Threats to Audit Independence

Question: Discuss about theThreats to Audit Independence. Answer: Introduction Auditing is one of the most important exercises to a business organization as it is one of the factors determining prosperity and growth of the firm. Audit independence is one of the guidelines which should be present for perfect audits which is reliable to the client firm. Audit independence therefore results into reliable audits which can determine the development of a given firm (Ye, Carson and Simnett 2011). Audit independence on the other hand is vulnerable and can be influenced by various factors from within the audit firm or from the client firm. From various situations given in the case study one can deduce the following threats to the audit independence. Threats to Audit Independence Intimidation Intimidation is a way of embarrassing an individual or giving a person conditions which failure to meet he or she is likely to be embarrassed .As uncovered by the case, the relationship of the CJ audit firm top official to offer non audit services based on intimidation, the request by the fundamental body of the customer affiliation (LTH) which requires the review firm scramble toward give a discussion in light of a honest to goodness worry for the union will be invalid permitting the CJ to perform uncompromised study without conditions (Stewart and Subramaniam 2010). One of the top officials of CJ auditing firm is going through a lot of pressure from the client firm demanding that he should offer to give a speech about the company in an organized event. The client is even threatening that in case he fails to give the speech for the company then their contract will be terminated. From the keen analysis of the situation the manager is likely to give the speech to avoid embarrassment a s well as to secure their contract. Self-Intrigue Hazard This kind of audit hazard occurs in a condition where a controller is likely going to be exchanged off by individual interests. For this circumstance, customer firm is thinking about to take the analysts from CJ examining relationship to a 14 day occasion in Greek Isles dealing with every ones costs and expenses (Blay 2015). In such a condition the association won't be sensible to the investigating relationship since the demand of endowments may prompt amazing looking. In such conditions where the head of audit gathering has been given token, they tend to lead overviews affiliation budgetary records with a fundamental measure of self vitality covering wrecks. For this circumstance since the association of the audit gathering is presumably going to be exchanged off by the token unmistakably the delayed consequences of the survey will in like manner be haggled as they will react in light of self interest. Request or Trust Dangers This sort of danger comes in when experts are being over-influenced by the properties of their customers' and additionally the affiliation identity along these lines bowing up discernibly ridiculously, making it hard to intrigue the customer. Obviously, evaluators of a given firm likewise of validation may grow pointlessly confide in the connection delineations thusly, inadequately comprehensive in their survey testing (Christopher, Sarens and Leung 2009). This is clear from fourth condition the examination with Annette who recognizes that there will be no much overview on the devotion records in setting of nature and trust. Having worked in the LTH books of records earlier her autonomy of the review can be overseen in the technique for trust and shared trademark or nature. Execution of Non-Review Exercises The survey aggregate pioneer is under weight from the client firm to give a talk in light of a legitimate concern for the association. This results into an audit self-governance threat which is known as threatening danger. According to the important dialog in the condition one, the CJ survey firm director is compelled by the client firm to give a talk of which failure to do all things considered will come to fruition into end of the understanding among CJ and LTH (Beeler and Hunton 2012). In such cases in light of the threatening and disgrace, the audit gathering is most likely going to play out the non survey association which my deal the audit self-rule. Remembering the true objective to secure the assertion the audit gathering will study with energy provoking distorts in the surveys. Safeguards to the Identified Audit Independence Threats These are various guidelines which should be taken into considerations in order to secure audit independence for quality audit services. They can be set from within or outside the audit firm such as guidelines and ethics which govern audit exercise (Ashbaugh, LaFond and Mayhew 2013). An audit firm can also set various ways to cover their independence in order to provide reliable services. The safeguards below are some of the guidelines which can help CJ as an audit firm maintains their audit independence. Restriction by Audit Guidelines and Ethics Auditing practice is guided by various rules and survey ethics. It is in this way basic for CJ as an audit firm to work inside the specific rules in order to be free from the forces which are most likely going to deal their practices. The association should decay the free trip which has been offered to the primary two specialist of CJ Company in perspective of the