which of the following has primary responsibility for the fairness of the representations
made in fi nancial statements?
(1) Clientâs management.
(2) Independent auditor.
(3) Audit committee.
(4) AICPA.
c. The most important benefi t of having an annual audit by a public accounting fi rm is to:
(1) Provide assurance to investors and other outsiders that the fi nancial statements are reliable.
(2) Enable offi cers and directors to avoid personal responsibility for any misstatements in
the fi nancial statements.
(3) Meet the requirements of government agencies.
(4) Provide assurance that illegal acts, if any exist, will be brought to light.
d. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB). Which of the following is not one of the responsibilities of that board?
(1) Establish independence standards for auditors of public companies.
(2) Review fi nancial reports fi led with the SEC.
(3) Establish auditing standards for audits of public companies.
(4) Sanction registered audit fi rms.
e. Which of these organizations has the responsibility to perform inspections of auditors of
public companies?
(1) American Institute of Certifi ed Public Accountants.
(2) Securities and Exchange Commission.
(3) Financial Accounting Standards Board.
(4) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
f. Governmental auditing, in addition to including audits of fi nancial statements, often
includes audits of effi ciency, effectiveness, and:
(1) Adequacy.
(2) Evaluation.
(3) Accuracy.
(4) Compliance.
g. In general, internal auditorsâ independence will be greatest when they report directly to the:
(1) Financial vice president.
(2) Corporate controller.
(3) Audit committee of the board of directors.
(4) Chief executive offi cer.
h. Which of the following did not precipitate the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
to regulate public accounting fi rms:
(1) Disclosures related to accounting irregularities at Enron and WorldCom.
(2) Restatements of fi nancial statements by a number of public companies.

(3) Conviction of the accounting fi rm of Arthur Andersen LLP.
(4) Ethical scandals at the AICPA.
i. Which of the following organizations establishes accounting standards for U.S. government
agencies?
(1) The Financial Accounting Standards Board.
(2) The Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
(3) The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
(4) The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.
j. Which of the following is correct about forensic audits?
(1) All audit engagements are forensic in nature.
(2) Forensic audits are performed by law fi rms; they are not performed by CPA fi rms.
(3) Forensic audits are equivalent to compliance audits.
(4) Forensic audits are usually performed in situations in which fraud has been found or is
suspected.
k. What best describes the purpose of the auditorsâ consideration of internal control in a
fi nancial statement audit for a nonpublic company?
(1) To determine the nature, timing, and extent of audit testing.
(2) To make recommendations to the client regarding improvements in internal control.
(3) To train new auditors on accounting and control systems.
(4) To identify opportunities for fraud within the clientâs operations.
l. Which of the following is an example of a compliance audit?
(1) An audit of fi nancial statements.
(2) An audit of a companyâs policies and procedures for adhering to environmental laws
and regulations.
(3) An audit of a companyâs internal control over fi nancial reporting.
(4) An audit of the effi ciency and effectiveness of a companyâs legal department.

coralbadger702

Required: After reading the Bye, Bye SOX? Article comment on the issue of small business compliance with Section 404 of SOX

Bye, Bye, SOX?
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX)	SOX compliance has been extended
may be declawed by upcoming	four times, but they wonât need to
U.S. Congress and	comply at all if the Garrett-Adler
Supreme Court decisions.	amendment makes it to the Senate
The House of Representatives	floor as a standalone bill.
recently voted to approve the	SOX also established the
Garrett-Adler amendment, which	PCAOB to oversee and regulate
would exempt small companies	audit firms. PCAOB operates under
from SOX Section 404 provisions,	the supervision of the Securities
while the Supreme Court is considering	and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the constitutionality of the	which also appoints PCAOB members.
Public Company Accounting Oversight	It is funded by fees charged to
Board (PCAOB).	audited firms. When it was established,
These developments may have	Congress wanted the board
long-term implications for SOX, the	to be separate, with its own funding
2002 legislation passed in the wake	stream, and outside normal civil
of the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco	service laws so it could attract
scandals. The outcomes may also	highly qualified specialists. PCAOB
have implications for records managers,	membersâ salaries are more than
information technology specialists,	$500,000 and are reviewed by the
and compliance officers	SEC.
who devise and implement company	Pro-business advocates, represented
controls.	by the Free Enterprise
Section 404 of SOX requires	Fund, argue that the PCAOBâs governance
company auditors to attest to the	structure is unconstitutional
soundness of the firmâs internal	because it is an independent
controls and financial statements.	agency that does not allow for the
Internal controls may include anything	president to appoint members. Additionally,
from transaction approval authorizations	because only the president
to records retention	can remove SEC commissioners
programs. This provision is widely	for cause, and because
blamed for an increase in auditorsâ	the SEC can only remove PCAOB
fees, as well as increased expenditures	members for cause, some court
to ensure that proper internal	members believe this is a formerly
controls are in place.	unrecognized limit of the presidentâs
Small firms â those with	powers that may contradict
less than $75 million in	the constitution.
market capitalization	The Supreme Court will take up
â have protested that	the issue soon, and some legal experts
compliance with SOX 404 would	believe that SOX could be
cost them a disproportionate share	abolished completely if the court
of their earnings. The complaint is	rules the PCAOB unconstitutional.
supported by an independent study
conducted at Pennsylvania State
University, which showed that
firms just over the $75 million
mark paid nearly $700,000 more in
audit fees and had average earnings
of negative $1.4 million in 2004

aquamarinebear162

13-35 (Objectives 13-3, 13-4) McClain Plastics has been an auditclient of Belcor, Rich, Smith & Barnes, CPAs (BRS&B), forseveral years. McClain Plastics was started by Evers McClain, whoowns 51% of the companyâs stock. The balance is owned by about 20stockholders, who are investors with no operationalresponsibilities. McClain Plastics makes products that have plasticas their primary material. Some are made to order, but mostproducts are made for inventory. An example of aMcClain-manufactured product is a plastic chair pad that is used ina carpeted office. Another is a plastic bushing that is used withcertain fastener systems.

