There have been many studies into the effects of auditor independence over time, and especially since the recent scandals within the accounting world, such as Enron. However, there are contrasting views regarding the issue, and my report is hoping to critically evaluate material written on the subject and explain the views promoted within the articles.
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) define independence as ‘freedom from situations and relationships which make it probable that a reasonable and informed third party would conclude that objectivity either is impaired or could be impaired. In essence, you need to be completely detached of feelings for the client to be independent. Auditors are often said not to be independent due to other work that they carry out, but how many auditors believe that they are being independent without knowing that they are operating within the company’s intentions and therefore not independent?
It is argued that it is very rare issues within the audit field actually arise due to auditors knowingly working within the interest of their clients, however auditors may find it extremely difficult to remain impartial in their reports. The point being made is “the problem lies not in our desire to be unfair, but in our inability to interpret information in an unbiased manner. Self-serving biases exist because humans are imperfect information processors.” (Bazerman et al, 1997, p) This is a very good point that I strongly agree with. What they are saying is that an auditor is reporting under bias completely unintentionally due to psychological traits that cause people to be biased to their own self-interest when attempting to be impartial. This is true across many fields, in teaching for example. Here, cl...
... middle of paper ...
...ussed for many decades to come. I have come across many ways in which it would be possible to increase independence within the auditing profession, and whilst many I agree with, some seem very farfetched and/or complicated to implement. Even with complete independence from firms, I agree with Bazerman et al in that human beings always have an unconscious bias in anything that they do, which would be virtually impossible to overcome, and will mean that auditors can never be truly independent. No amount of government regulation or oversight, in my opinion, would be able to tackle this mental issue. Whilst suggesting that government agencies take over all auditing would increase independence, for the reason stated above, I don’t think it can cause complete independence. Until audits are able to be carried out completely autonomously by machinery, this will be the case.
Auditors do not provide audit opinions for different levels of assurance. Therefore, auditors consider providing more or less assurance when modifying evidence for engagement risk to be unnecessary. However, auditors should be professionally responsible to accumulate additional evidence, assign more experienced personnel, and review the audit more thoroughly, particularly when a client poses a higher than normal degree of engagement risk. The auditor should also modify evidence for engagement risk when high legal exposure and other potential actions affecting the auditor
When it comes to the audit objectives, the public and the auditing profession maintain varying expectations. The public expects the prevention of fraud to be the auditor’s responsibility. However, the auditors believe that they are responsible for fraud detection, but not obliged to find all of it. In addition, the public views the fraud by the characteristics displayed by management and employees. For example, WoolEx Mills’ management wanted to exude a prevailing financial position and to uphold reputations. By committing financial statement fraud, it made the company look successful even though Sales and cash flows were decreasing. The public would view these particular characteristics as pressures to why the company committed fraud. Greed, recognition, and influences also impacted the public’s view of Wool Ex Mills’ fraud scheme. The CEO used authority to influence employees to take part in the fraud scheme. The public would see that the CEO utilized power to manipulate shareholders, which impacted their trust with WoolEx Mills (Cohen, Ding, Lesage, & Stolowy 2015) (Krishnan & Shah
According to PCAOB Ethics and Independence Rule 3520 a registered public accounting firm and its associated persons must be independent of the firm's audit client throughout the audit and professional engagement period. Independence is required for all audit engagements. The auditor must be independent of an entity when performing an engagement according to General Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS). Independence is very significant to the audit profession, because the primary purpose of an audit is to provide financial statement users with reasonable assurance an on whether the financial statements are presented fairly. The auditor’s report gives credibility to an entity financial statement and without an auditor’s report the financial statement would be consider worthless. Reliance on management for the fair presentation of a financial statement would often result with a bias and impressive financial statements that doesn’t reflect a true picture of the entity’s financial position. An auditor’s independence should not in anyway be influenced by any relationship between their client and
The audit committee must certify that the company’s auditors are independent. The audit committee must approve all professional services provided to the company by its independent auditors and ensure that auditors do not provide to the company any of the specifically prohibited services identified by SOX, such as bookkeeping services. The audit committee must receive and analyze key items of information from the independent auditors. These items of information include auditors’ analysis of critical accounting policies adopted by the
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
Proverbs 10:9 states: “People with integrity walk safely, but those who follow crooked paths will slip and fall” (New Living Translation).” This Scripture suggests that individuals who do not walk in integrity follow “crooked paths.” They walk in ways that are not morally sound, pure, and honest—but in ways that are corrupt. Clients want accountants with integrity. Thus, integrity is critical to the public trust. As a matter of fact, one of the general definitions of integrity provided by the AICPA Code is that it is a quality from which the public trust derives. Also, it is an element of character fundamental to professional recognition, and it requires members to be (among other things) honest and candid within the constraints of confidentiality (Duska, Duska & Ragatz, 2011). Integrity in the accounting profession involves adhering to the rules and principles of the profession. This includes remaining free of conflicts of interest and maintaining client relationships in which the accountant can remain objective in discharging his or her responsibilities. This requires independence in fact and in appearance as mandated under section 1.200.001.01, Independence Rule the AICPA Code. In other words, no one should be able to view the accountant as being biased with respect to a client’s financial reporting due to an improper client relationship. Lack of integrity in accounting practices has been, and continues to be, a key element in the downfall of many institutions which has hurt the public trust in the accounting
The independence of mind or independence in fact means Betty has to have a state of mind that allow her to form an opinion without bias due to influence that compromises professional judgment. By having an independence of mind allowing an individual to perform his or her audit work with integrity, as well as, maintaining her objectivity and professional skepticism behavior. However, in this case, she did not have an independence of mind since she trusted Toby and she enjoyed working with him since he is also a CPA because it is easy for her to work with him compare to her other clients who do not have the accounting background. As a result, because of long-term relationship and trust that Betty has with Toby, it influenced her decision about the audit opinion. Additionally, to be independent in appearance Betty and her audit team must show unbiased professional judgment when she reviews her clients ' financial statements. Betty had Problems with independence in appearance because in the case study shown me that she has become too close to her client, Toby. Therefore, all auditors have to maintain their professional skepticism as well as maintain independence in their mental attitude and also independence in appearance to provide an unbiased opinion on
This shows how a lack of transparency in reporting of financial statements leads to the destruction of a company. This all happened under the watchful eye of an auditor, Arthur Andersen. After this scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was changed to keep into account the role of the auditors and how they can help in preventing such
Within the current crisis of confidence in the public accounting profession after the Enron debacle and series of high profile failures of financial services firms, the issues about ‘audit expectation gap’ have never been more important. Though it would take an enormous amount of effort to address these issues, I will argue that tremendous amounts could be done in order to close the gap down. In this essay I will discuss some of these issues and in particular the strategies to reduce the gap.
