Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of an auditor's independence
Companies and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
Importance of an auditor's independence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of an auditor's independence
After major corporate and accounting scandals like those that affected Tyco, Worldcom and Enron the Federal government passed a law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. This law was passed in hopes of thwarting illegal and misleading acts by financial reporters and putting a stop to the decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Two important topics covered in Sarbanes-Oxley are auditor independence and the reporting and assessment of internal controls under section 404.
Sarbanes-Oxley contains eleven titles and covers a wide range of topics from the implementation of new compliance requirements to the criminal penalties of any violations of the rulings. One very important aspect touched upon in Sarbanes-Oxley is auditor independence. Auditor independence and the part an auditor plays in corporate financial reporting in the wake of all the corporate scandals have become extremely important. It has become increasingly important in the training and professional ethics of an auditor. The objective of auditor independence is to have the auditor “be unbiased and impartial with respect to the financial statements and other information they audit”0. There are three aspects of practical auditor independence, programming independence, investigative independence and reporting independence.
Reporting independence is extremely important because it is the main objective of auditor’s independence, the prevention of any client influence on the outcome of what is to be reported. It is crucial for an auditor to not feel any need
to be loyal or favorable in their reporting towards the client. The auditor’s obligation is to repor...
... middle of paper ...
... favorable way by eliminating the possibility of an auditor to reap benefits from the manner in which they report on an audit client's financial statements. While section 404 takes an internal approach to
ensure that management is doing what it can to establish means of effective internal controls by having to report on them.
Works cited
Maintaining Auditor Independence The Edge, November 11, 2002
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/indissue.nsf/DocID/607E8C1B96B9DC31CA256C6F002C846F#4
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/sarbanesoxley072302.pdf
http://www.Sarbanes-oxley.com
Ramos, Michael Section 404 compliance in the annual report
October 2004 http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/oct2004/ramos.htm
Robertson, Jack C, and Louwers, Timothy J.
Auditing & Assurance Services, 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002.
Internal controls are in place to protect entities against theft from dishonest workers and outside predators. They are also an accurate series of checks and balances and are in place to find discrepancies.
Consult PCAOB Ethics and Independence Rule 3520. What is the auditor independence, and what is its significance to the audit profession? What is the difference between independence in appearance and independence in fact?
Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley Acts are important legislations in the corporate world because of their link to public and privately held companies. Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted to enhance transparency and accountability in publicly traded companies. On the contrary, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted to disentangle the confused web of financial service company valuations. Actually, these valuations are usually hidden by complex and unclear financial instruments. The introduction of Sarbanes-Oxley Act was fueled by recent incidents of accounting frauds by top executives of major corporations such as Enron. In contrast, Dodd-Frank Act was enacted as a response to the tendency by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, rating agencies, and accounting companies to serve up harmful offer of ruined assets and liabilities brought by systemic non-disclosure (Anand, 2011, p.1). While these regulations have some similarities and differences, they have a strong relationship with the financial markets.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which contains 11 sections, was originally created by Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley in response to the several exposed accounting scandals, including WorldCom and Enron as the most prominent examples. As a result of these accounting scandals being exposed one after another, the confidence that investors had put in the capital markets collapsed overnight along with those companies that engaged in huge frauds. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 had been passed to redeem the reputation of the markets. With its stated purpose, which is “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures,” SOX Act came into effect in 2004. However, the deadlines of compliance have been extended several times due to the significant costs incurred by companies’ compliance of the SOX Act. In addition to the dollar amount required to spend, another real cost that cannot be ignored. As stated by Peter Bible, the CAO of General Motors Corp, “having ...
In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to strengthen corporate governance and restore investor confidence. The act’s most important provision, §404, requires management and independent auditors to evaluate annually a firm’s internal financial-reporting controls. In addition, SOX tightens disclosure rules, requires management to certify the firm’s periodic reports, strengthens boards’ independence and financial-literacy requirements, and raises auditor-independence standards.
