|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
16 Steps for Conducting an Audit By Leita Hart-Fanta, CPAThis month – let’s start looking at the steps of conducting an audit. I have discussed some of these steps in more detail in previous newsletters. I’ll refer you back to those old newsletters as they are applicable.Most traditional auditors think of an audit in three phases – planning, fieldwork, and reporting. I have broken those steps down a little bit more. Steps 1-8 below are the planning steps. Loosely… steps 9-12 are fieldwork and steps 13-16 are reporting. You can successfully argue that planning, fieldwork, and reporting all blend together – and each is an iterative process. But play along with me here! J Here are the steps to conducting an audit:
10.perform audit steps 11.document results in the working papers
Let’s talk about each step in turn:
The new risk assessment SASs – SAS 104-SAS 111 – and the Yellow Book are quite specific about this phase. They include a laundry list of all the questions you should seek to answer about audit subjects before you can conduct a meaningful risk assessment. SAS 109 requires that auditors gain an understanding of the following 5 areas:
The Yellow Book (Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards) for performance audits require that you gain an understanding of… and I quote: 7.11 Auditors should assess audit risk and significance within the context of the audit objectives by gaining an understanding of the following: a. the nature and profile of the programs and the needs of potential users of the audit report (see paragraphs 7.13 through 7.15); b. internal control as it relates to the specific objectives and scope of the audit (see paragraphs 7.16 through 7.22); c. information systems controls for purposes of assessing audit risk and planning the audit within the context of the audit objectives (see paragraphs 7.23 through 7.27);d. legal and regulatory requirements, contract provisions or grant agreements, potential fraud, or abuse that are significant within the context of the audit objectives (see paragraphs 7.28 through 7.35); and e. the results of previous audits and attestation engagements that directly relate to the current audit objectives (see paragraph 7.36). This is actually a very risky part of the audit for an auditor because you can spend a heck of a lot of time here. This is sort of like the research phase for a PhD dissertation. We have all met someone who is close to getting their PhD, but can’t because they are still researching the topic! Many marriages have fallen apart during the research phase – and many audits drag on and on. I think this is one of the historic motivations behind auditors using SALY (Same as Last Year) procedures. With SALY – there is no research phase and no danger of sucking up precious audit hours in planning. (SALY, however, wastes precious time in the fieldwork phase because you end up doing unnecessary procedures.)I recommend that you allow only 5% of your total budget be spent in this phase. And if after the 5% is expended – the auditor still doesn’t feel ready to do a risk assessment – give them another 1% - and then another 1% - and keep going in increments - until they are comfortable up to a max of 10% of the audit budget.But the danger is still there that you can get lost in this phase. So be careful.And after this phase is over – many auditors have the tendency to feel a bit overwhelmed. They have so much info to work with – now what? But have no fear – step #4 (risk assessment) takes the chaos that you feel – the disorder and disorientation you feel when you have too much information – and concretizes it. The risk assessment phase is a structure that you can use to discard irrelevant information and highlight significant risks and areas of concern.
There are two steps to conducting a risk assessment:
Now what is G.R.E.A.T. about the risk assessment SASs is that they divide financial statement universe up into bite sized chunks for you – the chunks are the elements of the financial statements and the related management assertions. Other standard setting bodies – such as the GAO (Yellow Book) and the Institute of Internal Auditors - don’t give us much help. We are left to our own devices. And believe me – some auditors are more than qualified to create some wacky devices! Every internal audit manager I talk to seems to have created or adopted a unique model for assessing risk. If you’d like to see what others are doing – see the RESOURCES page at AuditSkills.com . If you’d like to share yours – BRING IT ON! I’ll put it up on the website. So on a performance audit or a compliance audit – you must come up with your own way to divide the universe into bite-sized pieces. This can be one of the more challenging phases of the audit. Simple example: on a compliance engagement, the chunks of the audit universe might be the 30 compliance requirements for the grant. (In the next step of the risk assessment, we’ll decide which 3 of the 30 chunks deserve our attention – because we can’t audit all 30!)After the Enron debacle, all of the standard setting bodies have been pushing auditors to document their thought process regarding risk assessment. You must justify why you chose to spend time in certain areas. And step #1 of a risk assessment is to define the areas! Once you divide the universe up into chunks – now you assess risk on each chunk.
If you want to get technical about risk assessment – recall the risk assessment formula AR = DR x IR x CRWhat are all these acronyms?AR = Audit RiskDR = Detection RiskIR = Inherent RiskCR = Control Risk Audit risk is the risk that you will miss the boat as an auditor. It is the risk that a material misstatement will go undetected and that the financial statements will be inaccurate and unfairly stated. It is the risk that your opinion on the financial statements is no good! The formula is a bit of funny algebra. Obviously it is not real algebra because it has no numbers in it. But – just like in algebra – to get one side of the equation lower – something on the opposite side has to be low. So, in order to get one side lower - in order to reduce audit risk to a tolerable level – you must either have a low detection risk, low inherent risk, or low control risk.By using risk assessment techniques , you ask whether the item is inherently risky. And if so – you then ask if this risk is mitigated by controls. Now if inherent or control risk are high – in order to get AR to an acceptably low level – you must reduce DR. Detection risk is the only element of the formula that you as an auditor can control. The way you reduce detection risk – the risk that you won’t detect an error or misstatement – is to audit the heck out of it! In the past, it was much easier to go on gut feel. The new AICPA risk assessment requirements still allow your gut – or in some circles it is called your ‘auditor judgment’ – to play… but you must, in essence, justify your gut and document your gut. This allows reviewers to see how you got from step 1 to step 8 (step 1. receive your vague audit assignment; step 8. create an audit program).This whole risk topic deserves more time – and in future e-zines I’ll make sure to dig into it deeper. You can also read all about it in my book "Basic Audit Skills." But right now, on to step #5…
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||