Accounting ethics has been difficult to control as accountants and auditors must keep in mind the interest of the public while that they remain employed by the company they are auditing. The accountants should take into account how to best apply accounting standards when company faces issues related financial loss. The role of accountant is crucial to society. They serve as financial reporters to owe their primary constraint to public interest. The information provided is critical in aiding managers, investors and others in making crucial economic decisions. An accountant is responsible for any fraudulent financial reporting. Some examples of fraudulent reporting are:
Corporate governance changed drastically after the case of Andersen Auditors, Enron’s auditing service showed that they contributed to the scandal. Andersen was originally founded in 1913, and by taking tough stands against clients, quickly gained a national reputation as a reliable keeper of the people’s trust (Beasley, 2003). Andersen provided auditing statements with a ‘clean’ approval stamp from 1997 to 2001, but was found guilty of obstructing justice by shredding evidence relating to the Enron scandal on the 15th June 2002. It agrees to cease auditing public companies by 31 August (BBC News, 2002).
...pendence, whether pro forma or substantially, the quality of professional assurance service of professional accountants will be doubted by public and that will probably lead to serious results. The factors affecting independence of external auditors are multiple. Market competition among external auditors and the imperfection of laws regulated the external auditing industry are tow of most important factors. In order to maintain and guarantee the independence of external auditors and try to avoid the scandals like Arthur Andersen, some research on how to improve and maintain the independence of external auditors are necessary. It is possible for researchers to put emphasis on how to control the market competition among auditing organizations and enhance the ability of accounting regulators to supervise and manage the professional accounting industry in the future.
4) . One of the largest bankruptcies in history was enabled by accountants hiding debt and destroying the evidence to avoid implication (Buckstein, part 2 pgs. 1, 2, and 3). These unfortunate events led to the need for increased scrutiny and regulations, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Buckstein, part 3 pg 1). This legislation inspired the creation of the Canadian Public Accountability Board (CPAB) (Buckstein, part 3 pg 1). These changes have led to an increased awareness of the need for auditor independence as well as higher standards for accounting and business in general (Buckstein, part 3 pg 1). While these measures have helped to reassure the public, there is still the question of why Accountancy is not a protected
As per ISA (NZ) 200-A17, this ethical requirement includes the auditors integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, & professional behaviour. Integrity is an ethical attitude which includes the auditor’s honesty, accuracy, and fair practice. Objectivity is a mental attitude while carrying out the audit wherein the auditor is fair and just with all his/her work. Professional competence is the knowledge and skill of the auditor, gained through education, training and experience, while due care is a degree of care of an auditor on certain situations wherein an he/she must act diligently. Confidentiality is the commitment of the auditor not to disclose any information regarding his/her client, unless required by law. Professional behaviour means the auditor must act in accordance to the law and set of standard as a manifestation of respect to the
The evolution of auditing is a complicated history that has always been changing through historical events. Auditing always changed to meet the needs of the business environment of that day. Auditing has been around since the beginning of human civilization, focusing mainly, at first, on finding efraud. As the United States grew, the business world grew, and auditing began to play more important roles. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, people began to invest money into large corporations. The Stock Market crash of 1929 and various scandals made auditors realize that their roles in society were very important. Scandals and stock market crashes made auditors aware of deficiencies in auditing, and the auditing community was always quick to fix those deficiencies. The auditors’ job became more difficult as the accounting principles changed, and became easier with the use of internal controls. These controls introduced the need for testing; not an in-depth detailed audit. Auditing jobs would have to change to meet the changing business world. The invention of computers impacted the auditors’ world by making their job at times easier and at times making their job more difficult. Finally, the auditors’ job of certifying and testing companies’ financial statements is the backbone of the business world.