CA AAA EP 2010

猪猪的宝贝

那么就应该是倒数第二段了，where it says "the warehouse manager then attaches the delivery docket to the purchase order and gives both documents to warehouse staff."

没有明确提到authorisation, 但是我想的确是indicate authorisation control

Happybanana

原帖由 猪猪的宝贝 于 2010-10-26 22:11 发表
那个如果是这两个control的话，我觉得procedures to test the control应该就是
1) select a sample of purchase orders and look for evidence of authorisation by warehouse manager.

2) put in a few dummy entri ...

2) Plan to involve your IT specialist to test the reallife system integration！ When your client's system is a "Live" system, how can auditors put in dummy entries? unless your client has "mirroring" system

Happybanana

原帖由 猪猪的宝贝 于 2010-10-26 22:13 发表
那么就应该是倒数第二段了，where it says "the warehouse manager then attaches the delivery docket to the purchase order and gives both documents to warehouse staff."

没有明确提到authorisation, 但是我想 ...

"Once purchases are approved by the warehouse manager, the OOS generates an automatic email to the supermarket confirming the order...."

猪猪的宝贝

哦。。。。

Happybanana

section3: 特别是question c,

Question c, your existing answer is alright, but missed one part of the question:

"Assuming that you comply with the request (and ignoring all considerations relating to limitation of scope), discuss the impact of this request upon your approach to the audit."

So the impact on your approach given your testing period/scope will be limited, than you as auditor should perform more "substantive" testing, ie reduce reliance on controls and extend your "test of details".

Link that to the background info:
"Steve Price (your audit partner) intends to adopt a combined audit approach as per ASA 330 para. A4(c) as his expectation is that all controls at Value Plus are operating effectively. He intends to place a high reliance on the operating effectiveness of the controls at......"

猪猪的宝贝

所以你的意思是，虽然benita给出的audit approach很不靠谱，我们auditor应该perform more substantive testing and reduce reliance on controls, 但是background info说par认为我们应该rely on operation effectiveness of the existing control, 总结说来就是虽然test of control不靠谱，impact 还是limited?

我的理解对吗？

Happybanana

section 4: （重点）
这个在group meeting的时候没有讨论出来答案，我是硬写一个上去的，你火眼晶晶，觉得他们的control到底哪里有漏洞啊

Your current answer talks about credit limit again.

I suggest - the weakness is the price for each item is mannually written by warehouse manger on purchase orders and then send to accounts receivables for invoicing, What if he makes mistakes or he manipulates the price becuase he is a friend of some franchise stores' owners ?? the pricing (no matter sales or costs) should come out of a master price data in system (which can only be accessed by authroised management personnel) so as long as the accounts receivable knows the item code, then they can do the invoicing....

Accounts balance at risk: Accounts receivables

Assertion: Valuation and accuracy

[ 本帖最后由 Happybanana 于 2010-10-26 22:39 编辑 ]

Happybanana

Yes. Balance of audit quality/audit risk v client relationship

Happybanana

Babypig, can I look at Part B later? Part A is done now....

I have some real "puzzle" to sort out

猪猪的宝贝

当然可以香蕉！
我已经被你完全折服，有经验就是不一样啊！

你明天有空再来看part B吧，现在也晚了，你早点休息！！！

明天分回来了全部奉上啊！！

Happybanana

I am taking my team out to do cocktail classes, so probably gonna be drunk when I get home. You should bet on Thursday night, not tomorrow night

猪猪的宝贝

没问题！我明天晚上focus session, won't be home anyway.

看来你真是个小酒鬼啊！你独居？如果有那一位的话，不会有意见嘛，哈哈！


真是羡慕你，我希望以后事业也能像你这样，决定了，下门CA不enrol，一心一意换工作！！！！！！

兔兔

那个啊。。。我半路路过的。。。
37楼还算是relate with order and transfer of inventory米？算不算已经invoicing，然后就pass这order和transfer了？
42楼同换工作！！！

Happybanana

那兔兔觉得应该是什么呢？

兔兔

回banana，俺还米想好。。。目前琢磨了以下2条：
1. 是不是可以pre-number purchase order/delivery docket，这样如果有人删除了某record，可以有据可查？
2. 是不是需要个人来核对purchase order和delivery docket。虽然都是automatic generated，但是毕竟是俩系统出来的？
欢迎拍砖。。。

兔兔

那个。。。俺又回来插一腿。。。
Banana认为这个automatic这automatic那的，算不算是个control strength?减少human error? (monkey09)

猪猪的宝贝

兔兔我今晚不看了，刚上完FS。。。。

今天的FS很热闹啊，当讲到opnion formulation，大家猛问问题，我看出来了，都是在影射project的问题，哈哈！

兔兔

哈哈。辛苦辛苦。
我FS那桌那是都和我一个德性。。。不看书就去。。。我们还刚好被allocate到audit opinion那activity。(monkey17)

边看project边瞎扯的人路过。。。(monkey14)

猪猪的宝贝

哈哈，明天再跟你瞎扯，我睡觉啦，nighty night~

兔兔

(monkey10)

Happybanana

昨天自己做了两个cocktail，喝了，又买了两个，加上dinner时的wine，昨晚手机上来看了但是实在是没心情细看EP的题目啊。我周二晚当场看的题，可能考虑不周

Happybanana

原帖由 兔兔 于 2010-10-27 22:24 发表
回banana，俺还米想好。。。目前琢磨了以下2条：
1. 是不是可以pre-number purchase order/delivery docket，这样如果有人删除了某record，可以有据可查？
2. 是不是需要个人来核对purchase order和delivery docket。虽然都是a ...

