Auditing Theory and Risk Assessment †Free Samples for Students

Discuss About the Auditing Theory and Risk Assessment? Auditing has remained an indispensable practice in the corporate sector and other areas dealing with huge assessment of economics. The corporation’s capability to assess its development relies exclusively on auditing undertake within the company (Knechel et al. 2012). A great proportion of the operation within economic sector extremely depend on the auditing nature, consequently, numerous theories have since been advanced to help in the elimination of countless risks alongside crisis in auditing (Là ³pez and Peters 2012). Such approaches have been considered by global framework of financial reporting organization like GAAP alongside IFRS for guiding practices of auditing. Various policies have further been advanced to back auditors in making corrections on the risks that might face them throughout auditing (Humphrey and Miller 2012).    The feature of auditing alongside commitment of team of auditing guarantees the achievement of an establishment in the industry as well as global market. In the latest past, models such as going concern have been established. Implementing alongside practicing these specified matters stay within the auditors’ hands alongside the company management board (Herda and Lavelle 2014). The scope of this discussion stretches from the investigation of the application of such present issues in a Company called One.Tel in Australia. This company has run its operations in telecommunication industry beginning 1995, May following its launch in Sydney. This discussion additionally deliberates inherent risk in the One.Tel firm financial reports along with ongoing concern issue (Iwu and Xesha 2011). Inherent risk is among the audit risks under risks assessment management. Audit risk includes three classes of risks: inherent-, control- and detection risk.   Audit risk is regarded as the aftermath of the 3 risks exposed overhead. It might be met throughout auditing performance that in this context is One.Tel Telecommunication Company. Inherent risk is, consequently, a constituent of audit that is occasioned by substantial misstatement inside financial statement. Inaccuracy happens in a business’s audit statement because of embezzle application of essential measures of control (Chung et al. 2012). Inherent risks ascend typically as a result the omissions errors when balancing the books of the business. In One.Tel Company’s case, inherent risks might have ascended because of failures alongside control measures poor application.   The incidence of letdowns because of inherent risks might be due to oversight alongside deceitful practices. An upsurge in inherent risks happens as a result of certain factors inside the internal environment of the corporate. Factors which affect inherent risk at the financial report levelAuthenticity of management The rise in inherent risks in this Company could be due to the board of the Directorate incompetency. The management of the organization is comprised of nine memberships having dissimilar powers alongside privileges. The board is encompassed of 5 none-executive memberships making up the mainstream of the board memberships. Additional 4 executive memberships having a jam-packed mandate to all in the company (Coetsee 2010). The degree at which inherent risk is swelling in this company is extraordinary based on to the availed statement. The memberships are indebted to various duties including authorization of business and monetary strategies, recognizing and addressing issues of important facing One.Tel as a business, appraising as well as monitoring processes of management and reporting contrivances, overseeing financial performance alongside nomination of the executive management team. The business has full-grown to an edge whereby the management can never meet entire responsibilities. The directors are increasingly probable to hide their unfortunate statuses, consequently, dwindling to yield expressive statements throughout auditing resulting in a rise in the inherent risk as result of meager management (Iwu and Xesha 2011). The ineffectiveness in company management besides lack of knowledge escalates unsuitable financial report preparation leading to the rise in the inherent risk. When the auditor notices regular staff turnover in essential management positions, the inherent risk increases since truthful characters are probable to resign their management positions instead of propagating certain fraud. This frequently happens where the corporation expands swiftly as replicated in the circumstance of One.Tel Company (Herda and Lavelle 2012). There could be stimuluses for management to misrepresent the financial report snowballing the inherent risk. The incentives in can be moreover from the internal environment or the external environment (Kerler and Brandon 2010). The inducements could be cash-flow challenges, poor rationing of liquidity, unfortunate operation outcomes because of management restraint alongside work overstress along with assembly of management recompense pay structures linked to share capital as well as earnings. This could result in upsurge in inherent risk because management could be persuaded to misrepresent operation along with financial statements to obtain particular bonus. Many issues have already been recognized in the corporate or industry whereby One.Tel Company trades.   