Individual Article Review Lily Cobian LAW/421 March 31, 2014 Ramon E. Ortiz-Velez Individual Article Review Introduction My article review is based on Sarbanes-Oxley and audit failure, a critical examination why the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was established and why it is not a guarantee to prevent failure of audits. Sarbanes-Oxley Act talks about scandals of Enron which occurred in 2001 and even more appalling the company’s auditor, Arthur Anderson, found guilty of shredding company documents after finding out Enron Company was going to be audited. The exorbitant amounts of money auditors get paid to hide audit discrepancies was also beyond belief. The article went on to explain many companies hire relatives or friends to do their audits, resulting in fraud, money embezzlement, corruption and even the demise of companies. Resulting in the public losing faith in the accounting profession, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act passed in 2002 by congress was designed to restrict what company owners and auditors can and cannot do. From what I gathered in the article, ever since the implementation of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act there has been somewhat of an improvement but questions are still being asked as to why there are still issues that are not being targeted in hopes of preventing more audit failures. The article also talked about four common causes of audit failure: unintentional auditor mistakes, fraud, fatigue and auditor client relationships. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Code of Professional Conduct clearly states an independent auditor because it produces a credible audit, however, when there is conflict of interest, the relation of a former employer, or a relative or even the fear of getting fire...
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).
Ethics continues to be a hot issue in the business world. The focus on business ethics grew after several significant business scandals beginning in the millennium. These scandals prompted the government to pass new accounting regulations to increase the control and accuracy of financial reporting. A prominent piece of legislation is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which applies to publicly traded businesses. The basis of Sarbanes-Oxley is to increase the reliability and accuracy of financial reporting (Noreen). At the time of these scandals, many businesses and individual professions already had ethical and accounting standards in place. Subsequently, more businesses have developed ethical codes of conduct.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was implemented in 2002. This act was implemented as a result of a number of accounting scandals that resulted in the loss of billions of dollars to the investors. This act has eleven sections that range from additional company board responsibilities to criminal penalties. This act has made companies more accountable in their accounting practices. If a company knowingly falsifies, conceals, covers up, destroys ,or falsifies any documents to impede, obstruct or influence any investigation of violations of the law can be fined or imprisoned up to twenty years , or both. This makes companies take responsibility of their actions.
What makes the Sarbanes-Oxley Act effective is that it is “Administered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), SOX sets deadlines for compliance and publishes rules on requirements, covering a wide range of rules. The consequences for failing to comply with certain provisions range from fines to imprisonment” (Cunningham). The SOX also creates, “accountability of company executives and members of the board of directors” (Jahmani). The act essentially created several provisions to regulate and protect shareholders along with the general public from accounting errors and fraudulent practices in the enterprise. The accounting industry, financial reporting, and the auditing of public companies in particular must follow these provisions.
"Audit Independence - Independence of Australian Company Auditors." Insert Name of Site in Italics. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Apr. 2014 .
However, in terms of an audit firm, it may not pay much attention to the audit procedures since they are always the same and the firm cooperates with its client for several decades. Subsequently, the firm or auditors may hold their client’s shares so that they would like to make an extra income by creating accounting to enhance the financial statements. Finally, when the firm provides other service like taxation and management consultancy to their clients, the auditors may rely too heavily on the other services income and are reluctant to risk losing a client because of unqualified audit opinion although these services, sometimes facilitate the performance of other work by knowing sufficiently about the operations of their
Accounting is a way to provide information that” identifies, records and communicates the economic events of an organization”(Weygandt, J., Kimmel, P., & Kieso, D., 2012). In order to ensure that businesses and accountants produce similar financial statements, they are held to generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP standards (Weygandt, et.al. 2012). In addition to GAAP standards, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was passed by Congress to help reduce unethical behavior by large businesses (Weygandt, et. al., 2012). The combination of the two provides reassurance to stakeholders or interested parties that the financial statements are uniform and provide reliable data. This is of the utmost importance for a business to be successful.
Threats to Auditor Independence: The Impact of Relationship and Economic Bonds. By: Ping Ye; Carson, Elizabeth; Simnett, Roger. Auditing, Feb2011, Vol. 30 Issue 1, p121-148, 28p, 1 Diagram, 6 Charts; DOI: 10.2308/aud.2011.30.1.121
...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.