Audit Risk and Assessment: Financial Analysis of Audit Risk Factors

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of audit risk and its assessment in the context of financial auditing. It begins by examining inherent risks within a specific company, MaxSecurity Limited, highlighting factors that contribute to heightened audit risk, such as the sensitivity of product d...Read More

RUNNING HEAD: AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT
Auditing Practices

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 1
QUESTION 1
PART (A)
Inherent Risks in MaxSecurity Limited:
Audit risk is the risk of provision of inappropriate audit opinion by the auditor in the situation
where financial statements of the company are materially misstated. There can be various
reasons due to which audit risk arises (Bell, Landsman & Shackelford, 2001). The process of
audit suffers from some inherent limitations which imposes the various kinds of risks on it.
Inherent risk is one of the major element of audit risk that is imposed on the entity due its
inherent nature. It is the risk of occurrence of material misstatements in financial reports due
to errors and omissions other than control failures. This type of risk exists irrespective of the
audit of the financial statements (Cassell, Drake & Rasmussen, 2011). Therefore, it is
impracticable to avoid such risk even with the help of creation of adequate controls in audit
procedures and enhanced audit training. In the present case inherent risk is particularly high
because of the fact that company belongs to the industry where the product designs are
considered to be quite sensitive. These designs of vehicles of every carrier manufacturing
company generally requires to be maintained confidentially due to high competiveness in the
market place. Since, the company has adopted a new system of costing to replace the old
system which was not compatible with the needs of the company. The first audit engagement
is inherently risky because the auditor has no enough knowledge of entity’s new
manufacturing costing system. Also, the complex nature of the manufacturing costing system
may lead to misstated costing records which could finally lead to misstatement financial
statements of the company. Further, the product designs are also cost sensitive so there is
higher inherent risk due to this factor as incorrect determination of cost may cause incorrect
cost records (Houston, Peters & Pratt, 1999). Inherent risk is also higher in the situations
where there is an involvement of more judgements and financial estimations. In the current

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 2
case, the company is indulged in filing tenders to win contracts it might be using the
estimated prices giving rise to higher inherent risk (Rittenberg, Johnstone & Gramling, 2010).
PART (B)
Factors Affecting the Determination of Preliminary Materiality:
Determination of audit materiality is the matter of auditor’s professional judgement.
Materiality is the degree of significance of any audit matter or item to influence the decision
of users of audit report. Materiality of an item can be judged on the basis of quantity as well
as the quality. It must not be seen only from the point of view of its individual effect rather
while deciding the materiality of a transaction its overall impact on the financial statement
must be considered. Factors determining the audit materiality in the present case MaxSecurity
are as follows:
Determination of materiality of an item majorly depends upon the professional judgment of
the auditor and is entirely based on perception of auditor about the financial information
requirements of the intended users of financial reports of the company. As there are various
users of the financial reports such as investors, shareholders, government etc. and the auditor
has to carry out extensive audit procedures in the areas from where more relevant information
can be obtained by the users (Eilifsen & Messier, 2014).
Moreover, the degree of internal controls in the particular area also affects the materiality of
that item. Since, if internal controls are weak in a specific area, there arises higher risks of
misstatements therefore, an auditor is required to apply more audit procedures in those areas.
Higher risk of misstatement increases the audit materiality of an item (Akresh, 2010).

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 3
Complexity of financial reports may require the auditor to carry audit procedures in details
therefore higher materiality level must be set in those situations. Even uniformity
homogeneous nature transactions affects the level of audit materiality (Joldoş, Stanciu &
Grejdan, 2010).
The possibility of risk of frauds in particular areas also increases the audit materiality. In
cases where auditors has found greater degree of risk of fraud on part of management, the
auditor has to carry detailed audit procedures in those areas and ignorance of such areas may
result in incorrect or inappropriate opinion by the auditor (Keune & Johnstone, 2012).
Even in the areas where there are stringent rules and regulations to be complied, the auditor
has to set higher audit materiality benchmarks for those items (Zhou, 2012). As misstatement
in those areas may lead to provision or supply of incorrect or untrue information to regulatory
bodies. Here, the participation in the government contracts may require the auditor to set
higher materiality level in the areas which are directly associated with the government
(Legoria, Melendrez & Reynolds, 2013).
The framework of financial reporting also affects the materiality level of the transactions. As
general purpose financial statements may not require consideration of certain transactions
whereas specific purpose financial statements may require auditor to carry detailed audit
procedures in the special areas so that proper checking and verification of those areas could
to form an appropriate opinion (Aqel, 2011). In the current case the company is participating
in the government contracts so it might require preparation of special purpose financial
statements to fill the tenders for governmental contracts.
The previous year audit results may also affect the audit materiality level in the current period
as the adverse or qualified opinion on certain matters in the earlier years may require the

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 4
auditor to carry out additional audit procedures in the current year so that any misstatements
in the financial statements do not remain uncorrected (Houghton, Jubb & Kend, 2011).

