This sample paper on Jb Fay Company offers a framework of relevant facts based on recent research in the field. Read the introductory part, body, and conclusion of the paper below.
1. After reexamining the common size fiscal statements and the cardinal ratios of Leslie Fay. there some of the fiscal statement point that should hold been of peculiar involvement to BDO Seidman:
1 ) . Gross saless: the gross revenues has been turning steadily except the little bead in 1991. which is contrary to the industry recession.
2 ) . Inventory: Leslie Fay has been known for non catching up the manner. there should be inventory write-off issue in the dress industry. which haven’t been reflected in the stock list history though.
3 ) A/R: ever a high spot because of its nature of concealment fraud
4 ) . Other assets account: the current and speedy ratio of Leslie Fay is significantly higher than the industry norm.
5 ) . Liability history: A/P and debt. to see if understated.
2. Other fiscal info that the hearer might hold obtained:
1 ) . The contract or understanding of Leslie Fay and section shops to verify the A/R and liability
2 ) . Documentation with its client sing its orders
3 ) . Its recognition and bad debt write-down policy
3. Non-financial factors the hearer should see:
1 ) . The industry
2 ) . Impact of economic system on this peculiar industry and company
3 ) . The company’s construction. history and forces
4 ) . Government ordinances that have influenced or will demo the attempt on the company
4. Paul Polishan’s laterality has double deductions on the audit:
1 ) . Suppose he’s a morally-impeccable individual who did everything right and held high unity and duty towards the company.
his laterality still shows an internal control failing which lack the segregation of responsibilities. Such system is prone to the fraud and if Mr. Polishan is ill or absent from work for whatever ground. the finance section might non work good.
2 ) . Mr. Polishan’s laterality explained the fraud he perpetuated and hid.
The audit should take this into consideration when be aftering the audit. Mr. Polishan’s laterality might bespeak a weak internal control system. which should be evaluated at higher hazard and more substantial trial should be planned thenceforth. The audit should besides ask more people. including other staff in the finance section and the company’s providers to verify the histories instead than seting inordinate religion in what Mr. Polishan has tried to hold the audit believe.
5. SEC ruled that BDO Seidman’s independency was jeopardized because it’s been foolhardy in scrutinizing the ruddy flags shown in Leslie Fay’s fiscal statements.
J. B. Hanauer & A ; Co Case
1. Receivables from clients and other securities firm houses normally histories for 90 % or more of a brokerage’s entire assets. enforcing the biggest internal control hazard. The specific hazards of J. B. Hanauer includes: the extended duty of its gross revenues staff. The hearer hasn’t sufficiently taken this into consideration and didn’t decently look into these hazards. Their uncertainties were allayed by the Hanauer’s response to the SEC countenances.
2. Hanauer’s hearer sent out the verification missive to verify the being of the history receivables and its dollar value.
1 ) For the first type of history which carries recognition balances represented clients to whom Hanauer owed hard currency at year-end. the hearer aim is to verify the hard currency balance is right under the right name.
2 ) For the 2nd type stand foring clients who owed hard currency to the securities firm house. the hearer aim is to verify the firm’s non exaggerating it.
3 ) For the 3rd and 4th group. the hazard is much smaller since there are small room for the house to pull strings them.
3. For the histories the client didn’t want confirm. the extra processs may include: enquiry of the direction and gross revenues individual. read certifications about these histories and dealing history and resign if the client insists on non leting them to corroborate these histories.
4. Material audit range restriction is some actions from the client taking to the dollar value large plenty to act upon the user of its fiscal statements if non disclosed. I wholly agree with SEC that Hanauer’s direction imposed a stuff range restriction on the audit because the dolar value of unmailed verification histories for 18 % to 26 % of dollar value of histories selected for verification. which is extremely material.
5. The audit client should be allowed to “follow” its engagement audit spouse to another accounting house because it evidently breach the independency of the hearer after hammering a relationship with the clients. SOX specified the “cooling-off” period for the hearer from come ining the client direction. this serves the same intent as good.
Flight Transportation Corporation Case
Thirty. Twenty. 1980
With respects to the FTC’s 5. 2 1000000s of air charter grosss from IAS. I didn’t happen Rubin’s accounts converting for deficiency of certification for those minutess. Due to the extremely materiality and nature of this dealing. I suggest us to farther pursue those grosss for the proper certification. I retain my sentiment on this issue until the farther grounds. Should we discourse this affair or convey it to the higher degree. allow me cognize.
2. Measures accounting houses can follow to take down hazards that hearers will capitulate to their higher-ups when proficient dissensions originate during the audit:
1 ) Internal control system that segregate responsibilities. forestalling the laterality of certain cardinal employees
2 ) By-laws that prevent the right of staff from describing to a higher degree when placing fraud
3 ) Regular reappraisal and rating of each staff
3. If I was the staff hearer who discovered the fake air charter gross. I assume I have the duty of conveying it to the attending of higher degree. I would describe to my immediate directors to discourse the farther steps. if he refuses the farther investigate. I’ll write a memo to disassociate myself from Harrington’s determination to accept those gross.
4. Additional audit processs applied to the 1981 FTC Cayman gross include:
1 ) Confirmation or surprise visit to the Cayman ltd.
2 ) Review the certification of contract with Cayman to place the nature of the dealing
3 ) Have the FTC direction supply a written memo explicating the gross of related party dealing.
4 ) Research or analysis of the intervention of those related party dealing.
5. Defects in the auditor’s verification process:
a ) Went to Rubin to corroborate the gross from Cayman. He’s evidently non the right individual to travel.
B ) Accepted Rubin’s account for the IAS gross without the proper certification.
degree Celsiuss ) No farther grounds was intended to be achieved.
6. Other particular hazards of the audit: the weak internal control system. deficiency of certification. industry recession. demand of big capital to finance operation. concentration of gross from one major client.
7. Specific steps audit houses can take to guarantee that client-imposed force per unit area does non adversely impact the quality of an independency audit:
1 ) . Clearly define the duty and right in the engagement missive
2 ) . Seasonably and proper communicating with the client in footings of their outlook being excessively high or non
3 ) . Working with the client’s audit commission to acquire through the job instead than straight with client’s direction
4 ) . Vacate if the force per unit area is inordinate to the point that jeopardize the quality if the audit