The History And Role Of External Auditors Accounting Essay

The History And Role Of External studyors report EssayThe first part of the assignment will look at the role of the offside(a) tenders, and the taradiddle of domiciliatevasing will be briefly discussed. Then the plump for part will look at contrivance, its definition, examples of fake and the implications of mockery.Then finally before concluding the impact of supranational Auditing Standards on orthogonal inspectors will be discussed.According to Arens et al. (2003) the auditor is responsible for planning and achieveing the audit to obtain presumable self-reliance almost whether the fiscal argumentations be free of material misstatement, whether this is ca employ by break or ruse. They as well as state that because of the constitution of the audit evidence and the dis short- diversify caseistics of fraud, the auditor is able to obtain reasonable but non absolute sureness that material misstatements are detected. The auditor has no responsibility to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance that misstatement, whether ca utilize by errors or fraud, that are not material to the financial statements are detected. (Arens et al., 2003)Mclnnes and St even soson (1997) stated that even though the law doesnt identify the detection of fraud as the primary objective of the international audit, the habitual public perceive the a course auditor as being the main defence against corporate fraud. collectible to the nature of auditing and its inherent limitations, fraud is difficult to detect for many reasons. First it female genital organ be pull by people who are familiar with accounting procedures and burn cover it up. According to the APB (1995) auditors simply do not possess all the necessary skills to detect fraud. Wells (1993) explains that at that place is a built in conflict since the auditors have to investigate people who indirectly hired them, the upper counsel. Monroe and Woodliff (1994) take in how the abil ity of the external auditor to detect fraud has come under increasing scrutiny and auditors are under bulky pressure to accept legal responsibility for detecting material fraud.Glover et al. (2006) propose that the external auditors rely on internal auditors to different extents depending upon task subjectivity. And they go on to counsel that the external auditors are hesitant in several(prenominal) settings to rely on internal auditors work. Gramling et al. (2004) clarify that because reliance on internal audit can affect nature, timing, and extent of the annual audit program, discretion should be utilised when determining if reliance on internal audit work will increase the efficiency of the audit, yet not compromise quality.Carcello et al. (2005) suggest that internal auditors interaction with audit endowtees has significantly increased since SOX. External auditors, on the former(a) chip in, are not able to embed themselves as deeply within their clients daily operations. E xternal auditors alike have trammel exposure to the client compared to internal auditors because their role is typically performed during only a few months of the year.Smith et al (2005) explain that in the Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) no(prenominal) 99 by AICPA, it is stated that because fraud is normally concealed, material misstatements due to fraud are difficult to detect. This hints that auditors require to consider events that indicate the existence of incentives/pressures to perform fraud, opportunities to carry out the fraud or attitudes/rationalisations to justify a fraudulent action. These are referred to as fraud risk factors and are identified in the fraud trigon.Smith et al (2005) also suggest that because auditing poses effectiveness risk factors for auditors, the assessment of the risks of errors and fraud are vital when planning an audit.In making risk assessments for fraud, auditors should retain in mind that fraud typically includes three character istics, which are identified as the fraud triangleThe Fraud Triangle (by Ilter, 2010)Montgomery, et al. (2002) explains that three conditions are generally present when fraud occurs, these areIncentive/ thrust Pressures or incentives on management to materially misstate the financial statements, Fraud TriangleOpportunity fate that provide an opportunity to carry out material misstatement in the financial statements,Attitude/Rationalisation An attitude, character or set of ethical values that allows angiotensin-converting enzyme or more individuals to knowingly and intentionally commit a dishonest act, or a situation in which individuals are able to rationalise committing a dishonest act.Understanding and considering the likeliness of fraud in the context of these three conditions will enhance the evaluation of information closely fraud (Montgomery, et al., 2002). This will provide the auditor with more professional scepticism when assessing fraud risk. Auditors are advised to co nsider the clients receptiveness to fraud, regardless of the auditors past experience with the client or earliest assessments about managements honesty and integrity (Heim, 2002).HistoryThe demand for both external and internal auditing is sourced in the need to have some means of independent verification to reduce record- nourishmenting errors, asset misappropriation, and fraud within production line and non-business organisations.The origin of auditing goes back to times scarcely less remote than that ofaccountingWhenever the advance of civilisation brought about the necessity of one man being intrusted to some extent with the property of another, the advisability of some kind of bring out upon the fidelity of the former would become apparent. (Mautz Sharaf, 1961)The purpose of an external audit has been viewed as a public return since the 1800s (Langenderfer, 1987). This role was further confirmed during the 1930s when the US Securities and Exchange Commission was formed to monitor the profession process after the crash of 1929. Wallace (1987) and Watts and Zimmerman (1986) have described the auditor as an economic agent who serves as a monitor and a form of insurance for investors and