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 5
QUESTION 2
PART (A)
Strengths and limitations of debtor’s confirmation as an audit evidence
The basic objective of an audit engagement is to enable the auditor to provide an opinion on
the truth and fairness of the financial statements of the client entity. The audit opinion is
expressed in the written form through the audit report prepared by the auditor of the
organisation. Audit report offers the most effective way of communication between the
company and its stakeholders specially the shareholders and investors, regarding the financial
performance of the company. An auditor’s report helps the external parties such as
shareholders and investors in their decision making process regarding the investments made
or to be made in the company. Therefore, such reports must be prepared only after carrying
out the necessary and appropriate audit procedures. One of those necessary audit procedures
entails the collection of sufficient and reliable audit evidences and evaluation of those
evidences. Audit evidences can be in any form whether verbal or written, externally or
internally generated (Elder, Beasley & Arens, 2011). These evidences helps the auditor’s to
draw the conclusions based on which audit opinion is formed on the integrity and authenticity
of financial statements. An audit evidence can be generated from various sources like
invoices and bills, inventory reports, debtor’s or creditor’s confirmation, bank statements etc.
All the types of sources of collection of audit evidences have some strengths and limitations.
Debtor’s confirmation is of the type of external evidences. This sort of evidences is not
necessarily required to be generated at the conclusion date of the financial year rather they
should be collected on any date during the year under audit. The strengths and limitations of
collecting audit evidences through debtor’s confirmation are discussed as below:

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 6
Since external parties like debtors are generally not intended to manipulate the accounting
and financial information of the auditor’s client, the external evidences are generally
considered to be more reliable than those collected from the internal sources. In the present
case, the trade receivables of MSHG covers the debtors having large outstanding balances as
well as the debtors with smaller outstanding balances. The auditing firm can therefore opt
debtor confirmation as a source of collecting the required evidences for the audit engagement.
These debtors of MSHG will help the auditor by providing the reliable information based on
which audit opinion can be formed. As the debtors do not involve in the earnings
management practices of the client company (Piercey, 2011).
However, when the external parties such as debtors have spoiled relations with the auditor’s
client, collection of audit evidences from the debtors by making confirmations about
transactions in which they are associated with the company would not help the auditor in
gathering the reliable audit evidences. In special circumstances, management of the client
might have special relationships with their debtors and therefore they may involve those
external debtors in their earnings management practices. In order to obtain confirmation from
debtors, the auditor must have direct communication with the debtors without any
interference of the client which generally does not happen which helps the auditors to
manipulate the debtor’s responses before they finally reach the auditors.
In the present case, if auditor comes to know or finds something unusual which indicates that
the MSHG (the auditor’s client entity) has spoiled its business relationships with its debtors,
it must not consider the option of collecting the required audit evidences from the debtors of
the company as they may provide them the misleading information.
It is provided in the present case that the auditor’s client organisation has directly taken the
allowances for doubtful debts to the trade receivables account rather than showing them

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 7
separately. This practice may provide the intended users of financial reports with the
misleading information about financial position of the entity. Therefore, the firm of the
auditors in the present case must perform necessary and appropriate substantive audit
procedures to gather the audit evidences in relation to the trade receivables of the firm so that
they can provide an audit opinion on the authenticity of financial information contained in the
reports of the company.
PART (B)
Possibility of using only Debtor’s Confirmation as Audit Evidence
It is not possible for the auditor to form an audit opinion based on the audit evidences in the
form of debtor’s confirmation only. Debtor’s confirmation only provides the supportive audit
evidence and not the conclusive audit evidence. To form an opinion on the true and fair view
of the financial information contained in the financial statements an auditor however requires
to obtain some conclusive evidences. Conclusive evidences are those evidences based on
which auditor draws conclusion to form an audit opinion whereas supportive evidences
merely provides the additional information to the auditor and supports the previous
information available with the auditor. Therefore, the auditor must, in addition, check the
sales registers maintained by the company and the invoices issued to the trade debtors of the
company to verify the correction of amount. Also, the internal controls in the areas of
accounting of trade receivables must also be checked by the auditor by applying the essential
compliance procedures in this regards. These are the internal sources from where the
evidences could be obtained to ensure the authenticity of records maintained by the company
for its trade receivables (Sarens & Abdolmohammadi, 2011).