The business has a multifaceted investment association, which is the aid to rise inherent risk. The availability of associated-party dealings like the business stockholders would likewise raise inherent risk as the operations are never with the autonomous regulating party (Al Nawaiseh and Jaber 2015). The business has capital share dealings which necessitate increased financial knowledge to audit because such operations remain complex. Telecommunication businesses have perhaps compensations till they inaugurate a standing, alongside a dependable source of income shall be inherent risky. Telecommunication industry is faced with a challenge that needs the businesses in the industry to apply mechanism for controls to be steady and stay pertinent in this industry. New-fangled economies culminate high inherent risk compared steady economies. Differences in commercial as well as competitive surroundings would be expected to have a noteworthy impact on inherent risk of the company such as One.Tel in the telecommunication sector. Aspects like disparity in income and development in certain service providers of telecommunication could lead to an increase in inherent risk throughout financial statement arrangements. Through risk assessing phase the business audit team goes via the risks recognized comparable to the inherent risk discussed overhead. The auditor assesses the factors of the risks by fair evaluation (Martin 2013). Risks evaluation fallouts into two kinds of risks that in this circumstance is the inherent risk. The risk identified is a constituent of financial statement’s material misstatement inspired by numerous factors.   Factors linked to fraud could be recognized throughout development process of strategy while such factors that upsurge inherent risk owing to fraud recognizable through the AU s.316. In the circumstance in which account books necessitate vicissitudes, the inherent risk can remain high due to numerous errors brought onward. The oversight could happen resulting in a rise in the inherent risk where the accounts books are being attuned (Francis 2011). In case the transaction throughout a financial year is complex, it is probable that there shall be an upsurge in inherent risk. In contemplation of One.Tel Company, the accounts books designates multifaceted kinds of dealings like stockholder's inequality, dividend   and reserves could be challenging to comprehend culminating in extraordinary inherent risk at the level of accounting (Herda and Lavelle 2012). The type of judgment fronted by the auditor throughout the course of auditors balancing is probable to effect inherent risk. If the account report on a particular deal could be persuaded by certain factors inside the business (Reichelt and Wang 2010). Such judgments could be dictated by the kind of operation alongside the pressure on management. The company’s assets susceptibility to embezzlements or loss leads to augmented inherent risk level of accounting. Throughout the entries of transaction, it is obvious that modest embezzlement of an asset lead to augmented inherent risk. For example, taking asset misplacement to liability could result in surged inherent risk (Herd and Lavelle 2014). The noteworthy transactions occurrence throughout the financial year has a conceivable upsurge in the inherent risk (Skinner and Srinivasan 2012). Where an unacquainted transaction takes place specifically towards the end of financial year, there are tall probabilities of blunders accounts books. Such dissimilar processes could be a trial to the auditor alongside accountants. It could lead to huge inherent risk (Coetsee 2010). Where a particular transaction is thought-provoking, the auditors might end up wrongly placing items accounts books, therefore, upsurge inherent risk. The rate of an increase in the inherent risk is high at the accounting level when we make transactions which require unfamiliar processing. In the event of such case the auditor of a business entity like One.Tel Telecommunication Company may make mistakes leading to an increase in inherent risk (Knechel et al. 2012). The reporting framework of GAAP obligates the management to effect a hurried decision on the basis of going concern issue (Knechel et al. 2012). This concept builds on the assessment by the auditor whether low, high or medium in association to inherent risk alongside control risk (Francis 2011). The risk detection throughout the evaluation is pegged at the lowermost level to fix the audit risk at a rate endorsed. Slightest discovery of risk could be attained via enhancement of scope test (Knechel et al. 2012). It is obvious from the above discussion that a going concern might be either high, low or medium depending on the above three kinds of risks (Knechel et al. 2012). The going concern issue in relative to One.Tel’s case could be attributable to high. Inherent in financial statement of One.Tel is considered high because it operates under extremely controlled industry.   