1. purchase order/delivery docket系统produce出来的，应该是pre-number的吧？
2. warehouse Manager不是看这两个的吗？另外如果你test OOS/IMS系统的interface，应该会自动match的

3way Matching (Purchase Order, Delivery Docket and Billing)是Inventory环节的重要的Control,我觉得弱点在如何bill Transferred的Inventory那块

Happybanana

section 1:
第一个risk我比较确定，肯定有foreigh exchange risk的，就是explanation不知道准确不准确。。。如果通篇有语法错误请毫不留情指出。。。。。。。。。。。。。

[Banana: I agree with Foreigh Exchange Risk. Then you can explain the exchange gain/losses account; You can also comment that if Australia dollar is weaker, then the cost of goods could be higher than the sale price (remember their "budget price" strategy in the background), then the inventory should be measured at "lower of cost or net realisable value (ie selling price)", then inventory balance would be subject to material risks as provision is required. This is probably a more significant risk then FX gain or losses.

2nd risk: economic reliance on Von Wilhelm's supply of 55% of Value Plus' goods. Given Won Wilhelm's strict demand on payment terms, it could cause cash flow constraints  if the goods cannot be sold within 7 days as the payments need to be made within 7 days therefore going concern issue. The rumor of Von Wilhelm's entrance to the market would increase the going concern risk further. After they become direct competitor, it's unlikely Von Wilhelm will continue to supply Value Plus goods. Whether Value Plus could sustain their current strategy to supply quality goods at budget prices, that would be a question mark.

Happybanana

第二个risk我和我的group都不确定，因为going concern好像不算是business risk?? 因为如果是的话，(b)就不知道怎么答了，going concern应该不会Result in material misstatement吧？。。。所以我觉得应该不是going concern...可是又想不到其他的。。。。。。credit risk?!

[Banana: Going concern risk will cause significant misstatement. If a company cannot continue as going concern, then their assets and liabilities should be measured at realisable values, not the current measurement.

Going concern risk is a hugh risk for auditors to make mistakes. It's the foundation of accounting, so the company cannot continue as going concern, that's the point to issue an audit report on the financial statements?]

Happybanana

section 2:
这题基本是蒙的。。。。。。。我觉得我写的应该不对，可能着点边儿~

(a) - yes, it looks alright to verify against the financials (as the count sheet could be wrong)

(b) Because a lot of inventories are on consignment arrangements, the procedures listed in the background does not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding Value Plus’s right and obligations against all consignment stock.

Procedures: Obtain consignment stock listing and use sampling techniques to obtain confirmation from Nordo Food or franchisee stores (or the auditors can go to Nordo Food and Franchisee stores to do some stocktake)

猪猪的宝贝

所以以上3个risk都可以，随便选两个就行啦？

Happybanana

section  3:
（a) 我们Group讨论了好久不知道应该是provision或是inventory,因为貌似只能填一个，但是哪个才是key account balance at risk呢？ 我的直觉觉得是provision, 因为我觉得更直接些，inventory是关联账户，所以会跟着改变。

[Banana: from background "Given this fact, the company has always had a provision for stock obsolescence, which is subject to annual review" - I think the annual review is not frequent enough to keep it up to date. Key account balance at risk is pointing at provision for stock obsolescence account.]

(b)应该是valuation吧？这个比较确定 [Banana: yes]

(c)这个不是我的主意，是group讨论出来的，但是我感觉不太靠谱。实际审计中会用什么测试？

[Banana: yes, it's not practical. Assume the IT controls are effective (ie you can rely on system generated reports), you should consider obtain the stock aging report for different category of inventory with different shelf lives. For stock aged older(longer) than their shelf lives, you need to test the details by ensuring the provision of obsolescence has been made and stock ideally should have been removed from shelf - ie from the inventory report location column, it should not shown as in stores, instead it should have been scrapped]

Happybanana

原帖由 猪猪的宝贝 于 2010-10-28 20:13 发表
所以以上3个risk都可以，随便选两个就行啦？

? 那里是第三个risk？

猪猪的宝贝

53楼写了两个risk, 54楼写了going concern啊？ （虽然going concern 其实就是第二个risk)

或者54楼你只是纯粹解释一下我关于going concern的问题么？

Happybanana

section  3:
(d)我基本是完全照抄的standard,因为要我用自己的话讲也是讲的差不多啊？standard已经写的很简练了，你觉得这样回答行不行？还是要继续elaborate?
[Banana: You are on the right on this one. I suggest you use some of your own words instead of purely copying the standards. No need to elaborate further in my opinion as its straightforward.]