- 10 Marks
Question
You are the Audit Manager in Peptom Partners, a firm of Chartered Accountants. Your role includes performing post-issuance audit quality reviews. You have been tasked to review the audit work performed on Kaaklo Plc for the financial year ended 31 January 2021. The following information was gathered from your review of the audit file:
Audit team and fees
Kaaklo Plc is a listed company operating in the construction industry. The company complies with corporate governance regulations and has an audit committee. Kaaklo Plc has been an audit client of Peptom Partners for eight years, and Kofi Sika has been the Audit Engagement Partner during this time. Kaaklo Plc’s auditor’s report was signed by Kofi Sika and issued last week. The report contained an unmodified opinion.
Peptom Partners requires its staff to record each hour they spend working on each client in the firm’s time management system.
From reviewing the time records relating to the audit of Kaaklo Plc, you identified that Kofi Sika and the other audit team members recorded the following hours on the audit:
- Kofi Sika – Audit Engagement Partner: 2 hours
- Coffie – Senior Audit Manager: 6 hours
- Mabel – Audit Manager: 35 hours
- Six Audit Assistants: 130 hours
Total time spent on audit: 173 hours
It is apparent from your review that almost all the detailed review of the audit working papers was completed by Mabel, who has evidenced her review by stating ‘final review’ on each page of the audit file. She has recently been promoted to the position of Audit Manager.
You are also aware that Kofi Sika booked a total of 40 hours to Kaaklo Plc in respect of non-audit work performed. The only information you can find in the file is that the non-audit work related to a ‘special investigation,’ and that Kofi Sika confirms that it does not create a threat to auditor objectivity. The total fee charged for the audit was GH¢250,000 and the fee for the ‘special investigation’ was GH¢890,000.
Going concern
From reviewing the audit working papers, you are aware that Kaaklo Plc’s ability to continue operating into the foreseeable future was identified as a significant audit risk at the planning stage of the audit due to low profit margins or losses being made on many of the company’s construction contracts and increasing economic uncertainty. The company typically has 20 contracts ongoing at any time.
Most of the audit work on going concern was performed by Mary Lamptey, an audit assistant who has just written her last professional exam and is not yet qualified. The majority of the audit work performed on the going concern focused on a review of five major contracts to determine their profitability. The management of Kaaklo Plc identified the major contracts for review and provided Mary with forecasts indicating that the contracts would have little impact on profit. Mary confirmed that the assumptions used in the forecasts agreed to assumptions used in previous years and concluded that the contracts which she had reviewed support the going concern status of the company. Having reviewed these major contracts, Mary concluded that there is no significant uncertainty over Kaaklo Plc operating into the foreseeable future.
Required:
Comment on the quality of the planning and performance of the audit of Kaaklo Plc. (10 marks)
Answer
A review of the information relating to the audit of Kaaklo Plc indicates many problems with how the audit has been planned and performed, which imply that the audit has not been conducted in accordance with ISA 220 Quality Control for an Audit of Financial Statements, ISQC 1 Quality Control for Firms that Perform Audits and Reviews of Financial Statements, and other Assurance and Related Services Engagements, and the IESBA International Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the Code).
- Audit partner rotation: Kofi Sika has been acting as audit engagement partner for eight years. As Kaaklo Plc is a listed company, this goes against the requirements of the Code, which requires that an individual shall not act as the engagement partner for more than seven years. The problem is that long association of the engagement partner with the client leads to a self-interest threat to auditor objectivity, whereby the audit firm’s judgment is affected by concern over losing the long-standing client. There may also be a familiarity threat due to close relationships between the audit engagement partner and management of Kaaklo Plc, meaning that the partner ceases to exercise sufficient professional skepticism, impacting on audit quality. This is especially the case given that Kofi Sika is performing additional non-audit services for the client, which will be discussed further below. Kofi Sika should be replaced as soon as possible by another audit engagement partner.
- Supervision and review: Kofi Sika has booked only two hours for audit work performed on Kaaklo Plc. This is not sufficient time for the audit partner to perform their duties adequately. The audit partner is required to take overall responsibility for the supervision and performance of the audit. He should have spent an appropriate amount of time performing a review of the audit working papers in order to be satisfied that sufficient appropriate audit evidence had been obtained; this is a requirement of ISA 220. Instead, it appears that most of the final review was performed by a newly promoted audit manager who would not have the necessary experience to perform this review. It is possible that there is insufficient evidence to support the audit opinion which has been issued, or that inappropriate evidence has been obtained.
- Special investigation: Kofi Sika’s focus appears to have been on the special investigation performed for Kaaklo Plc, to which he booked 40 hours of time. There is insufficient documentation as to the nature of this non-audit work, and it could relate to the provision of a non-audit service which is not allowed for a public interest entity. Kaaklo Plc is a listed company, and the Code prohibits the audit firm from providing certain non-audit services, for example, certain internal audit services, valuation services, and tax services. The lack of documentation means that Peptom Partners could have provided a prohibited service and therefore be in breach of the Code.
- Audit of going concern: The audit work on going concern has been inappropriately delegated to an audit assistant who would not have the necessary skill or experience. This is of special concern given that going concern was identified as a significant audit risk, and that the work involves using judgment to evaluate information relating to contract performance. The work should have been performed by a more senior member of the team, probably one of the audit managers, who is more able to exercise professional skepticism and to challenge management where necessary on the assumptions underpinning the forecasts.
- Audit Committee: It is concerning that the audit committee of Kaaklo Plc does not appear to have raised concerns about the issues discussed, especially the provision of the non-audit service and the length of time which Kofi Sika has served as audit engagement partner. One of the roles of the audit committee is to oversee ethical issues relating to the external auditor and to be involved with the engagement of external providers. Peptom Partners should ensure that these matters are discussed with the audit committee so that further ethical issues do not arise in the future.
Conclusion: From the discussion above, it can be seen that there are many problems with the audit of Kaaklo Plc. Kofi Sika appears to have ignored his responsibilities as audit engagement partner, and the audit firm needs to discuss this with him, consider further training, or possibly take disciplinary action against him. Peptom Partners need to implement procedures to ensure all work is carried out at the appropriate level of personnel with the appropriate experience, and that training is given to staff to ensure they understand that the client does not pick or specify the audit work to be carried out in any area, it is to be selected by the audit team in accordance with the audit firm’s methodology and sampling tools.
- Tags: Audit quality, Non-Audit Services, Review Procedures, Supervision
- Level: Level 3
- Topic: Practice management, The audit approach
- Series: DEC 2023
- Uploader: Joseph