To make sure you receive future emails,
please add {[EM-EMAIL ADDRESS]} to your address book or safe list.
|
|
Issue 4 | April 2016
|
At-A-Glance
The watchdog of the audit watchdogs,
the International Forum of Independent
Audit Regulators (IFIAR), continues to
call upon the audit regulators of the
world to press on with the quest for
consistent, high quality in performing
financial statement audits. Our first
article reports on IFIAR concerns
arising from the latest annual survey of
audit inspection findings, along with a
new initiative that intensifies the
effort to reduce deficiencies.
Next, artificial intelligence expands
its foothold in the accounting
profession. With the integration of
cognitive computer technologies, like
IBM’s Watson, with traditional audit and
accounting processes, major accounting
firms are investing heavily, in
anticipation of more efficient and
effective results. Our second article
describes this latest development.
Finally, our quarterly Worldwide
Update covers news from organizations
across the globe.
Editor Gerald E. Herter, CPA |
|
In This Issue
|
|
Audit Quality Survey is New, But the Results Are
Not
Joint CIMA/AICPA Survey reveals struggles and
successes
On March 3, 2016, the International
Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR)
released the results of the fourth annual survey
of audit inspection findings, this time for
2015. Sadly, our Audit & Accounting Alert (A&A)
article from May, 2015, covering the third
annual survey of 2014 results, could be repeated
here with only the dates changed, and still be
largely accurate. Last year’s A&A article title,
“Improved Audit Quality Slow in Coming,” still
speaks to the persistence of shortcomings in
performance.
As a refresher, the IFIAR was established in
2006 to foster a closer working relationship
with audit regulators around the world. With
representatives from 50 jurisdictions, the IFIAR
has a threefold focus:
- Sharing knowledge of the audit
market environment and practical experience
of independent audit regulatory activity
with a focus on inspections of auditors and
audit firms;
- Promoting collaboration and consistency
in regulatory activity;
- Providing a platform for dialogue
with other international organizations that
have an interest in audit quality.
The annual global survey of audit inspection
findings was initiated in 2012 to share results
from across jurisdictions. For the fourth year
in a row, internal control testing and fair
value measurement were the areas with the
highest number of audit inspection deficiencies.
Revenue recognition, new last year as the third
highest area, was just barely edged out this
year by risk assessment.
Financial institutions continue to be singled
out for special attention. In all four years the
results were the same, with the most
deficiencies in the auditing of allowance for
loan losses and loan impairments, internal
control testing, and auditing the valuation of
investments and securities. Use of experts and
specialists was close behind.
Results from reviews of firm wide quality
control systems were also compared. Consistent
with prior years, engagement performance yielded
the highest incidents of deficiencies, along
with independence and ethical requirements.
In a press release, Janine van Diggelen,
IFIAR Chair, stated that:
“IFIAR’s 2015 survey of findings from the
inspections of the six largest global network
audit firms…indicates that 43 per cent of
inspected audits of listed public interest
entities had at least one inspection finding
during the survey period. While this is a four
percentage point drop in deficient audits over
last year, IFIAR is not yet satisfied that
enough has been done by the audit profession to
understand and address shortfalls in audit
quality. The outcomes continue to show a lack of
consistency in the execution of high quality
audits and highlight concerns over the
robustness of the firms’ internal quality
management systems.”
The survey report points out that the number
of deficiencies is not indicative of the rate at
which financial statements are misstated.
Rather, the shortcomings show the potential that
an auditor may be vulnerable to missing a
material misstatement if one were to occur.
Last year, we noted that IFIAR planned to
keep audit quality in the spotlight by
continuing to monitor developments and engage
with audit firm networks and associations,
promoting the cause internationally. Audit firms
were called upon to “develop a robust root cause
analysis to gain a clearer understanding of the
factors that underlie these [inspection]
findings and take appropriate remedial actions.”
Also, firms needed to “continue improving their
auditing techniques, as well as their oversight
policies and procedures.”
