问题二共有28分，内容是为现有审计客户提供鉴证业务。审计单位和客户均为国际企业，并且客户在好几个证券交易所上市。考生们就部分内容发挥得非常好。
Question Two
Question two was for 28 marks,and featured an assurance engagement for an existing audit client.Both the audit firm and the client were global enterprises,and the client was listed on several stock exchanges.Candidates responded reasonably well to parts of this question,though many answers did not reach their full potential by not being applied to the question scenario.
Requirement (a),for 12 marks,asked candidates to identify and explain the matters that should be considered in evaluating whether the audit firm should perform an assurance engagement on the client’s Sustainability Report.It was clear that most candidates knew the matters that should be considered (ethical constraints,resources,knowledge,timescale,fees etc),and most candidates took the right approach to the question,by working through the various ‘matters’ and applying them to the question.The fact that this was not an audit engagement did not seem to faze candidates,and there were many sound answers to this requirement.Some answers evaluated the many ethical problems with taking on the assurance engagement as well as providing the audit for ‘a major client’,and appreciated that with only four weeks to complete the work,it would probably be impossible to ensure quality work could be performed on a global scale to such a tight deadline by an inexperienced team.
Some answers also picked up on the fact that the client’s listed status would probably prevent the audit firm from conducting the assurance engagement,and certainly the situation would need to be discussed with,and approved by the audit committee.
However,some answers were much too brief for the 12 marks available,amounting to little more than a bullet point list of matters to be considered but with no application to the scenario.Without application it was not possible to pass this requirement.Other common mistakes included:
•Ignoring the fact that the client was already an existing audit client,so discussing the need to contact its auditors for information.
•Not reading the question and thinking that you had been approached to perform the audit.
•Only discussing the potential problems and not identifying the benefits of providing the service (e.g.it would provide experience for the newly established assurance team).
•Ignoring information given in the question (e.g.saying that the firm would need to ask about the use of the assurance report–when the question clearly states that it would be published in the annual report with the financial statements).
Requirement (b) asked for procedures that could be used to verify two Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)–the number of serious accidents in the workplace,and the average annual spend on training per employee.A fair proportion of answers were sound,with precise procedures recommended.
But,many recommended procedures relied too much on observation and enquiry,and ignored the fact that the client was a global company with 300,000 employees which led to some bizarre and meaningless procedures being given,such as ‘observe a serious accident’,'inspect the location of a serious accident’,'ask how much is spent on training’,and ‘look at the training room to see how many chairs are there’.None of these could verify the KPIs and are pointless.
Requirement (c) focussed on other information published with financial statements.In the scenario an inconsistency had been discovered between a figure relating to charitable donations which had been stated at $9 million in a note to the financial statements,and $10.5 million in the Chairman’s Statement and Sustainability Report.The requirement,for 8 marks,was to explain the auditor’s responsibility,and to recommend actions to be taken.
This requirement was inadequately attempted overall.Answers were usually extremely brief,and it was clear that most candidates did not know the requirements of ISA 720 The Auditor’s Responsibilities in Relation to Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements.Most answers took a guess that the matter would need to be discussed with management,and that if unresolved there would be some kind of impact on the auditor’s report (an 'except for’ opinion was the usual recommendation).But few could say more than this about the issue.Some candidates assumed that some kind of money laundering was taking place,leading to irrelevant discussions of reporting the situation to outside authorities.Very few candidates recognised that if uncorrected,the issue should be included in an Other Matter paragraph,as required by ISA 720.This could imply a lack of knowledge,or that some candidates are studying from out of date learning materials.
Finally,there were 2 professional marks available for requirement (c).The majority of candidates attempted to achieve these marks by using an appropriate format.However a significant minority incorrectly thought that the professional marks were attached to requirement (a).
精品好课免费试听
