Uday Gulvadi

What is the upside for an auditor to identify instances of fraud? The answer might appear obvious, but hear from University of Denver's Jay Brown (also a former board member of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)) on this and more in the latest AccelPro Audit interview, On Fraud and the PCAOB. AccelPro strives to provide multiple perspectives on every topic we explore. That very much includes academics and regulators alongside auditors, clients and more. "There is really no glory in looking deeply for fraud if you're an auditor. There just isn't, because if you look too hard and you find some things, there can actually be a downside to that. But if you don't look as deeply as maybe you could, and it turns out there's a fraud later, you have a ready made answer to that, and that is, “Look, the fraud's concealed. I looked, but I can't find things that were hidden from me.”" https://lnkd.in/g_zjJQKw Interview by Jessica Stillman #audit

1

The PCAOB's sanctions against L&L CPAs underscore the critical need for robust quality control and adherence to audit standards. With penalties totaling $150,000 and an engagement partner barred, this case highlights the consequences of inadequate policies on reporting critical audit matters and missed deadlines. At CPAClub, we advocate for proactive investments in quality management to ensure compliance and uphold audit integrity. Trust us to elevate your firm's standards and safeguard investor trust. Read more about the article here: https://lnkd.in/e2zaB9-H #AuditStandards #PCAOB #CPAClubLive #CPAClubMembership #CPAClub #CPAClubPasses #FinancialSuccess #Accounting #Auditing #CPA #Audit #AccountingServices #CPALeaders #QualityManagement #cpafirms #pcaob #aicpa #auditquality #auditmanagers #auditseniors #advisory #advisoryseniors #advisorymanagers #cfos #controllers

3

PCAOB report shares observations to help auditors with testing of information produced by companies and external sources The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has issued a new staff Spotlight report titled "Inspection Observations Related to Auditor Use of Data and Reports." This report focuses on enhancing auditor understanding of proper testing methods for information produced by companies (IPC) and information from external sources. IPC examples include invoices, shipping documents, and data from company IT systems, while external information encompasses items like customer purchase orders and bank records. The report addresses findings from the 2021 and 2022 inspection cycles where about 17% of audited instances showed deficiencies in auditors' testing procedures for IPC and external information. To boost audit quality, the Spotlight outlines common audit deficiencies, shares best practices, and provides reminders to help auditors effectively assess the accuracy and completeness of these information sources. The report can be found here:

8

It's Tuesday. On Tuesday's in 2024, I have been posting on something related to Internal Audit. Today, is it CONFORMANCE or is it COMPLIANCE? From 2013 to 2016, I had global staff responsibility at The IIA for the Standards and the IPPF. I remember always counseling people when they would say things like, "we try to 'comply' with the Standards." And I'd politely suggest that it is about "conformance," not "compliance." We took great pains to draw this distinction between "conformance" and "compliance" as terms used when following the Standards. As "principles-based," the Standards were meant to give a lot of latitude in how internal audit functions achieved "conformance," rather than be a prescriptive rendition of what must be done by everyone. That's why External Quality Assurance Reviews (QARs or EQAs) have their conclusions be about how well the internal audit function being reviewed "conforms" to the Standards (e.g., "generally conforms," "partially conforms," "does not conform"), rather than about "compliance" with the Standards. When we all saw the exposure of the new Standards (GIAS) in March of 2023, they were arguably more rules-based (lots of "musts") than the previous standards. The final GIAS took some steps away from the exposure's level of prescription, but are still arguably more rules-based than the predecessor Standards. As we now have exposed the 1st of what is promised to be a number of Topical Requirements (8 topics were suggested as being under development last year), these additions to the Standards/IPPF are very prescriptive. It seems like we are moving away from seeking "CONFORMANCE" and are navigating towards making internal audit more about "COMPLIANCE" over the last couple of years. It is a trajectory I, personally, am very uncomfortable with. You, in my humble opinion, should be too. #internalaudit

29

8 Comments