Apply The Various Auditing Standards

Apply The Various Auditing Standards And P

Research the auditing issues surrounding the collapse of Lehman Brothers and explain how the new auditing standard ASA701 (ISA 701) could have impacted the disclosure of key audit matters. Discuss why these issues were not forewarned in the auditor’s report with an unqualified opinion and how ASA 701 provides additional insights into the impending collapse, including what key matters would have been disclosed and how this improves auditing practices.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008 marked one of the most significant financial failures in history, symbolizing the systemic risks and deficiencies in financial reporting and auditing practices. The event prompted regulatory bodies and standard setters to reevaluate audit procedures, leading to the development of new standards, particularly ASA 701 (ISA 701), which mandates the communication of key audit matters (KAMs) in auditor’s reports. This paper critically analyzes the auditing issues surrounding Lehman Brothers, why these issues went unrecognized in prior audit reports, and how ASA 701 could have provided early warnings through transparent disclosure of critical matters.

Context and Background

Lehman Brothers, a leading global financial services firm, filed for bankruptcy in September 2008 owing to excessive exposure to subprime mortgage assets, opaque accounting practices, and inadequate risk disclosures. Prior audits issued unqualified opinions, giving false assurance of the firm’s financial health. The audit failed to detect or disclose the mounting risks that eventually precipitated the collapse. Understanding these failures necessitates examining the auditing standards in place before ASA 701 and their limitations.

Pre-ASA 701 Auditing Standards and Their Limitations

Before the introduction of ASA 701, auditors primarily issued unqualified opinions based on financial statement conformity, with limited emphasis on communicating specific audit insights. The auditor’s report often lacked detailed information on significant audit risks, areas of judgment, or uncertainties. Consequently, shareholders and regulators had limited visibility into the critical issues that could threaten the entity’s sustainability.

In the case of Lehman Brothers, issues such as off-balance-sheet liabilities, valuation of complex financial instruments, and risk disclosures were not highlighted explicitly in the audit report, thus failing to warn stakeholders of impending crisis (Kirk et al., 2009). The limitations stemmed from the absence of a standardized requirement to communicate key audit matters, which could have highlighted areas where significant judgments or estimates were involved.

Development of ASA 701 and Its Rationale

The global financial crisis exposed the need for greater transparency and risk disclosure in audit reports. This led to the issuance of ASA 701, modeled after the International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 701, which requires auditors to communicate KAMs. These are matters that, in the auditor’s professional judgment, were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements for the period under review (IFAC, 2015).

This standard aims to improve stakeholder understanding by highlighting aspects like significant estimates, unusual transactions, or areas with high estimation uncertainty. By explicitly stating these matters, the auditor provides additional insights into potential red flags that might otherwise remain hidden.

Application of ASA 701 to the Lehman Brothers Case

If ASA 701 had been applicable during Lehman Brothers’ final audits, the auditor would have been required to disclose certain key matters. For example, the valuation of complex financial derivatives, off-balance-sheet entities, and risk management practices could have been included as KAMs. Such disclosures might have included detailed explanations of the uncertainties, assumptions, and estimates involved, providing clearer signals about financial distress.

Specifically, the auditor might have highlighted the aggressive accounting techniques used for Lehman’s structured products, the reliance on subjective judgments for asset valuations, and the levels of off-balance-sheet liabilities. These disclosures would serve as red flags informing users of the financial statements, potentially prompting earlier investigations or warnings from regulators and investors.

Improvement in Auditing Practice and Stakeholder Transparency

Under ASA 701, the explicit communication of KAMs would enable stakeholders to scrutinize the most critical and risky areas of the audit. This transparency could have highlighted the asset valuations challenges and associated risks—precursors to the eventual collapse—thus improving the predictive capacity of audits. Furthermore, such disclosures align with the broader goal of enhanced corporate governance, risk management, and accountability.

Compared to the prior, less informative audit reports, ASA 701’s implementation represents a significant enhancement, promoting greater stakeholder confidence and earlier detection of potential financial distress.

Conclusion

The Lehman Brothers case underscores the importance of detailed audit communication in detecting risks and warning signs of financial distress. The absence of detailed disclosures under earlier standards contributed to a false sense of security among stakeholders. The adoption of ASA 701 and the requirement to communicate KAMs serve as a vital advancement, facilitating better risk assessment and timely decision-making. Incorporating these disclosures could have provided essential early warnings in the Lehman case, potentially preventing or mitigating the fallout of the financial crisis.

Recommendations

  • Wider adoption of ASA 701 to ensure transparent communication of risk-related audit matters.
  • Enhanced auditor training on identifying and reporting Key Audit Matters relating to complex financial transactions.
  • Greater emphasis on disclosure of estimates, valuations, and off-balance-sheet risks in the audit reports.
  • Strengthening regulatory oversight to enforce the disclosure of critical audit matters.

References

  • International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2015). ISA 701 Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’s Report. International Standards on Auditing. Retrieved from https://www.ifac.org
  • Kirk, M., et al. (2009). The collapse of Lehman Brothers: An analysis of audit failure. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36(7-8), 773-804.
  • Deumes, R., & Dewing, R. (2010). Auditors' reporting on complex financial instruments: Implications of the financial crisis. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(3), 273-294.
  • Li, W., & Lam, K.C. (2012). Risk disclosures and the Lehman Brothers failure: An empirical analysis. Accounting & Finance, 52(4), 1023-1049.
  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2015). Clarified ISA 701: Communicating Key Audit Matters. IAASB. Retrieved from https://www.iaasb.org
  • Power, M. (2009). The risk management of corporate collapse: An institutional perspective. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 416-433.
  • Sikka, P., & Willmott, H. (2010). The power of audit: Financial scandals, new regulatory regimes and the public interest. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35, 411-420.
  • Simnett, R., et al. (2016). The effect of auditor communication of key audit matters on investor perceptions: An experimental study. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(4), 203-226.
  • Chow, C.W., & Rice, S. (1982). Price behavior and financial statement disclosures. The Accounting Review, 57(4), 787-804.
  • Messier, W., et al. (2018). Auditing & Assurance Services. McGraw-Hill Education.

Related Assignments