Analyzing Audit and Fraud Risks
Audit risk, as defined in SAS No. 47, under “Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit”, is the kind of risk that an auditor may unknowingly take by failing to make corrections as per their opinions on financial statements that are materially misstated (Riahi-Belkaoui, and Picur 34). SAS represents audit risk in the form of a model that comprises three different risks. There is the control risk, the inherent risk and detection risk. This is known as the Audit Risk Model (Riahi-Belkaoui, and Picur 34).
As a way of increasing awareness of possible fraud, SAS No. 82 - “Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit”, was issued in 1997 (Riahi-Belkaoui, and Picur 34). This SAS does not modify the basic ARM, but it expands on the guidance for the auditor’s consideration of material fraud in conducting financial statement audits. The SAS increases an auditor’s ability to detect fraud in an organization.
Since the issuance of SAS No. 47, many other approaches of developing the ARM have been issued (Riahi-Belkaoui, and Picur 34). One such approach is the belief-function framework that is used to model the audit planning and evaluation process for accounts receivable. While using such an approach, it is easier to demonstrate the viability of the auditors. The approach also serves as an expert system to automate belief functions propagations in networks. More so, sensitivity analyses have been performed to identify the significance of
With different industry definitions and viewpoints, fraud can be a tough issue for audit committee members to grasp for oversight purposes. The legal obligations of audit committee members have intensified because their standard duty of care and loyalty to the entity has increased in light of management fraud activities.
CAS 300 requires auditors to their audit using a risk based model where the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures are based on the assessed risk of material misstatement. Pickett (2006) argues that for audits to be effective and efficient, much of the audit effort should be focused on areas that are considered to pose the highest audit risk. Additional audit procedures should be linked to individual audit assertions whereas other audit procedures need to be performed as and when needed. Thus, for an audit plan to be put in place, it is necessary for an auditor to come up with a risk profile of the client comprising an understanding of the business operating by the audit client, assess business risk and also perform its preliminary analytical review.
Audit risk is the risk that the auditor gives the wrong opinion – this can either be stating errors when there are none or when there are errors stating that there are none. This risk cannot be eliminated as auditors can only provide a reasonable assurance and not absolute, but instead this can only be managed and reduced to a minimum.
#3. Inherent Risk Factors; audit planning decisions. Businesses that face extreme competition are susceptible to many inherent risk factors – the measurement of the auditor’s assessment of the likelihood that there are material misstatements in an account balance before considering the effectiveness of internal control. Complex valuation issues and related party transactions are two such factors that would affect audit planning decisions. Valuation issues may lead the audit team to request more evidence, if they choose to accept the audit at all. Risks such as inventory turnover leading to potential misstatements of inventory, costs of goods sold, or obsolescence of inventory may influence the audit firm’s decision to hire outside specialists to assist in the audit. Another inherent risk factor, client business risk (competitive
Professional auditing standards discuss the three key “conditions” that are typically present when a financial fraud occurs and identify a lengthy list of “fraud risk factors.”
Ann Inc. has a seven member Board that serves the interest of Ann Inc. and its investors. Four of the seven members of the Board of Directors would be considered to be Independent Members by the SEC rules. Five of the presiding members are listed:
Cases of fraud have been increasing over the years, and different agencies and authorities that have the task of subduing fraud have to get involved and put a stop to it. In the instance of which fraud has been uncovered, it is crucial to be aware of the red flags that were present in relation to fraud and associate them to the factors related to the fraud risk assessment. As Troy Gillard states in the Rd news magazine, a man that broke free after being acknowledged as suspicious when he wanted to take a loan out at the Cash Canada using a stolen ID amongst other official documents that had been stolen. It seemed that the ID and the other documents
2 Managing fraud risk: The audit committee perspective Fraud in a fi nancial statement audit
Audit Risk Assessment can be done by this Audit Risk Model. This model consists of 3 types of risks i.e., inherent risk, control risk and detection risk. Eventually, audit risk is a product of these 3 types of risks (Griffiths, 2012).
Appendix A.2 also lists several factors that could provide opportunities for management/employees to commit fraud. One factor that could lead to fraud is if, “There is ineffective monitoring of management as a result of: domination of management by a single person or small group without compensating controls.” The auditors should have taken notice of the lack of controls and segregation of duties with respect to Phar-Mor’s
The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident
bebe target is a hip, sexy, sophisticated, body-conscious woman who takes pride in her appearance (bebe, 2010).
Fraudulent, erroneous, and illegal acts committed by a public company, usually at a managerial or executive level, have been a very serious problem for many years and have prompted development of strict and updated regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in an attempt to prevent these occurrences. Unfortunately, these new or updated regulations are not enough to prevent these acts from happening, thus not alleviating the auditors of their responsibility to detect fraud. Some methods that management and auditors can employ to prevent and detect fraud, errors, and illegal acts are: improving knowledge, improving skills,
143). Nearly all individuals and organizations are subject to pressure and rationalization of actions, the risk of fraud is great if internal controls are non-existent or can be overridden. It is vital to look-out for indicators that signal weakness in internal control environment. Opportunities exist for fraud due to role of process owners in the structure of internal control and the ability to avoid or override the existing controls (Golden, Skalak & Clayton, 2006 p. 134). Lack of sound corporate governance functions such as inadequacy in the extent and effectiveness of supervision by independent functions are al signals of fraud as it’s a demonstration of weak control environment. The control environment includes the continuity and effectiveness of internal audit, information technology, and accounting personnel as well as the effectiveness of accounting and reporting systems (Golden, Skalak & Clayton, 2006 p. 134). When such deficiencies are not managed or disciplinary actions put in place to check such weaknesses or override of controls, it may signal potential red
Financial and occurrence-oriented risks are the responsibility of the corporate risk manager; his defining duties are to ensure the reported content and identified measure for the risks are credible. The corporate audit team initiates reviews for the identified risks as part of their internal control process. They function to validate major transactions phases as well as endorse corporate risks selected by management. The auditor team controlling objectives are to stabilize major decisions involving environmental and security resources. Strategic risk encompasses significantly more leadership; corporate development teams run annual strategy review