Since deficiencies have not declined
significantly, the IFIAR has established a new
initiative with the six largest audit networks
designed to achieve a measureable reduction in
findings by 2019. Also new is a measurable
target of at least a 25 per cent reduction in
the next four years of audits with at least one
finding. The measurement is to be applied to
members of IFIAR’s working group that engages
regularly with the largest global audit firms.
As part of the initiative, the response to
prior year recommendations has been expanded to
assess “the rigor of root cause analysis,
effectiveness of action plans, and the impact on
the frequency of inspection findings.” Current
survey answers indicate that while half of the
firms typically perform root cause analysis,
follow-up monitoring of the corrective actions
taken, needs improvement. Certain of the
recurring root causes identified included
“understanding and review of work done by
specialists and other auditors; lack of timely
involvement and insufficient supervision and
direction of the engagement leader; excessive
workload and deadline pressures; and pressures
from fees and resources, including high staff
attrition rates.” Also, root causes often arose
from a “lack of professional attitude and
insufficient exercise of professional
skepticism,” including a “lack of
accountability; insufficient challenge of key
assumptions and inputs (related to provisions);
inadequate corroboration of management’s
explanations; and insufficient verification of
supporting calculations.”
Other efforts the IFIAR is pursuing include
annual inspection workshops to enhance
communication of the survey results, and an
ongoing dialogue with the International Auditing
and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) concerning
audit standard setting with regard to the
breakdowns that continue to occur.
While the survey draws from audits of public
companies, the issues revealed apply to private
company audits as well, or even more so, since
private company auditors often do not have the
extent of resources that are available to the
larger audit firms. Membership in associations
like Integra international can help firms to
bridge the gap.
For further information, see
IFIAR
2015 Survey of Inspection Findings
|
Auditors Embrace Artificial Intelligence
IBM’s Watson and Deloitte’s Argus among AI
entries to the audit arena
Alexander Graham Bell could not have
conceived the irony in his words back in 1876
when speaking into his newly invented telephone:
“Mr. Watson - come here – I want to see you.”
Though IBM’s Watson artificial intelligence icon
is named after the company’s late innovator of
the same name, the idea that a machine could
display human qualities has come a long way
since that historic phone call 140 years ago.
Today, devices using Apple’s Siri or Amazon’s
Echo are talking back to us. Bell must be
turning over in his grave!
KPMG’s March, 2016 announcement of “plans to
apply IBM’s Watson cognitive computing
technology to KPMG’s professional services
offerings…include a focus on auditing services”
spotlights advances that the Big Four accounting
firms are making, including Deloitte’s Argus and
others.
In this article, the Audit & Accounting Alert
continues its series highlighting implications
of rapid technology developments for the
accounting profession, which most recently
touched on artificial intelligence in the
December, 2015 article The Path to Future
Relevance for Accountants.
KPMG has been a technology leader, as
previously reported in our article on Big Data
(2/15) that described their alliance with auto
racing trend setter, McLaren. There,
industry-specific predictive analytics were
incorporated into KPMG audit procedures.
The use of IBM Watson will take the task of
processing and analyzing vast volumes of data a
step further by applying machine learning
techniques. As the IBM press release explains,
Watson will maneuver through the mass of
structured and unstructured data “as auditors
‘teach’ the technology how to fine-tune
assessments over time. This enables audit teams
to have faster access to increasingly precise
measurements that help them analyze anomalies
and assess whether additional steps are
necessary.”
The realm of audit sampling is also moving to
a widely enhanced level. Higher percentages,
even 100%, of data can be tested, as opposed to
a statistical, random sample. Moreover, refined,
targeted queries will expedite the
identification of unusual items, trends, or
patterns that can help to efficiently channel
the auditor’s attention.
Deloitte is also leading the way with its
artificial intelligence tool, Argus. Designed to
provide advanced technology functions like IBM’s
Watson, Argus played a significant role that led
to Deloitte’s receiving the Audit Innovation of
the Year award from London-based International
Accounting Bulletin. In developing Argus,
Deloitte teamed up with technology firm Kira
Systems, whose Kira Quick Study assists with
training applications to identify desired data.
