Related Posts
What is the final round at PwC like?
is FDD going to start hiring again?
😂😂the real Pirate.
Get ready for the future, boys! 😁
Additional Posts in Audit Bowl
This is my first time working with a client using the COSO framework. Before elevating my inquiry to my seniors, I would like to confirm my understanding of how this exercise works.
Prior working papers are telling me that client should establish its compliance with the five components of the framework, correct? How rigid should I be in performing this?
To be fair, I was provided with a reading material but it’s a pretty hefty read.
Thanks for any responses!
Deloitte
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Professional judgment.
Different Pizza Hut branch
It's a variation on the moving the goalpost theme that is so prevalent in PA.
Because it may or may not be important to look at. Not saying you should test it but not saying we don’t need to either. I don’t disagree with what you said but that doesn’t mean I necessarily agree. The key is to never ever make an absolute statement about anything so that you can always go back and change it. At least most of the time.
Risk tolerance. When you have a partner who has testified in court, they may be more of a nervous nelly and want to over test. Not saying it's right but that's why.
No different than every day life. There is significant judgement and people have different judgements. Also, no different than staff or managers, some partner have better understanding of risk and gaas and perform their jobs more appropriately and other partners fly high and may be putting the firm as excessive risk. Or the flip side, maybe a partner doesn't understand risk and simply Beata everything to death.
Every firm has a wide range of partners.
Depends on the Ms/SMs on the job. If they’re thorough then the partners can let things slide easier. The buck has to stop somewhere up the chain
Ask the partner, he or she probably has a good explanation or are aware of something client specific you may not be, or they’re following SALY.
Also depends on the risk assessment and which assertions you’re considering in the area.
That you were inclined to post this question is revealing. I assume that you have actually experienced this at some point. Surely, when a partner asks you about something that did not meet scope, he or she would be aware of that, and there would be no good reason why he or she would not have been willing to explain to you his or her rationale for doing this. And it doesn't sound like you feel comfortable asking about it.
You would have to provide more details, but with all due respect to @Partner1, this does not sound like a simple manifestation of the "This is no different than every day life" principle or just a variation in judgment or level of GAAS understanding.
Does this kind of thing happen a lot--where you encounter questions or receive feedback that just doesn't seem reasonable? Was there anything about the manner, body language, timing, etc., with which this or other partners "asking all kinds of questions" that has seemed awkward in some way?
Yeah makes perfect sense. There is no good reason for the partner in particular to have been defensive on such a reasonable question. As you say, the audit planning process should establish reasonable scope. Sure, professional judgment always comes into play, and it is the legal right of the partner to exercise that right by asking about something that is below scope.
Unfortunately, these kinds of tactics can be used as a way to churn people out. The professional judgment, risk tolerance, etc., excuses are all so vague and broad that it's possible to use them in a bogus way and with an ulterior motive. The don't want to terminate you, so they try to give you a reason to accept a call from a recruiter or make you begin to think that "public accounting isn't for you." Can't know for sure if that is happening in your particular case, but it doesn't smell right given your reasonable questions, especially in the case of the defensive partner. You also have to remember that not all partners are created equal, and, even for them, there is an extent to which the firm is going to develop them--as is the case for all other levels of the firm.
Risk tolerance
It’s the ones that went through pcaob review, after burning their hand. They will subconsciously lower their materiality to 75% of stated
I don't doubt that it happens. I'm just saying the OP's points are reasonable. Why would the partner be so defensive as OP described? The partner absolutely has the right to adjust scope at his or her will; there's just no good reason why they would be so defensive, especially when the industry claims to be such a great learning experience for young professionals. It's pretty hard to learn in the environment the OP describes, where leaders are evasive and defensive.
Quantitative vs qualitative considerations. Both are important.
MFW they make you do a risk assessment on something thats half of materiality