AUD Study Group Q3 2016 - Page 30

Viewing 15 replies - 436 through 450 (of 914 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #822805
    aatoural
    Participant

    Look at Becker's table A2-71 it summarizes everything for SSARS.

    This link for SSAE helped me with examinations, etc. – https://www.aicpa.org/research/standards/auditattest/downloadabledocuments/ssae_no_18.pdf

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #822823
    sancasuki
    Participant

    SSAE is for non historical financial statements. So you can have both SSAE reviews (anything besides historical financial statements) and SSARS reviews (historical financial statements).

    PCAOB– audit of public companies
    SAS– audit of private companies, reviews of interim financial statements of public companies
    SSARS– reviews of private companies, compilations
    SSAE (anything besides historical financial statements)- examinations, reviews, agreed-upon procedures

    Link

    #822853
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    Ok I have a good understanding of SSARS, PCAOB, and SSAE but somehow SAS has completely slipped through the cracks. Where can I find this in becker?

    I'm having a mini panic attack if you guys haven't noticed!

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #822859
    aatoural
    Participant

    @dtatham10 – don't feel bad I am having one too, but trying to conceal it. I feel bad I always get one a couple days bfore exam day and tell everybody in my family to treat me as “unavailable” 🙁

    Anyways, page A1-9 talks about SAS and PCAOB, and also the table I mentioned above has an entire column in comparative form for SAS engagements for interim FS.

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #822871
    sancasuki
    Participant

    I think the only difference between audits of public (PCAOB) and private (SAS) companies is that the internal control has to be audited for public company audits. Those sorts of audits are called integrated audits. PCAOB requires it. I could be wrong though…

    #822874
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    @aatoural Thanks for the quick responses! I'm starting to mix up all my concepts the I have known for awhile now and its stressing me out!

    So for SAS, this seems to be the private (non issuer) standards that auditors are required to follow. The chart you directed me towards says public interim FS are audited under PCAOB standards. @circadian posted those follow SAS requirements. I'm assuming he just made a mistake?

    Next question. Since SAS are standards for non-issuers is that separate rules from SSARS? Or how does that work? If you are doing a compilation or review on historical statements and it falls under SSARS are you required to follow SSARS and NOT SAS or do you have to comply with both standards?

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #822889
    aatoural
    Participant

    Yeah it happens. I get that too sometimes.

    So far only instance where I have had questions with SAS is referring to interim FS. So you prepare, compile, and review non-issuers under SSARS. However, a review can be done as an interim for both issuers and non-issuers. Issuer ALWAYS goes with PCAOB and then what is left is SAS for interim review of FS for non-issuers. Keep them separate.

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #822901
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    Great, I will just make note of that. SAS interim NON-ISSUERS.

    I think this will be my last question then I will let you get back to your own studying. For SSAE. I understand the engagements that fall under them (Agreed-upon procedures, forecasts, projections, internal control over financial reporting, MD&A, and compliance)

    Do you have a breakdown of the type of assurance for each one and the restrictions (ex I know a projection is restrictive and agreed-upon give no assurance)? Do they are provide the same type of assurance?

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #822916
    aatoural
    Participant

    Examination – you express an opinion that the practitioner obtains reasonable assurance about whether the subject matter, or an assertion about the subject matter, is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

    Review – you express a conclusion that the practitioner obtains limited assurance about whether any material modification should be made to the subject matter in order for it be in accordance with (or based on) the criteria or to an assertion about the subject matter in order for it to be fairly stated. In a review, the nature and extent of the procedures are substantially less than in an examination.

    AUP – you report on the application of AUP that the practitioner applies procedures determined by the specified parties who are the intended users of the practitioner’s report and who are responsible for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes. As a result of the engagement, the practitioner reports on the results of the engagement but does not provide an opinion or conclusion on the subject matter or assertion I.e Disclaimer)

    Also I memorized these tables to have everything of SSAE in its corresponding category:
    A2 – 77 – what type of report (examination, compilation, review, AUP) goes with what attest service
    A2 – 90 – explains when are prospective financial statements used and how are they reported on
    A2 – 91 – A more detailed table from A2-90

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #822919
    JT
    Participant

    Correct me if Im wrong. Im having issues with integrated audits vs audits on the effectiveness of I/C.

    Integrated audits-you report on mgmt. assertion. you need a rep letter with mgmt.'s assertion about I/C and the F/S, issues with GAAS warrants a disclaimer/qualified opinion.

    Audits on the effectiveness of I/c- you do not report on mgmt.'s assertion, you do not need mgmt. rep letter, and issues with I/c are adverse/qualified opinion.

    REG-80-1X
    BEC-80-1X
    FAR-73-1X
    FAR-75-2X
    AUD-September 2016

    #822925
    aatoural
    Participant

    Oh I forgot

    Examination is positive assurance because in the audit opinion it states: ” In our opinion, the schedule referred to above presents, in all material respects, the subject matter based on Note x”

    Review is negativity assurance because in the report states: “based on our opinion, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe, etc”

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #822928
    JT
    Participant

    aatoural

    Thank you for that breakdown. That will come in handy.

    REG-80-1X
    BEC-80-1X
    FAR-73-1X
    FAR-75-2X
    AUD-September 2016

    #822937
    HoosierCPA
    Participant

    Good stuff, Thanks @aatoural!

    FAR - 78
    REG - 72,74,71...please just go away REG nobody likes you!
    BEC - 82
    AUD - Aug 16

    #822952
    aatoural
    Participant

    I am still working on fully understanding this but here is what I have so far:

    Two ways of communicating IC:
    (1) FS Audit
    (2) Integrated Audit – which can be in the form of examination of IC for non-issuers or audit of IC for issuers

    All issuers are required to have the integrated audit with the audit of the FS.

    For IC of non-issuers the auditor is not required to perform procedures to identify deficiencies in IC, or express an opinion on the effectiveness of it. If they happen to become aware of any, then they communicate it to management and/or de board depending severity. On the other side management is responsible for evaluating and addressing such deficiencies pointed out. (A5-26 table) Also management may (I don't think it is required but I am not a 100% sure) prepare a written response to the auditor.

    Integrated audits (non-issuers can have it but it is required for issuers)- THE same audit or examination of IC to express an opinion on the effectiveness of it over financial reporting. Here auditor should obtain written representation from management.

    Now the part of issuing the opinion I am still puzzled about 🙁

    BEC - PASSED
    AUD - 8/29/16
    FAR - TBS
    REG - TBS

    #822976
    JT
    Participant

    Thank you!

    Im guessing that since its an audit of the F/S and specifically not about its effectiveness (BUT if you come across an issues regarding its effectiveness, it needs to be communicated) the opinions falls into the category of GAAP issues and not GAAS issues (like qualified, adverse, withdrawls and NOT disclaimers). I've gotten a couple mcq's wrong and now a sim wrong because I thought it would be a disclaimer but its an adverse opinion.

    Im not sure why this isnt explicitly mentioned in Becker.

    REG-80-1X
    BEC-80-1X
    FAR-73-1X
    FAR-75-2X
    AUD-September 2016

Viewing 15 replies - 436 through 450 (of 914 total)
  • The topic ‘AUD Study Group Q3 2016 - Page 30’ is closed to new replies.