Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SAUR MARULI
Student ID No:
U5542016
Course Code:
Tutors name:
Alicia Jiang
Tutorial Day/Time:
Assignment No:
Topic:
Learning Journal 1
Word Count:
25 September 2015
Due Date:
I hereby confirm that the work contained in this assignment is solely my own, except for
reliance on material that is identified and cited according to accepted academic practice. I
have read and understood the ANUs Code of Practice for Student Academic Honesty.
Signed:
| ANU COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
Learning Journal
Auditors
must
determine
the
level
of
materiality
for
the
financial
report
as
a
whole
and
particular
classes
of
transactions,
account
balances
and
disclosures.
For
example,
if
auditors
decide
that
the
level
of
materiality
for
account
balances
is
5%
of
net
profit
which
is
$10,000,
then
it
means
that
any
misstatements
of
account
balances
that
reach
or
surpass
that
amount
is
considered
material
and
needs
adjustments.
The
auditors
must
also
determine
the
level
of
materiality
for
particular
classes
of
transactions
or
disclosures.
Furthermore,
the
auditors
must
consider
qualitative
factors
as
well
as
quantitative
assessment
of
materiality.
For
example,
if
particular
classes
of
transactions
have
immaterial
misstatements
in
amount
but
indicated
as
a
fraud,
the
auditors
must
consider
the
misstatements
are
qualitatively
material
thus
must
be
taken
into
account
for
audit
adjustments.
Figure
3
The
Relationship
between
Materiality
and
Audit
Risk
The
level
of
materiality
eventually
will
affect
the
audit
risk
the
auditors
are
willing
to
accept.
The
higher
the
level
of
materiality
determined
by
the
auditors,
the
lower
the
audit
risk
becomes.
The
simple
explanation
about
this
relationship
is
because
the
auditors
uses
samples
in
performing
audit
procedures
and
cant
assure
that
the
financial
statements
are
free
from
all
kinds
of
misstatements.
Instead,
they
only
focus
on
the
material
misstatements
by
which
the
level
of
materiality
has
been
determined.
For
example,
if
the
auditors
use
100
samples
of
transactions
out
of
1000
population
of
transactions,
and
determine
the
level
of
materiality
for
transactions
to
be
$1000,
then
the
auditors
might
only
focus
to
do
audit
adjustments
towards
the
samples
of
transactions
that
have
misstatement
amount
equal
or
above
$1000
and
disregard
other
misstatements
below
that
amount
($500,
$300,
$200,
etc).
In
fact,
the
collection
of
immaterial
misstatements
(below
$1000)
can
become
material
in
amount
if
they
are
summed
up
all
together
or
when
considering
the
whole
population
instead
of
just
audit
samples.
Audit
Risk
Model
(ARM)
Having
discussed
the
types
of
risk
and
the
level
of
materiality,
now
we
can
derive
the
ARM
to
help
auditor
to
assess
risks
of
material
misstatements.
Theoretically,
the
ARM
is
given
as
follows:
AR
=
IR
x
CR
x
DR
AR
=
Audit
Risk
IR
=
Inherent
Risk
CR
=Control
Risk
DR
=
Detection
Risk
Risk
of
Material
Misstatements
(RMM)
control
risk
factors
together
with
the
control
variables
are
elaborated
into
several
proxies.