audit rules (Goodwin and Yeo 2011). With the impression of the survey principles and flexibility the gathering should have the ability to play out their commitments as required and cover any coercion that may be inside the cash related records. The manager of CJ is moreover prepared to decay the non survey errand being compelled on him by the client firm. Restricting CJ from Offering Non-Audit Services One of the main threats affecting audit independence is performance of non-audit services. The audit independence is at risk when the audit firm performs non audit services to the client firm as these results into familiarity as well as making the audit firm to be part of the client firm and may give compromised audit reviews (Craswell, Stokes and Laughton 2012). It is therefore import for the management of CJ audit firm to stand firm by the rules and ethics not to offer non-audit services in order not to compromise their independence and provide quality audits. Changing of Auditors During Every Audit As appeared by conditions three and four, both Michael and Annette are apparently going to be traded off in setting of trust and shared trademark. Unmistakably the two have been ordinary to the customer firm and are not sensible to play out a survey on the budgetary records of a relative association. Annette predicts that not she will perform giant diagram on the devotion budgetary books of records in light of past review where as Michael trusts the father who drives the money related gathering (Sharma and Sidhu 2011). Consider turn is accordingly the best guarantee to guarantee overview adaptability. For this condition both the two evaluators who are apparently going to traded off by the review independence hazards ought to be supplanted or taken to another firm. Since some of the CJ team members are likely o be compromised bases on the fact that they have experience with the client firm, the CJ audit team management should therefore use different auditors during the exercise since Michael and Annette are likely to cover fraud (Sharma and Sidhu 2011). Both Michael and Annette no longer have their audit independence based on the familiarity among other threats. When an auditors independence has been compromised by various threats it is therefore advisable for the audit firm to use a different team of auditor for an exercise in order to provide non compromised audits to the client firm. Business Risks Business risks are various factors which results into a company of a firm receiving profits lower than the projected profit margin (Dyllick and Muff 2016). These factors can be from within the firm or without the firm. From the study given the most business risks likely to be experienced by the audit firm includes maintenance and management risks as discussed below. Maintenance Risks The client firm in the case study two operates a lot of machines which they purchase and sell to their clients. The company motor is best services to the client as one may deduce from the case thereby performing a lot of maintenance at the firm and to various products sold to the clients (Dyllick and Muff 2016).The affiliation also serves a more prominent market with more clients organized in remote parts of the market. In such conditions the affiliation needs to utilize more costs on transport with a specific extreme goal to achieve their clients. They also experience the abhorrent effects of transportation costs giving systems for upkeeps mechanics in supplant repair reasonably sold thing (Batkovsky, Batkovsky and Klochkov 2016). The profit margin from the company operations based on the explanation is likely to reduce or be below the projected profit as maintenances requires money from the gross sales in order to be successful and meet the clients needs. Management Risks The season of accreditation is client intrigue fulfillment happening into affiliation getting an astounding measure of support expenses. Thusly, the contraption occurs into operation dangers where Mining supplies LTD (MSL) necessities to pay for additional charges to the operations of the mechanics performing such structures for upkeeps (Parkinson and Bamford 2016). Being that the greater part of the clients are remotely found, the collusion needs to cover for the long parcel transportation costs for the mechanics, pay for the charging of their relationship on an anticipated rate in setting of the time, cover for every one of the parts supplanted and in like way the solace and conventional costs of the master. Audit Risk Inherent Risks This is one of the audit risks which occur as a result of fraud at the financial report level. For this condition, inherent risk is the particular overview danger that might be assessed in light of the business risks identified above experienced by Mining supplies LTD (MSL) as a firm (Arthur, Endrawes and Ho 2017). Amidst the change of the review encourage beginning at now showed up above and ace ought to graph trademark hazard as one of the dangers at the money related edification outlined at the budgetary report level (Qin 2014). The review audit ought to in this manner relate the examination to different records changes and unmistakable exchange classes amidst the certification point. Trademark dangers may happen thusly of operation dangers and transportation chance in that the cost of upkeep and transportation might be misquoted by the