This approach has accelerated audit functions.
A recent Deloitte publication, The power
of advanced audit analytics – Everywhere
Analytics, notes that Deloitte has invested
“several hundred million dollars in data
analytics and artificial intelligence.” Even so,
the publication’s discussion of the audit of
Deloitte client H & R Block (the large US
consumer tax preparer), points out that though
“it took an investment of time to extract and
provide the relevant data for the audit,” “the
breath of metrics and data that H & R Block had
available that could be correlated to expected
revenue outcomes,” proved to be an ideal
application.
For dealing with the huge, multi-national
corporations that Big 4 accounting firms audit
and consult with, the depth of analysis and
potential efficiency that artificial
intelligence brings, provides a necessary
channel for keeping pace with the ever
increasing volume and complexity of the data
that is produced. For smaller audit firms, the
cost of these advanced artificial intelligence
techniques may not yet be within reach. But with
the current rate of technology change and
innovation, the time for widespread access may
not be that far away. Until then, the debate
will continue as to whether artificial
intelligence will supplant auditors in the
workplace. Or, as has been the case in the past,
will auditors merely be liberated from the more
mundane audit functions, and freed to seek
fulfillment in the truly mind-bending challenges
that remain?
For further information, see
KPMG Announces Agreement With IBM Watson To Help
Deliver Cognitive-Powered Insights and
Deloitte - The power of advanced audit
analytics.
|
Worldwide Update
Quarterly roundup of recent and upcoming actions
and activities by audit and accounting
organizations throughout the world.
International
IASB
– International Accounting Standards Board (www.ifrs.org)
- Leases: IFRS 16 – The
long awaited lease standard, replacing IAS
17, was issued on January 13, 2016, bringing
leases onto the balance sheet as assets and
liabilities, removing the classification of
leases as either operating or financing
leases, and treating all leases as finance
leases. Leases of less than 12 months and
immaterial leases are exempt. Early adoption
is permitted (as long as IFRS 15, Revenue
from Contracts with Customers is also
applied). See the March 2016 and the
December 2015 issues of the Audit &
Accounting Alert for further discussion of
this topic.
- Amendments to IAS 7
Statement of Cash Flows – issued on
January 29, 2016, as part of the Disclosure
Initiative, “require companies to provide
information about changes in their financing
liabilities and...will help investors to
evaluate changes in liabilities arising from
financing activities, including changes from
cash flows and non-cash changes (such as
foreign exchange gains or losses).”
Effective beginning in 2017, with early
application permitted.
IFAC
– International Federation of Accountants (www.ifac.org)
- International Ethics Standard
Board for Accountants (IESBA) - Exposure
Draft, Limited Re-exposure of Proposed
Changes to the Code Addressing the Long
Association of Personnel with an Audit
Client – published February 4,
2016, as part of the project to develop more
robust and comprehensive provisions dealing
with the long association of personnel with
an audit or assurance client. It contains a
basis for conclusions regarding proposals
that have been finalized, as well as the
limited re-exposure of three remaining
issues. Comment period ends May 9, 2016.
- International Public
Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) -
Exposure Draft Exposure Draft 61, Amendments
to Financial Reporting under the Cash Basis
of Accounting (the Cash Basis IPSAS)
- released February 3, 2016, proposes that
Part 1 of The Cash Basis IPSAS, which
identifies requirements that a reporting
entity needs to adopt to claim that its
financial statements comply with the IPSAS
(including requirements for preparation of
consolidated financial statements and for
disclosure of information about external
assistance and payments made by third
parties), be recast as encouraged rather
than required, and moved into Part 2, which
includes encouraged disclosures. Also
proposed are amendments to better align cash
basis with accrual basis. Comment period
ends July 31, 2016.