The One.Tel’s going concern in this situation, is regarded high (Chang, Dasgupta and Hilar 2009). Supplementary factors like detective alongside control risk appear high based on the of the business entity’s nature.    It remains apparent that the going concern rate be contingent increasingly on the type of risks presented in financial statement. In case of stumpy audit risk, the going concern nature remains stumpy while when the kinds of the risk is high or medium, it is either high or low. Irrespective of the correctness of such an assumption, it remain quite challenging to regulate the subsequent scenarios which could culminate in the unceasing going concern application (Knechel et al. 2012). The going concern nature in in One.Tel business depended on the stipulated financial framework application. The going concern nature must be correctly assessed (medium, high or low) as replicated in audit risk viewpoint. Additional variables including period of audit, auditor’s opinion, environment of business, alongside team of management further dictate the consideration of going concern (Al Nawaiseh and Jaber 2015). To sum up, it remains self-evident that maximum control risk issues might have been identified by the auditors. Nevertheless, the auditors did not report precisely as a result of external alongside internal pressures. A greater proportion of Australian auditors perceive furthermost risk aspects control of One.Tel as a thought-provoking task because of absence of independence of auditors (Al Nawaiseh and Jaber 2015). Factors of inherent risk could be monitored for timely management where control factors are availed. Assessment assumption of audit speaks to inherent, control as well as detective risk matters. One.Tel’s case discloses that auditors remain probable to address inherent risk throughout risk assessment because of restricted directors’ numbers (Chang, Dasgupta and Hilary 2009). Al Nawaiseh, M.A.L. and Jaber, J., 2015. Auditing subsequent events from the perspective of auditors: study from Jordan. International Journal of Financial Research, 6(3), p.p78. Chang, X., Dasgupta, S. and Hilary, G., 2009. The effect of auditor quality on financing decisions. The Accounting Review, 84(4), pp.1085-1117. Chung, J.O., Cullinan, C.P., Frank, M., Long, J.H., Mueller-Phillips, J. and O'Reilly, D.M., 2012. The auditor's approach to subsequent events: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(sp1), pp.167-207. Coetsee, D., 2010. A critical review of the effect of accounting for financial instruments on the accounting framework. Southern African Business Review, 10(1), pp.115-129. Coetsee, D., 2010. The role of accounting theory in the development of accounting principles. Meditari Accountancy Research, 18(1), pp.1-16. Francis, J.R., 2011. A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 30(2), pp.125-152. Herda, D.N. and Lavelle, J.J., 2012. Auditor commitment to privately held clients and its effect on value-added audit service. Auditing: A journal of practice & theory, 32(1), pp.113-137. Herda, D.N. and Lavelle, J.J., 2014. Auditing Subsequent Events: Perspectives from the Field. Current Issues in Auditing, 8(2), pp.A10-A24. Humphrey, C. and Miller, P., 2012. Rethinking impact and redefining responsibility: The parameters and coordinates of accounting and public management reforms. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(2), pp.295-327. Iwu, C.G. and Xesha, D., 2011. Used Bookstore as a Vehicle for Improved Learning and Development: The Case of a South Africans Tertiary Institution. Janvrin, D.J. and Jeffrey, C.G., 2007. An investigation of auditor perceptions about subsequent events and factors that influence this audit task. Accounting Horizons, 21(3), pp.295-312. Kerler, W.A. and Brandon, D.M., 2010. The effects of trust, client importance, and goal commitment on auditors' acceptance of client-preferred methods. Advances in Accounting, 26(2), pp.246-258. Knechel, W.R., Krishnan, G.V., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L.B. and Velury, U.K., 2012. Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(sp1), pp.385-421. Là ³pez, D.M. and Peters, G.F., 2012. The effect of workload compression on audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(4), pp.139-165. Martin, R.D., 2013. Audit quality indicators: Audit practice meets audit research. Current issues in auditing, 7(2), pp.A17-A23. Reichelt, K.J. and Wang, D., 2010. National and office?specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 48(3), pp.647-686. Skinner, D. J. and Srinivasan, S. 2012. Audit quality and auditor reputation: Evidence from Japan. The Accounting Review, 87(5), 1737-1765. Thompson, T.R., 1960. Problems of Auditing Computing Data: Internal Audit Practice and External Audit Theory Section 1: Internal Audit. The Computer Journal, 3(1), pp.10-11. Unegbu, A.O., 2014. Theories of Accounting: Evolution & Developments, Income-Determination and Diversities in Use. arXiv preprint arXiv:1411.4633.