Assessment 3
Assessment Type: Case Study Assignment. Maximum word limit of 2,500 words
Purpose: This assessment will allow students to demonstrate their understanding of auditing standards, procedures and techniques, how they are applied in organisational situations and the implications for stakeholders. The group nature of this assessment will allow students to further develop their team working skills. This assessment contributes to learning outcomes a, b and c.
There are two questions in this assignment with separate unrelated parts in each question.
Topic: Audit Risk, Analysis and Control in organisations Question 1
J Audrey Pearce is an audit partner of Pearce Green, a firm of accountants. She is considering audit risk at the overall financial statement level in planning the audit for the finance company Homes South Ltd (HS) for the year ending 30 June 2020. This risk is influenced by a combination of factors related to management, the industry and the entity. Audrey has gathered the following information concerning HS’s environment:
1. HS has been consistently more profitable than the industry average by marketing mortgages on properties in a prosperous rural area which has experienced considerable growth in recent years. HS packages and sells mortgages to large investment trusts. Despite recent volatility of interest rates, HS has been able to continue selling its mortgages as a source of new lendable funds.
2. HS’s board of directors is controlled by George Watson, the majority shareholder, who also acts as the chief executive officer. Management at the company’s branch offices has authority for directing and controlling HS’s operations, and is compensated according to branch profitability. The internal auditor reports directly to Henry Stevenson, a minority shareholder, who is chairman of the audit committee.
3. The accounting department has experienced little turnover in personnel during the five years for which Audrey has audited HS. HS’s formula constantly underestimates the allowance for loan losses, but its financial controller has always been receptive to Audrey’s suggestions to increase the allowance.
4. During 2019, HS opened a branch office in a metropolitan area 30 kilometres from its principal place of business. Although this branch is not yet profitable (as a result of competition from several well- established banks), management believes it will be profitable by 2021.
5. During 2019, the company increased the efficiency of its operations by installing a new computer system.
Required: Based only on the information provided, indicate the factors that would affect the risk of material misstatement and explain why.
Question 2
Draft financial information for Darfield Electronics for the year to 30 June 2021 is as follows.
c
|
2021 Draft $000s
|
2020 Actual $000s
|
Revenue
|
5267
|
4122
|
Cost of Sales
|
(2519)
|
(2290)
|
Gross Profit
|
2748
|
1832
|
Operating Expenses
|
(1718)
|
(958)
|
Profit before interest and tax
|
1030
|
874
|
Cash
|
-
|
527
|
Trade Receivables
|
931
|
587
|
Inventory
|
481
|
366
|
Bank Overdraft
|
206
|
-
|
Trade Payables
|
366
|
275
|
Required: Analyse the information above, identify audit risks and outline how the auditor should respond to these risks.
Marking Guide: Research – extent and application 20%
Analysis of the organisation 30% Recommendations/conclusions 40%
Report presentation/referencing 10%
This mark will be scaled to a mark out of 20 subject marks.
As this is a group assessment, all group members will receive the same mark. Any groups experiencing unacceptable levels of contribution from any members should advise their tutor as early as possible so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Complaints in relation to matters relating to the above assessment made in Week 9 or later are unlikely to be able to be considered.
Rubric for ACC300 Auditing and Assurance
Criteria
|
Fail
(0 – 49%)
|
Pass (50 – 64%)
|
Credit (65 – 74%)
|
Distinction (75 – 84%)
|
High Distinction (85 – 100%)
|
Research – extent and application
Value 30% Mark awarded
|
Inaccurate, inappropriate or no use of literature. Analysis not developed.
No original explanations provided.
|
Minimum number of sources, not all current or relevant.
Paraphrasing used throughout but not always accompanied by original explanations.
Theory relevant but not always linked to analysis.
|
Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies analysis.
Paraphrasing used throughout but accompanied by original explanations
|
Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from a good range of current and relevant sources to systematically build and justify analysis.
Minimum paraphrasing
|
Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify analysis.
Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way.
|
Analysis of the organisation
Value 30% Mark awarded
|
Poor evaluation.
Significant gaps in knowledge of the theory and lack of understanding of company’s capabilities.
No analysis provided. Disjointed or no discussion.
|
Simple discussion of areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities.
Work reflects limited engagement with organisational context or relevant theory.
Not all aspects of task completed In sufficient detail.
Most aspects of the task completed but assessment lacks
cohesion.
|
Identifies and discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Discussion of some relevant issues in theory and organisational content in evaluation.
All aspects of the task completed – some cohesion.
|
Identifies and clearly explains areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities.
Links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation.
All aspects of the task completed with minimal errors in cohesion
|
Identifies and insightfully discusses areas of strength and weakness in the organisation’s capabilities. Strong links to organisational context and relevant theory in evaluation.
All aspects of the task completed in a comprehensive and cohesive manner
|
Recommendations / conclusions
Value 30% Mark awarded
|
Few or no recommendations made / no justification.
Any recommendations made are not supported or are inaccurate.
|
Some recommendations made / not well linked to the results of the evaluation or relevant theory.
|
Good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation results / may not be linked back systematically to relevant theory
|
Very good recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used systematically to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilities
|
Excellent recommendations made, linked to the evaluation. Theory used in insightful way to justify recommendations and discuss enhancement of the organisation’s capabilities
|
Report presentation/ referencing
Value 10% Mark awarded
|
Referencing is absent / not systematic / incorrect
|
Acceptable presentation – obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail.
Some attempt at referencing but obvious errors
|
Good presentation overall but some obvious errors.
Referencing is mainly accurate
|
Professional presentation – minor errors in some elements.
Correct referencing throughout
|
Highly professional presentation – satisfies all presentation elements.
Correct referencing throughout
|