McClain has grown from a small, two-product company, when theyfirst engaged BRS&B, to a successful, diverse company. At thetime Randall Sessions of BRS&B became manager of the audit,annual sales had grown to $200 million and profits to $10.9million. Historically, the company presented no unusual auditproblems, and BRS&B had issued an unmodified opinion everyyear.

The audit approach BRS&B always used on the audit of McClainPlastics was a âsubstantiveâ audit approach. Under this approach,the in-charge auditor obtained an understanding of internal controlas part of the risk assessment procedures, but control risk wasassessed at the maximum (100%). Extensive analytical procedureswere done on the income statement, and unusual fluctuations wereinvestigated. Detailed audit procedures emphasized balance sheetaccounts. The theory was that if the balance sheet accounts werecorrect at year-end and had been audited as of the beginning of theyear, then retained earnings and the income statement must becorrect.

Part I

In evaluating the audit approach for McClain for the currentyearâs audit, Sessions believed that a substantive approach wasreally only appropriate for the audits of small nonpubliccompanies. In his judgment, McClain Plastics, with sales of $200million and 146 employees, had reached the size where it was noteconomical, and probably not wise, to concentrate all the tests onthe balance sheet. Furthermore, although McClain is not a publiccompany, Sessions recognized that similar public companies arerequired by Section 404 of the SarbanesâOxley Act and related PCAOBstandards to have an integrated audit of the financial statementsand internal control over financial reporting. Therefore, hedesigned an audit program that emphasized identifying internalcontrols in all major transaction cycles and included tests ofcontrols. The intended economic benefit of this âreducing controlriskâ approach was that the time spent testing controls would bemore than offset by reduced tests of details of the balance sheetaccounts.

In planning tests of inventories, Sessions used the audit riskmodel included in auditing standards to determine the number ofinventory items BRS&B would test at year-end. Because of thenumber of different products, features, sizes, and colors,McClainâs inventory consisted of 2,450 different items. These weremaintained on a perpetual inventory management system that used arelational database.

In using the audit risk model for inventories, Sessions believedthat an audit risk of 5% was acceptable. He assessed inherent riskas high (100%) because inventory, by its nature, is subject to manytypes of misstatements. Based on his understanding of the relevanttransaction cycles, Sessions believed that internal controls wereeffective. He therefore assessed control risk as low (50%) beforeperforming tests of controls. Sessions also planned to usesubstantive analytical procedures for tests of inventory. Theseplanned tests included comparing gross profit margins by month andreviewing for slow-moving items. Sessions believed that these testswould provide assurance of 40%. Substantive tests of details wouldinclude tests of inventory quantities, costs, and net realizablevalues at an interim date two months before year-end. Cutoff testswould be done at year-end. Inquiries and substantive analyticalprocedures would be relied on for assurance about events betweenthe interim audit date and fiscal year-end.

Required

Decide which of the following will likely be done under both areducing control risk approach and a substantive approach:

Assess inherent risk.

Obtain an understanding of internal control.

Perform tests of controls.

Perform substantive analytical procedures.

Assess planned detection risk.

What advantages does the reducing control risk approach Sessionsplanned to use have over the substantive approach previously usedin the audit of McClain Plastics?

What advantages did the substantive approach have over thereducing control risk approach?

Part II

The engagement partner agreed with Sessionsâs recommendedapproach. In planning the audit evidence for detailed inventorytests, the audit risk model was applied with the followingresults:

PDR=AATIRÃCRÃAPR

where:

PDR=PlanneddetectionriskAAR=acceptableauditriskIR=inherentriskCR=controlriskAPR=analyticalproceduresrisk

Therefore, using Sessionsâs assessments and judgments asdescribed previously,

PDR=.051.0Ã.5Ã.6PDR=.17

Required

Explain what .17 means in this audit.

Calculate PDR assuming that Sessions had assessedcontrol risk at 100% and all other risks as they are stated.

Explain the effect of your answer in requirement b. on theplanned audit procedures and sample size in the audit of inventorycompared with the .17 calculated by Sessions.

Part III

Although the planning went well, the actual testing yielded somesurprises. When conducting tests of controls over acquisitions andadditions to the perpetual inventory, the staff person performingthe tests found that the deviation rates for several key controlswere significantly higher than expected. As a result, the staffperson considered internal control to be operating lesseffectively, supporting an 80% control risk rather than the 50%level used. Accordingly, the staff person âreworkedâ the audit riskmodel as follows:

PDR=.051.0Ã.8Ã.6PDR=.10

A 10% test of details risk still seemed to the staff person tobe in the âmoderateâ range, so he recommended no increase inplanned sample size for substantive tests.

Required

Do you agree with the staff personâs revised judgments about theeffect of tests of controls on planned substantive tests? Explainthe nature and basis of any disagreement. If BRS&B was alsoissuing a report on internal control over financial reporting,describe the implications of these results on the auditorâsinternal control report.

ECED 105 Lecture Notes - Lecture 11: Risk Assessment, Sarbanes–Oxley Act, Financial Statement

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ACCT 001 Lecture Notes - Lecture 24: Sarbanes–Oxley Act, Adelphia Communications Corporation, Regulatory Compliance

01:220:301 Lecture Notes - Lecture 15: Accounting Scandals, Mci Inc., Financial Statement

[ACBU 2222] - Midterm Exam Guide - Ultimate 16 pages long Study Guide!

Related Questions