supervisor during maintenance, heads, drivers even the mechanics (Abdi, Rasoulishemirani and Amiri 2014). The association experts responsible for the upkeep may hint an inspiration than the real cost working out of course into fundamental threats. At the maintenance point the report may be affected fraud as supervisors and contractors may misquote prices thus inherent risks. Accounts Inclined to Impact by 2015 Reviews Payable Records From the given case study the company deals in a lot of transactions which involve payments. It is evident from the case that the company purchases various goods from various firms in the thus mostly involved with purchases (Abdi, Rasoulishemirani and Amiri 2014). It is also involve in hiring of contracting mechanics that performs operations on assembling of the machines, maintenance and repair thus effect on the wage and salary accounts. In such circumstances where operational gathering is too much wide there is likelihood of deceptions inside the remuneration and wage accounts. Since the business dangers saw all around identify with the payable records, the analyst ought to thusly be sincere that the payable records at the cash related articulation levels are undoubtedly going to be powerless to twofold dealings and curve (Abdi, Rasoulishemirani and Amiri 2014). This is clear in that most by a wide edge of the payable records require likenesses with a more raised measure of estimat ions as an unlimited piece of the operations identifying with support are continuers. At the level of exchange class affirmation and what's ceaselessly the record level, the dangers might be found in the payable records including: buys record and wage and compensation accounts. The purchases record is most likely going to be impacted in the midst of the 2015 audit since a vast bit of the association operations incorporate purchasing offer of things (Qin 2014). Occasionally that might be deception generally informs regarding distortions which are most likely going to be recognized in the midst of the survey. Pay and wage account prone to be impacted since the association given in the relevant examination works with a few scope of workers including contracted mechanics are constantly in charge of all operations of the organization. In most cases, fraud majorly occurs on the accounts which are occasionally involved in the transaction like wage and salary accounts as well as purchases accounts therefore resulting into these accounts being affected during the 2015 audits. References Abdi, M., Rasoulishemirani, R. and Amiri, M., 2014. The Study on Risk-based VAT Audit. Iranian National Tax Administration (INTA), 22(23), pp.0-0. Arthur, N., Endrawes, M. and Ho, S., 2017. Impact of Partner Change on Audit Quality: An Analysis of Partner and Firm Specialisation Effects. Australian Accounting Review. Ashbaugh, H., LaFond, R. and Mayhew, B.W., 2013. Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review, 78(3), pp.611-639. Batkovsky, A.M., Batkovsky, M.A. and Klochkov, V.V., 2016. Implementation Risks in Investment Projects on Boosting High-Tech Business Production Capacity: Analysis and Management. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences. Romania: European Research Centre of Managerial Studies in Business Administration, 11(6), p.44. Beeler, J.D. and Hunton, J.E., 2012. Contingent economic rents: Insidious threats to audit independence. In Advances in Accounting Behavioral Research (pp. 21-50). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Blay, A.D., 2015. Independence threats, litigation risk, and the auditor's decision process. Christopher, J., Sarens, G. and Leung, P., 2009. A critical analysis of the independence of the internal audit function: evidence from Australia. Accounting, Auditing Accountability Journal, 22(2), pp.200-220. Craswell, A., Stokes, D.J. and Laughton, J., 2012. Auditor independence and fee dependence. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(2), pp.253-275. Dyllick, T. and Muff, K., 2016. Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization Environment, 29(2), pp.156-174. Goodwin, J. and Yeo, T.Y., 2011. Two factors affecting internal audit independence and objectivity: Evidence from Singapore. International Journal of Auditing, 5(2), pp.107-125. Parkinson, H.J. and Bamford, G., 2016, April. The potential for using big data analytics to predict safety risks by analyzing rail accidents. In 3rd International Conference on Railway Technology: Research, Development and Maintenance, Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy (pp. 5-8). Qin, B.Z., 2014. Study on the Financial Audit Risk Prevention Based on Data Mining Technology. In Applied Mechanics and Materials (Vol. 608, pp. 351-354). Trans Tech Publications. Sadgrove, K., 2016. The complete guide to business risk management. Routledge. Sharma, D.S. and Sidhu, J., 2011. Professionalism vs Commercialism: The Association Between Non?Audit Services (NAS) and Audit Independence. Journal of Business Finance Accounting, 28(5?6), pp.563-594. Stewart, J. and Subramaniam, N., 2010. Internal audit independence and objectivity: emerging research opportunities. Managerial auditing journal, 25(4), pp.328-360. Ye, P., Carson, E. and Simnett, R., 2011. Threats to auditor independence: The impact of relationship and economic bonds. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 30(1), pp.121-148.