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 8
QUESTION 3
PART (A)
Ethical issues Auditor is facing and APES 110
In the present case of Champion Securities (the auditor’s client company) there are conflicts
in the opinion about certain accounting treatments, between the auditors and the client
company. The accounting treatment given by the management of Champion Securities in
relation to financial assets and liabilities was not acceptable to the auditor. As the auditor’s
client is an investment company, majority of its assets and liabilities are financial in nature.
These financial items thus constitutes significant portion in the financial statements of the
company due to which these assets and liabilities are required to be properly valued in
accordance with the prescribed accounting standards in this regards. Only appropriate
valuation would help in depicting the true position of the company in terms of profitability
and solvency. The auditor of the company had suggested the management to write down the
values of those financial items but the chairman and CEO of the company were opposed to
the auditor’s suggestion. The principle of fair presentation in audit is being affected by the
refusal of management to adopt the accounting practices which were in line with the
generally accepted accounting principles. It is auditor’s duty to ensure that the financial
statements of the company are not materially misstated and they are presented fairly in every
sense. But, the pressure from the chairman of the client company on the auditor to either
accept the manner adopted for valuation of assets and liabilities of the company or the client
would replace the auditor. This situation might have put the auditor in an ethical dilemma that
whether she should withdraw from the audit engagement of the Champion’s Security or she
must accept the management’s contention (Trotman & Wright, 2012). If the auditor accepts
the management’s method of valuation of financial items and other material balance sheet
items, the basic principles of auditor’s objectivity, integrity, independence, professional care

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 9
and behaviour will be adversely affected. Auditors are expected to strictly maintain all the
fundamental principles of audit in order to act in the best interest of the profession and
stakeholders associated with the company. If auditor departs from what is ethically correct
and appropriate for her to fulfil the responsibilities towards the client organisation, it will
bring disrepute to the profession of audit. But, at the same time if auditor chooses to act
professionally and according to what is ethically correct, it would lead to dissatisfaction to
the employing organisation and the client may choose to replace their auditor with a new a
new auditor.
In order to comply with APES 110, which primarily talks about the fundamental principles of
audit and code of ethics to be followed the auditor in conducting an audit (George, Jones &
Harvey, 2014) the auditor must act in the most objective manner where no biasness, undue
influence of others and other conflicts of interest are entertained by her. Secondly, the auditor
must remain straight forward and honest towards all the professional obligations. Thirdly, the
auditor must ensure that she behaves in the well-mannered professional behaviour by
applying due diligence and care in the conduct of the audit engagement. Therefore, Meg must
provide an independent opinion in the audit report in regards to the areas where the financial
statements of the company are misstated and not fairly presented.
As an auditor, it is his statutory duty to report on the fair view of financial statements and to
suggest the appropriate course of actions to the management of the company, wherever
possible (APESB), 2013). These basic principles requires an auditor to apply his due
diligence and skills while performing audit procedures and to behave professionally
throughout the audit engagement. As a part of professional behaviour auditors are expected to
remain independent while providing the audit opinion on the financial statement’s reliability
and fair presentation. If during the audit engagement audit encounters a situation where there
is conflict in his opinion and management’s view on certain accounting adjustments, auditor

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 10
must duly apply the principles of integrity, objectivity and independence in those situation.
Auditor should provide an unbiased opinion that is not influenced by the management’s
actions so as to raise the credibility of financial statements in the eyes of stakeholders. In the
instant case the auditor was not satisfied with the management’s contention that there is no
necessity to provide for the write downs in the values of assets and liabilities.
PART (B)
Audit report option available with the auditor in the current case:
In the present case the auditor of the company has been unable to convince the management
of the company to make necessary adjustments in the accounting treatments given in relation
to the valuation of certain financial assets and liabilities. Even after providing the summary of
relevant items of the balance sheet with revised values, the auditor’s recommendations were
entirely dismissed by the management of the company. This action of management will
require the auditor to modify the audit opinion in this regard (Tsipouridou & Spathis, 2014).
Since, the management’s accounting treatment in regards to the valuation of assets and
liabilities is not in line with generally accepted accounting principles, the auditor shall
provide a qualified opinion in the audit report where the reasons for qualification will be
stated (Ittonen, 2012). However, if the incorrect valuation of assets and liabilities and the
amounts of retained earnings and income is leading to grossly misstated financial statements
then auditor must issue an adverse report (Johl, Jubb & Houghton, 2007).
PART (C)
Course of action to be taken by the auditor:
Meg (the auditor) shall determine the reasonable course of action to be undertaken in the
current situation. An appropriate action needs the consideration of all the possible
consequences of each alternative course of action. Meg must try to communicate to the