- International Public
Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) -
Exposure Draft 60, Public Sector
Combinations - released January 28,
2016, “classifies public sector combinations
as either amalgamations or
acquisitions...The ED proposes the use of
the “modified pooling of interests” method
of accounting for amalgamations, while the
“acquisition” method of accounting (which
involves measuring assets and liabilities at
fair value) is proposed for acquisitions.”
Comment period ends June 30, 2016.
- International Public
Sector Accounting Standards Board (IPSASB) -
Exposure Draft 59, Amendments to IPSAS 25,
Employee Benefits - released
January 13, 2016, proposes to address terms
of IAS 19, Employee Benefits, concerning
recognition, presentation and disclosure of
defined benefit plans. Comment period ends
April 30, 2016.
- International Auditing and
Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) - ISA 800
(Revised), Special Considerations - Audits of
Financial Statements Prepared in Accordance
with Special Purpose Frameworks, and ISA 805
(Revised), Special Considerations - Audits of
Single Financial Statements and Specific
Elements, Accounts or Items of a Financial
Statement – published Jan 7, 2016,
applies the new and revised auditor
reporting standards issued in January, 2015,
to these specialized types of financial
statements and subsets thereof. Effective
for audit periods ending on or after
December 15, 2016.
ACCA
– Association of Chartered Certified
Accountants (www.accaglobal.com/)
- Complete finance
professionals: How Indian businesses are
addressing skills gaps in their finance
function - research report issued
March 10, 2016, in partnership with Meridian
West, summarizing findings from “in-depth
research among 20 of the largest Indian
national and multinational corporations, as
well as accountancy firms operating in
India, to better understand how the skills
of Indian finance professionals are changing
and where the most significant skills gaps
exist currently.
- Filling the information
black hole: How are fossil fuel companies
reporting on the stranded asset risk?
– survey report issued on February 26, 2016,
“looks at how fossil fuel companies report
on their stranded assets using integrated
reporting (<IR>). Investors and regulators
are becoming increasingly aware of the
potential threat from ‘stranded assets’ to
financial stability and to fossil fuel
company market valuations. With this
awareness comes the need for greater
information to help investors and others
understand these risks better and appreciate
the extent to which companies are taking
mitigation action.”
- Constant Forward Motion:
The evolving phenomenon of cybersecurity
regulation and the race to keep up
– research report issued on February 1,
2016, addressing “the issue of cybersecurity
and how fast changing technology is causing
a problem for lawmakers in the race to make
effective legislation.”
CIMA
– Chartered Institute of Management
Accountants (www.cimaglobal.com)
- Thinking the unthinkable: a new
imperative for leadership in the digital age
– report issued in February, 2016, arising
out of a “global roundtable that brought
together specialists from a variety of
disciplines to ‘think the unthinkable’,
using the Global Management Accounting
Principles as a framework to take decisions
which will create value in the short, medium
and long term.” Having found executive
leadership’s ability “to spot, identify and
handle unexpected, non-normative events… not
just to be wanting but also perilously
inadequate at critical moments,…this paper
explores some of the corporate governance
issues in an effort to help boards
understand what they must do to be more
effective.”
Africa,
Europe, India, and the Middle East (AEIME)
FRC
– Financial Reporting Council of the UK (www.frc.org.uk)
- Enhancing Confidence in
Audit: The Financial Reporting Council’s
Audit Enforcement Procedure –
consultation paper issued March 23, 2016, in
response to the new EU audit regulations, in
regards to investigation and sanctioning of
breaches arising from the regulations.
Comments are due by May 4, 2016.
- Amendments to FRS 102
Financial Reporting Standard applicable in
the UK and Republic of Ireland - Fair value
hierarchy disclosures – issued
March 08, 2016, “simplify the preparation of
disclosures about financial instruments for
financial institutions and retirement
plans,” while increasing the consistency
with disclosures required by EU-adopted
IFRS. Effective generally in 2017, with
early application permitted.
- Audit Quality Thematic
Review: Engagement Quality Control Reviews
- published February 8, 2016, reports
“concerns is that firms’ do not maintain a
consistently high standard of auditing.
