Showing posts with label going concern. Show all posts
Showing posts with label going concern. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Audit Method: Going Concern Assessment

ISA 570 requires an auditor to obtain and evaluate management’s assessment of the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Issues to consider by the auditor while evaluating the going concern assumption by management are as follows.
Are any events or conditions which may cast significant doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern has been identified? Examples of conditions and events can be traced from paragraphs A2 of ISA 570.

Based on our inquiries of management and our review of their assessment, were any events or conditions noted that may occur shortly beyond the management assessment that were so significant that they may cast doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern?

If audit team answer to the above two questions is “NO” then the evaluation is complete but if the answer is “YES” then the following additional audit procedures need to be undertaken.

Evaluate management’s plans for future actions in relation to its going concern assessment, whether the outcome of these plans is likely to improve the situation and whether management’s plans are feasible in the circumstances.

Stated plans: Obtain and discuss with management its plans to deal with the identified risks. Indicate the individuals interviewed.
Supporting evidence overcoming substantial doubt: Indicate below the elements of management's plans that are particularly significant to overcoming the substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Examine and describe evidence that supports those elements. Elements include Third-party guarantee, Debt restructuring or new borrowings, Liquidation of assets, Reduction or delay of expenditures, Increase in revenues, Increase in equity etc.
Third party guarantees and other financial restructuring agreements: If there are significant guarantees of financial support from a third party (such as the entity’s parent company, another shareholder, an affiliate or a general partner of a limited partnership):
Prospective financial information: Although this information is not as persuasive as evidence provided by third parties, we usually consider it as necessary to support management's plans.
Management's representation: Obtain written representation from management and where appropriate from those charged with governance regarding management's plans and conclusion about the appropriateness of the going concern assumption and the reasonableness of related disclosures in the financial statements.

Practice
Based on the audit evidence obtained, conclude whether a material uncertainty exists relating to events or conditions, that individually or collectively, and may cast significant doubt on the entity's ability to continue as a going concern. A material uncertainty exists when the magnitude of its potential impact and likelihood of occurrence is such that, in our judgment, appropriate disclosure of the nature and implications of the uncertainty is necessary for the fair presentation of the financial statements.

Other articles on related topic:

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

New Regulations for Auditors: European Revolt

Nowadays, when revolutions spread across Middle East and North Africa, the European Commission gently prepares revolutionary changes in audit industry. The cause, as you probably could guess, is financial crunch. Of course, usual "we can’t live like this any more" is also there...
So, how auditors are going to live in near future? What are new regulation ideas of industry? Would it harm our profession? I wish I new concrete answers on this question. Let’s just briefly outline what have happened.
European Commission fed up with current audit practice
In October 2010 European Commission met to raise questions about problems of audit and subsequently issued a document “Green Paper - Audit Policy: Lessons from Crisis”(click to see). The major issues discussed by Commission are as follows:
·        The role of auditor;
·        Ethical issues: governance and independence;
·        Competition in audit market;
·        Supervision of audit practices;
·        Small business problems.
Expectation Gap
I can’t say better than Commission has written: “Given that these stakeholders may be unaware of the limitations of an audit (materiality, sampling techniques, role of the auditor in the detection of fraud and the responsibility of management), this engenders an expectation gap”. 
Yes, there is an expectation gap! Most of people unrelated with audit mistakenly think, that clean audit opinion must give guarantee of financial soundness. Partly they are right. Even under current audit standards the audited entity can’t be totally financially unsound and still get clean opinion. In case of bankruptcy issues and if auditor has reasonable grounds to cast doubts about viability of an entity in nearest year there is an always possibility to issues modified audit opinion with emphasis on going concern issues.  
The bad thing, that even these kind of issues were not emphasised (see e.g. Lehman brothers case described by Sikka).
EU would consider extension of the auditor’s mandate and going to decide whether to enable them to provide economic and financial outlook of audited company or not.
 Competition
Big Four audit firms do audit for 90% of listed companies in vast majority of EU states. Looks like oligopoly, doesn’t it?! EU says that in case of ‘demise of systemic audit firm’ it would raise ‘to big to fail’ situation. There is also potential risk of complete lose of trust by investors and deep crisis of audit profession. European Commission does not have unambiguous answers. Probable ideas to consider: joint audit, mandatory rotation of auditors, reassessment of actual quality of services provided by Big4 and addressing existing bias of perception of Big4 ( European Commission 2010, pp. 15-17).
 Independence  
Green paper clearly states: “The fact that auditors' responsibility is to the shareholders of the audited company and other stakeholders although they are paid by the audited company creates a distortion within the system”.  One of suggested solution to this problem  would  be introduction a third party into ‘auditor-company’ relationships: ‘remuneration and duration of the engagement would be the responsibility of a third party, perhaps a regulator, rather than the company itself’.
Non-audit services also impair auditors’ independence. The tone of document shows that Commission would like to remove any business interest of audit firm in the company being audited. ‘Pure audit firms’, so called, ‘inspection units’ – this is the language used by European Commission.      
Call for help
European Commission asked for response on its Green Paper and promised to announce proposals in 2011. By the 8th of December 2010 preliminary public consultations (click here for proposals) had been ended and on 10th of February 2011 high level Conference was held to discuss Green Paper (pls. click link to read about Conference and materials).

I am going to follow European Commission discussions and I will provide some suggestions concerning raised issues in my further posts. Moreover, I would be pleased if you provide me with your ideas in comments.    

  References:
European Commission. (2010). Green Paper - Audit Policy: Lessons from Crisis
Sikka, P. (2011).The EU man cometh. PQ Magazine. No. 1, p. 27.
Smith, P. (2010). Under Pressure. Accounting and Business. Vol. 13, Issue 10, pp. 13-14