Dependent
Variable
(Y)
Audit
Adjustments
Proxies
Control
Variables
of
all
income
income
income
Proxies
Control
Risk
Factors
The
number
of
adjustments
(Y1)
The
relative
magnitude
of
the
total
adjustments
(Y2)
The
relative
magnitude
of
the
total
of
affecting
adjustments
(Y3)
The
relative
magnitude
of
the
total
of
increasing
adjustments
(Y4)
The
relative
magnitude
of
the
total
of
decreasing
adjustments
(Y5)
Competence
and
integrity
of
clients
management
(QUALITY
=
X1)
Client
economic
position
(ALTMANZ
=
X2,
LOSS
=
X3)
Remuneration
system
(REMUNERATION
=
X4)
Entity-level
controls
(ELC
=
X5)
Internal
audit
(INTAUDIT
=
X6)
Audit
committee
(AUDCOMM
=
X7)
Internal
control
system
(ICS
=
X8)
Audit
inputs/audit
efforts/substantive
tests
performed
(AUDIT
INPUT
=
X9)
Accounting
standards
used
(GAAP
=
X10)
Industry
Sector
(INDUSTRY
=
X11)
Client
TENURE
(TENURE
=
X12)
Public
or
non
public
companies
(LISTED
=
X13)
The
regression
model
can
be
summarized
as
follows:
Y1
=
+
1
QUALITY
+
2
ALTMANZ
+
3
LOSS
+
4
REMUNERATION
+
5
ELC
+
6
INTAUDIT
+
7
AUDCOMM
+
8
ICS
+
9
AUDIT
INPUT
+
10
GAAP
+
11
INDUSTRY
+
12
TENURE
+
13
LISTED
+
Y2
=
+
1
QUALITY
+
2
ALTMANZ
+
3
LOSS
+
4
REMUNERATION
+
5
ELC
+
6
INTAUDIT
+
7
AUDCOMM
+
8
ICS
+
9
AUDIT
INPUT
+
10
GAAP
+
11
INDUSTRY
+
12
TENURE
+
13
LISTED
+
Research
Limitations
There
may
be
other
factors
or
variables
associated
with
audit
adjustments
not
captured
in
this
research
There
are
some
misstatements
undetected
thus
deteriorating
the
reliability
of
the
date
used
in
this
research
The
study
does
not
cover
fraud
risks
that
may
exist
in
the
samples.
Auditors
rate
certain
factors
themselves
thus
giving
rise
to
potential
measurement
errors
(variables
with
four-level
ordinal
scale).
Inputs
for
Further
Studies
To
use
time-series
evidence
An
analysis
of
adjustments
at
account
or
transaction-cycle
levels
The
effect
of
changes
in
audit
environment
(i.e.
changes
associated
with
materiality
consideration)
Other
factors
to
be
considered
regarding
to
auditors
ability
to
detect
misstatements
(need
audit
adjustments):
cultural
factors,
the
composition
of
engagement
team,
the
audit
teams
experience
with
the
clients
sector.
The
association
of
audit
adjustments
with
inherent
risks
and
control
risks
according
to
ARM,
indeed
suggests
that
the
auditor
uses
ARM
in
conducting
the
audit.
However,
it
doesnt
show
any
empirical
evidence
whether
auditor
responds
to
the
assesses
inherent
risk
and
control
risk
factors
by
adjusting
audit
plans
(need
further
research
and
evidence).
Conclusion
The
study
by
Ruhnke
and
Schmidt
(2014)
suggests
that
the
inherent
and
control
risk
factors
are
proven
to
affect
the
audit
adjustments
given
specified
control
variables
in
the
regression
models.
Although
some
proxies
of
inherent
and
control
risk
factors
fail
to
prove
that
there
is
a
strong
relationship
with
the
audit
adjustment,
the
overall
results
of
the
study
still
support
the
existence
of
the
Audit
Risk
Model
theory
that
we
have
learnt
during
the
lectures.
Identification
for
better
proxies
and
other
technical
improvements
are
needed
in
further
studies
as
described
in
the
research
limitations
and
inputs
for
further
studies.
Mapping
of
Learning
Journal
Ground
Theory:
Audit
Risk
Model
(ARM)
-
Critical
Thinking:
For
the
theory
to
be
valid,
it
must
be
supported
by
empirical
evidence
or
studies
(positive
accounting
theory)
Critical
Questions:
Does
ARM
hold
in
reality
as
weve
studied?
Critical
Questions:
Can
this
relationship
explain
the
facts
about
ARM?
DO RESEARCH
-
-
RESEARCH FINDINGS
-
-
-
CONCLUSION
Critical
Questions:
How
to
examine
the
facts?
What
factors,
variables,
proxies,
samples
and
models
to
be
used?
Results
and
limitations?