regulators. In other words, according to agency theory, auditors play a key role in the relationship between owners and their representatives both the board of directors and management.Wallace and Parker (1991) point out that by 1948, fraud and error detaction was ranked as a lesser audit objective. They also describe how the audit counselling has changed, they state that because auditing has moved away from the audit of persons to the audit of financial statements, it does not test to detect corruption but to lend credibility to financial statements. (Wallace and Parker, 1991)According to Lee (1986), the main reasons for the change in the audit objectives include the increased awareness of the needs of capital market participants for independently substantiate rep orts and the increased acceptance by familiarity management of its responsibility for the prevention and detection of fraud and errorFraud(Definition and examples)DefinitionFraud can be described as a crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception. In auditing, fraud occurs when a misstatement is made and there is both the knowledge of its falsity and the intent to deceive. Vanasco (1998) explained that fraud includes intentional deception of irregularities and illegal acts. Alleyne and Howard (2005) suggested that fraud include intentional deception, cheating and stealing.There are two types of fraud in auditing, namely misappropriation of assets (defalcation) and management fraud (Arens et al., 2008). Misappropriation of assets, commonly termed as employee fraud, is characterised by assets being stolen from the company (Albrecht and Romney, 1986). Management fraud the second type of fraud is essentially fraudulent financial reporting or misapplication of accounting principles.Palshikar (2002) describes how fraud is amongst the most serious corporate problems and challenges in todays business environment. He also goes on to suggest that fraud is a dominant white collar crime in todays business environment, and that amongst many businesses and government organisations, financial services experience different kinds of fraud.Examples of FraudThere are many examples of fraud across the world, often(prenominal) as WorldCom, Enron, Satyam, Xerox and Waste management.But for the purpose of this assignment I will only focus on WorldCom. One of the boastfullyst frauds in corporate history, $11 billion. (Teather, 2005)Trouble began at WorldCom when they failed to meet the revenue expectations communicated earlier to the investment conjunction. In 2004, the CFO p tripleted guilty stating that he and the CEO met concerning the problem. The CEO refused to meet with the investment community to announce the shortfall. Rather, the CFO said he w as instructed by the CEO to fix the problem.Allegations are that the CEO was keenly aware of the likely impact on share price and was more concerned about $ cd million he had personally borrowed from WorldCom secured by WorldCom stock (Padgett, 2002).Over a five-year period, accountants at WorldCom systematically change records, often after the books were closed, to meet analysts expectations. According to the WorldCom indictment, CEO Ebbers, CFO Sullivan and others created a process called close the breach which identified improper accounting adjustments and then instructed staff to carry out the manipulations. Initially reserves were used to absorb expenses. When the reserves ran out a variety of accounting frauds were used to enhance revenues and decrease expenses. contrary Enron, this did not involve manipulation of complex accounting rules, but rather a straight-forward capitalisation of expenses. history managers were given promotions, raises, and made to feel responsible f or the likely collapse of the stock price if they did not parry the books (Pulliam, 2003).The WorldCom corporate culture encouraged unethical behaviour both by appealing to individuals sense of promoting the great common good for the workers, shareholders, and community and by raising fears of losing their jobs if they did not comply with requests to falsify records.WorldCom staff knew it was amiss(p) and went along with the schemes anyway (Pulliam, 2003).Again, an individual, Cynthia Cooper, blew the whistle to the audit committee and started the resulting disclosure of the fraudulent financial practices (Ripley, 2002).Following WorldComs unsuccessful person and scandals, studies have demonstrated that BernardEbbers and Scott Sullivan, the CEO and CFO of the organisation at that time, had created an organisational ideology, or culture, in which leaders and managers were not to be doubted or questioned (Scharff 2005).Rezaee (2002) determines how CRIME can be used to explain fina ncial statement fraud. down the stairs is a model of CRIMESource Rezaee (2002)Cooks, in most of the cases, are the people who participate in financial statement fraud, these can be senior management such as the Chief executive Officer (CEO) or Chief Financial Officer (CFO).Recipes are fraudulent schemes, which the management of the companies have used for their cooking. These can be Improper Related-Party Sales Transactions, Illegitimate Sales Transactions or Side Agreements. (Rezaee, 2002)Incentives are the typical reasons and motivations why companies and their cooks have engaged in financial statement fraud. These can range from the company facing economic pressure to achieve targets, show steady growth and improve performance to keep investors happy, the auditors trying to retain their top clients and executives bonuses tied to company performance. (Rezaee, 2002).Monitoring- responsible corporate governance and the presence of capable and effective internal control systems are the most important factors in preventing and detecting financial statement fraud. This can include friendly relations between the CEO and the owner of the company or the board. (Rezaee, 2002).Rezaee (2002) also stated that external auditors have a significant role in monitoring the company. But the external auditors ability to detect fraud is somewhat limited to the extent of internal control system of the company. prohibit Results- financial statement fraud always has consequences, even