Home / Essay / Undergraduate Final Auditing Exam, Essay Example

Undergraduate Final Auditing Exam, Essay Example

Pages: 3

Words: 919

Deficiency	Consequence	Recommendation
Benin Ltd employs a network of salespeople to help make sales.	Low sales due to a limited number of clients since the geographical area covered is limited.	Use other methods of sales promotion which will cover a wide area.
Salespeople are given monthly revenue quotas and are allowed to use their choice in awarding sales discounts of up to 10%.	Fluctuating levels of sales. Since the sales staff will work hard to meet his set target.	Let the firm put a standard target for each sale staff and increase the maximum discount to at least 15%
When on site tours, Benin Ltd’s sales representatives may not have clear access to the company’s infrastructure.	Potential clients may doubt the credibility of the Sales staff, this will affect the sales negatively in the long run.	Ensure Sales staff have a direct link to Benin’s Ltd System while on Visits.
With the customer ID and purchase order information, sales personnel email the finance department and warehouse despatch team, and a pick list is created as a result..	Possible loss of crucial information, also time and resource wastage.	Enable more digitalized modes of payment and information recording. Such as use of finger print sensors.
Standard credit terms for customers are 30 days and on a monthly basis sales invoices which are over 90 days outstanding are notified to the relevant sales staff to chase payment directly with the customer.	Probably loss of items in case sales staff liaise with the client	Reduction of the grace period. Hiring service men who are well equipped with the chasing of undue payments.

ISA 330 The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks discusses tests of control and substantive procedures.

The inspector will create and execute thorough answers for the determined likelihood of real blunders at the fiscal report stage. The examiner will plan and lead more review systems, the sort, planning and extent of which are reliant and mindful to the peril determined at the phase of the assertion. The evaluator will plan and do control tests to get satisfactory sale proof for relevant controls when: (a) The danger appraisal by the inspector of material slip-ups at affirmation level incorporates an assumption that specific checks will be working adequately (that is, the auditer expects to rely upon the working viability of the checks at declaration level). In the course of action and execution of control checks, the examiner will get really persuading review confirmation as the inspector puts more noteworthy dependence on the viability of the review.

In the plan and execution of checks, the inspector will: (a) lead more review techniques in mix with requests to acquire review proof concerning the working adequacy of checks, including: I how the checks were utilized in pertinent occasions during the review time frame; (ii) how the controls were applied in a reliable manner; and (iii) by whom or how they were applied; Determine whether checks to be checked are subject to different controls (aberrant controls) and, provided that this is true, if review documentation supporting the effective activity of such circuitous controls is required.

Timing of control tests

The reviewer will test the powers over a specific span or timeframe, as indicated by passages 12 and 15 underneath, for which the examiner plans to depend, to give a sufficient premise to the evaluator’s normal dependence. To decide whether review information is adequate for the operational productivity of controls gathered through past reviews, and if so the term of the time frame until a control has been re-tried, the examiner will think about the accompanying: (a) the proficiency of the other interior control segments, including the control climate, the control checking element and the danger appraisal methodology of the substance.

Discuss the relationship between tests of control and substantive procedures

In straightforward terms, control tests include watching that a customer’s control is working, though a meaningful test includes overlooking customer frameworks and simply checking the numbers. A model: Companies attempt to guarantee their cashbooks and bank proclamations are precise by accommodating them. A trial of controls is a review strategy to test the adequacy of a control utilized by a customer element to forestall or distinguish material errors. Considerable testing is the phase of a review when the reviewer assembles proof with regards to the degree of errors in customer’s bookkeeping records or other data. Review hazard alludes to the danger of an evaluator (as a rule) not giving an “issue explanation” (be that a capability to a legal review report or an issue in an inside review report and so on) on the grounds that he neglected to recognize the issue.

To distinguish issues inspectors utilize a scope of strategies, two of them being trial of controls and meaningful tests.When testing controls, their plan and their genuine working viability, the evaluator checks the degree of affirmation these controls (worked by the auditee!) convey of the examined declaration. Normally, the outcome from controls testing will decide whether and how much (ie test size) meaningful testing will be performed.

In meaningful testing, the reviewer checks the auditees attestation again and again in an example (test can go up to 100% of applicable exchanges) until he is fulfilled that he can give confirmation over that statement. In this way, the two controls testing and meaningful testing decrease the review hazard. Control testing typically decides the measure of meaningful testing. Controls testing frequently considers a superior confirmation/exertion apportion than meaningful testing. These assertions don’t consider a particular lawful, legal or different prerequisites and guidelines that may apply to a particular review.