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 11
management of the client company, the impacts of incorrect accounting practices on the
reliability of the financial information. Even after this if the concern remains unresolved the
auditor should communicate with other engagement partners of the audit team. Since the
conflict herein involved is with the organisation, auditor must consult the matter, along with
the necessary recommendations, with those who are charged with governance in the company
such as audit committee and others (Tsipouridou & Spathis, 2014). To act in the best interest
of the profession auditor must also document the core substance of the entire issue together
with the necessary details of discussions that were held by the auditor with management and
those charged with governance. Moreover, if the audit matter is material enough to be
resolved, auditor can also consult the concerned matter with the professional advisors. If all
the possibilities of resolving the conflict exhausts and the conflict remains unsolved the
auditor must, wherever possible, make efforts to disassociate with matter involving the
conflict (Van Aalst, 2010). The audit engagement partner shall determine whether it is
possible to withdraw from the specific audit assignment or from the audit team in the
particular circumstance. If he does not take an appropriate course of action according to the
situation, the audit principles would not be duly complied.

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 12
REFERENCES:
Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board (APESB), 2013. APES 110 Code of
Ethics for Professional Accountants.
Akresh, A.D., 2010. A risk model to opine on internal control. Accounting Horizons, 24(1),
pp.65-78.
Aqel, S., 2011. Auditors’ Assessments of Materiality Between Professional Judgment and
Subjectivity. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica, 7(4).
Bell, T.B., Landsman, W.R. and Shackelford, D.A., 2001. Auditors' perceived business risk
and audit fees: Analysis and evidence. Journal of Accounting research, 39(1), pp.35-43.
Cassell, C.A., Drake, M.S. and Rasmussen, S.J., 2011. Short interest as a signal of audit risk.
Economies, 1(2), pp.104-122.
Eilifsen, A. and Messier Jr, W.F., 2014. Materiality guidance of the major public accounting
firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(2), pp.3-26.
Elder, R.J., Beasley, M.S. and Arens, A.A., 2011. Auditing and Assurance services. Pearson
Higher Ed.
George, G., Jones, A. and Harvey, J., 2014. Analysis of the language used within codes of
ethical conduct. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 8, p.1.
Houghton, K.A., Jubb, C. and Kend, M., 2011. Materiality in the context of audit: the real
expectations gap. Managerial Auditing Journal, 26(6), pp.482-500.
Ittonen, K., 2012. Market reactions to qualified audit reports: research
approaches. Accounting Research Journal, 25(1), pp.8-24.
Johl, S., Jubb, C.A. and Houghton, K.A., 2007. Earnings management and the audit opinion:
evidence from Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(7), pp.688-715.

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 13
Joldoş, A.M., Stanciu, I.C. and Grejdan, G., 2010. Pillars of the Audit Activity: Materiality
and Audit Risk. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PETROŞANI~ ECONOMICS~, p.225.
Keune, M.B. and Johnstone, K.M., 2012. Materiality judgments and the resolution of
detected misstatements: The role of managers, auditors, and audit committees. The
Accounting Review, 87(5), pp.1641-1677.
Legoria, J., Melendrez, K.D. and Reynolds, J.K., 2013. Qualitative audit materiality and
earnings management. Review of Accounting Studies, 18(2), pp.414-442.
Lennox, C. and Pittman, J., 2010. Auditing the auditors: Evidence on the recent reforms to
the external monitoring of audit firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 49(1), pp.84-
103.
Piercey, M.D., 2011. Documentation requirements and quantified versus qualitative audit risk
assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(4), pp.223-248.
Rittenberg, L.E., Johnstone, K.M. and Gramling, A.A., 2010. Auditing: A business risk
approach.
Sarens, G. and Abdolmohammadi, M.J., 2011. Factors associated with convergence of
internal auditing practices: Emerging vs developed countries. Journal of accounting in
Emerging Risk. p.225.
Trotman, K.T. and Wright, W.F., 2012. Triangulation of audit evidence in fraud risk
assessments. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(1), pp.41-53.
Tsipouridou, M. and Spathis, C., 2014, March. Audit opinion and earnings management:
Evidence from Greece. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 38-54). Elsevier.
Van Aalst, W.M., van Hee, K.M., van Werf, J.M. and Verdonk, M., 2010. Auditing 2.0:
Using process mining to support tomorrow's auditor. Computer, 43(3).

AUDIT RISK AND ITS ASSESSEMENT 14
William Jr, M., Glover, S. and Prawitt, D., 2016. Auditing and assurance services: A
systematic approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
Zhou, Y., 2012. Government audit materiality (part one): how and why is it different from
corporate audit materiality–a theoretical matrix on three materiality differences and
corresponding contextual reasons. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(1),
p.80.