if it is not detected. (Rezaee, 2002).Implications of FraudSince the collapse of some large firms, including WorldCom, Enron and others, many considerations were brought up, includingThe regulation of auditors- self-regulation and peer reviews simply not enough. (Enron, 2002)Elimination conflicts of interests in accounting firms (Enron, 2002)Compulsory revolution of auditors- most companies had been using the same auditors since their establishment, for example Enron was audited by Andersen since i ts establishment in 1983. (Enron, 2002)Taking these considerations into account in 2002, Sarbanes-Oxley Act was established in the US to introduce major changes to the regulation of corporate governance and financial practice. This legislation impacts corporate governance of public companies, affecting their officers and directors, their Audit Committees, their relationships with their accountants and the audit function itself. The act states that the lead audit or coordinating partner and the reviewing partner must rotate off the audit every five years.Brody et al (2005) clarified that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put in place by the US to dish up regain public confidence and to prevent future scandal. The ultimate goal was to improve the quality of external audits. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has redefined the role of both auditors and corporate executives.As a result of fraudulent activities occurring in Enron, WorldCom and other companies, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has required t hat internal controls be reviewed and that adequate fraud detection and prevention systems be enforced (Albrecht et al., 2009). This suggests that fraud detection must be high on the auditors agenda.In 1988, SAS No. 53, The Auditors Responsibility to mark and Report Errors andIrregularities, was introduced and held the auditor responsible for detecting errors and irregularities that materially impacted on the financial statements. However, Moyes and Hasan (1996) argued that negligible perplexity was given to the auditors qualifications, particular organisational factors and audit procedures that could be very important in the detection of fraudulent financial reporting.Then SAS No. 82 Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit was implemented in 1997, and stated that the auditor is .to plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud (ASB, 1997). SAS No. 82 provided guidance on how the auditor should achieve this by looking at areas and categories of heightened risk of fraud, how the auditor should respond, the evaluation of audit test results as they relate to the risk of fraud, and the communication about fraud to management, the audit committee and others.Gramling et al. (2004) suggest that reliance on internal audit has taken on increased grandness in todays auditing environment, since internal and external auditors have become more aligned and developed deeper relationships since the passage of SOX.Moyes and Hasan (1996) cerebrate that the degree of fraud detection was not dependent on the type of auditor, since both internal and external auditors have equal abilities to detect fraud. Moyes and Hasan (1996) also found that organisational success in detecting fraud was significantly enhanced in auditing firms with previous experience in fraud detection than auditing firms with no such history. It was also found that auditors wh o were certified as certified public accountants (CPAs) were more likely to detect fraud than auditors who were non-CPAs. Moyes and Hasan (1996) argued that this software documentation may imply a greater take aim of professional competence in fraud detection. shock absorber of International Auditing Standards on external auditorsThere are different International Auditing Standards, these are issued by the IFAC- International Federation of Accountants and the IAASB- International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (Vanstraelen et al, 2009)The main role of International Auditing Standards is to provide a common filth and guidelines for good practice. These international standards on auditing aim to achieve uniformity and aim to generate a level of confidence in the audit.There are many benefits of developing and enforcing international standards on auditing, the major one is the that there will be no difference in the purpose of an audit, sources of auditing standards, legal liability, ethical standards or the responsibility for the detection of fraud.A standardised audit will make give the reader of audit reports more confidence in the auditors opinion, it will make the comparison of audited international financial statements easier. The standardised audit can also promote incentives to develop and broaden the set of international auditing standards.On the other hand there are some issues with international standards on auditing, main ones include the need to consider local anaesthetic laws, this can be controversial because the local standards will move away from the common standard setting. This can lead to some countries having higher standards of regulation than others.ConclusionThe Sarbanes-Oxley Act broadens and deepens sanctions and penalties for unethical management behaviour. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also calls for much greater focus on internal controls by senior management. Internal control systems, including IT controls, can help reduce the opportunity for fraudulent or unethical behaviour but cannot eliminate it in a world where nearly 50 percent of large corporations still use spreadsheets in some aspect of financial reporting (Hackett Group, 2004).I think that the international standards on auditing did not have much impact on auditing in the beginning. But now in recent times it has been found that it has had a great impact on auditing, especially external auditors and can be proved in the way in which it has shifted its standards to more up-to-date versions due to major frauds across the world. This now helps improve the way auditing is performed, it helps auditors perform their audit in a professional manner and gives them stricter guidelines.