Whilst excellent work is performed by many,
some in the same firm fall short of
expectations. The engagement quality control
(“EQC”) review process should ensure
consistently high quality. Often it does
improve quality but we also found evidence
in some audits where weaknesses were not
identified by the review. Firms can do more
to evaluate the effectiveness of the EQC
review and implement additional procedures,
where appropriate, to reduce the occurrence
of audit weaknesses that are not
identified.”
- Audit Quality Thematic
Review: Firms’ audit quality monitoring
- published on January 5, 2016. See article
in the February, 2016, issue of Audit &
Accounting Alert, discussing this report.
- Clear & Concise:
Developments in Narrative Reporting
– report issued December 17, 2015, providing
“practical tools to help companies achieve
Clear & Concise reporting and provides an
overview of developments in narrative
reporting. It also includes a study
reviewing the influence of the FRC’s
Guidance on the Strategic Report since its
publication in 2014, which found that annual
reports have become more cohesive, with
better linkage between related information
and more focus on Clear & Concise reporting.
Americas,
Asia, Australia and New Zealand (AAANZ)
FASB
– Financial Accounting Standards Board (www.fasb.org)
- Revenue from Contracts
with Customers: Principal versus Agent
Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross
versus Net) – ASU 2016-08 – issued
March 17, 2016, to improve guidance with
regard to the sale of goods or services
“requirement of the entity to determine
whether the nature of its promise is to
provide that good or service to the customer
(that is, the entity is a principal) or to
arrange for the good or service to be
provided to the customer by the other party
(that is, the entity is an agent). This
determination is based upon whether the
entity controls the good or the service
before it is transferred to the customer.”
Four clarifying factors are provided.
Effective dates are the same as for
ASU 2015-14, Revenue from Contracts with
Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date.
- Investments—Equity Method
and Joint Ventures: Simplifying the
Transition to the Equity Method of
Accounting – ASU 2016-07 – issued
March 16, 2016, eliminates “the requirement
that when an investment qualifies for use of
the equity method as a result of an increase
in the level of ownership interest or degree
of influence, an investor must adjust the
investment, results of operations, and
retained earnings retroactively.” Also, “an
entity that has an available-for-sale equity
security that becomes qualified for the
equity method of accounting, recognize
through earnings the unrealized holding gain
or loss in accumulated other comprehensive
income at the date the investment becomes
qualified for use of the equity method.
Effective generally for 2017.
- Derivatives and Hedging:
Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt
Instruments - ASU 2016-06 – issued
March 14, 2016, clarifies “the requirements
for assessing whether contingent call (put)
options that can accelerate the payment of
principal on debt instruments are clearly
and closely related to their debt hosts. An
entity performing the assessment under the
amendments in this Update is required to
assess the embedded call (put) options
solely in accordance with the four-step
decision sequence.” Effective generally in
2017 for public companies and 2018 for
private companies and organizations, with
early application permitted.
- Derivatives and Hedging:
Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on
Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships -
ASU 2016-05 – issued March 10,
2016, clarifies “that a change in the
counterparty to a derivative instrument that
has been designated as the hedging
instrument does not, in and of itself,
require de-designation of that hedging
relationship provided that all other hedge
accounting criteria continue to be met.”
Effective generally in 2017 for public
companies and 2018 for private companies and
organizations, with early application
permitted.
- Liabilities—Extinguishments
of Liabilities: Recognition of Breakage for
Certain Prepaid Stored-Value Products – ASU
2016-04 – issued March 10, 2016,
provides that prepaid store value products
covered by this ASU are financial
liabilities. Effective generally in 2018 for
public companies and 2019 for private
companies and organizations, with early
application permitted.
- Intangibles—Goodwill and
Other (ASU 2014-02), Business Combinations
(ASU 2014-18), Consolidation (ASU 2014-07),
Derivatives and Hedging (ASU 2014-03) – ASU
2016-03 – issued March 7, 2016,
provides that private companies are able to
forgo a preferability assessment the first
time they elect the accounting alternatives
within the scope of the above ASU’s,
effective immediately.
- Leases ASU 2016-02:
- issued February 25, 2016, requires
organizations to recognize leases on the
balance sheet as assets and liabilities for
the rights and obligations created by those
leases. Effective generally in 2019 for
public companies and 2020 for private
companies, with early application permitted.
See the March 2016 and the December 2015
issues of the Audit & Accounting Alert for
further discussion of this topic.
- Exposure Drafts -
Compensation—Retirement Benefits—Defined
Benefit Plans—General: Changes to the
Disclosure Requirements for Defined Benefit
Plans – and Compensation—Retirement Benefits
: Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic
Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement
Benefit Cost - issued January 26,
2016, “aimed at improving the effectiveness
of disclosures in the notes to financial
statements by focusing on the information
that is most relevant to financial statement
users,” and “seeks to improve guidance
related to the presentation of defined
benefit costs in the income statement.”. The
comment period ends April 25, 2016.
- Financial Instruments—
Overall ASU 2016-1: Recognition and
Measurement of Financial Assets and
Financial Liabilities - issued
January 5, 2016, “intended to provide users
of financial statements with more useful
information on the recognition, measurement,
presentation, and disclosure of financial
instruments,”. Effective generally in 2018
for public companies and 2019 for private
companies and organizations, with limited
early application permitted
GASB
– Governmental Accounting Standards Board (www.gasb.org)
- Exposure Draft, Leases
- issued on February 8, 2016, establishing a
single approach for reporting leases of
state and local governments, which mirrors
the FASB Accounting Standard Update on
Leases, with comments due by May 31, 2016.
- GASB Statement No. 80 -
Blending Requirements for Certain Component
Units, issued on February 11, 2016,
“intended to provide clarity about how
certain component units
incorporated as not-for-profit corporations
should be presented in the financial
statements of the primary state or local
government, by blending them in like
departments or activities.. Effective for
periods beginning after June 15, 2016, with
earlier application permitted.
AICPA
– American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (www.aicpa.org)
- Accounting and Review
Services Committee (ARSC) a) Interpretation No. 1,
"Considerations Related to Reviews Performed in
Accordance With International Standard on Review
Engagements (ISRE) 2400 (Revised), Engagements
to Review Historical Financial Statements," of
AR-C Section 90, Review of Financial Statements
- issued on February 18, 2016, provides that “a
practitioner may review the financial statements
of an entity in accordance with SSARSs and in
accordance with another set of review standards
(for example, ISRE 2400 [Revised]). In
circumstances in which the accountant’s review
report states that the review was conducted in
accordance with SSARSs and another set of review
standards, the practitioner should comply with
both sets of standards.”
- 2. Auditing Standards Board a) Statement on Auditing Standards
(SAS) No. 131, Amendment to Statement on
Auditing Standards No. 122 Section 700, Forming
an Opinion and Reporting on Financial Statements
- issued January 22, 2016, provides that “when
an audit is not under the jurisdiction of the
PCAOB but the entity desires, or is required by
an agency, by a regulator, or by contractual
agreement, to obtain an audit conducted under
PCAOB standards, the AICPA Code of Professional
Conduct requires the auditor to also conduct the
audit in accordance with GAAS…When the auditor
refers to the standards of the PCAOB in addition
to GAAS in the auditor’s report, SAS No. 131
requires the auditor to use the form of report
required by the standards of the PCAOB, amended
to state that the audit was also conducted in
accordance with GAAS.” Effective for audit
periods ending on or after June 15, 2016, with
early application permitted.
|
|
|
Audit & Accounting Alert
is a publication of Integra International intended
to highlight emerging issues in the profession.
The goal is to give Integra members an awareness
of developments impacting the practice of Audit &
Accounting, enabling them to stay on the forefront
of industry trends.
|
Editor Gerald E. Herter •
HMWC CPAs & Business Advisors, 17501 E. 17th
Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780-7924
• Tel: 1 714 505-9000 • Fax: 1 714 505-9200 •
Email:
[email protected]
|
|
|
|