Evidence Collection Procedures

Evidence Collection Procedures

Use the Internet or Strayer Library to research at least two (2) companies that have experienced downgrades related to stock performance or bond ratings within the last five (5) years. Next, analyze the primary ways in which auditors would use the information from downgrades to assess business risk or evaluate the likelihood that the downgrades would impact the auditor's assessment of the client's business environment. Ascertain the major ways in which this information would impact the audit risk model equation. Support your position. According to an article in the CPA Journal, the auditor considers the reliability of audit evidence collected and the reliability of that evidence to reduce the risk of financial statements containing undetected material errors. Compare and contrast at least two (2) types of evidence, and make a recommendation as to which you believe is the most reliable in reducing risk. Support your position.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The process of evidence collection is fundamental to ensuring the accuracy and reliability of financial audits. In particular, external indicators such as credit rating downgrades provide valuable insights into a company's financial health. This paper explores how such downgrades impact auditor risk assessments by examining two companies that have experienced recent ratings deterioration. Additionally, it compares different types of audit evidence—specifically, internal documentation and external attestations—and evaluates their reliability in reducing audit risk within the context of the audit risk model.

Case Studies: Companies with Recent Downgrades

To understand the implications of downgrades, consider the cases of Tesla Inc. and Ford Motor Company. Tesla's credit rating was downgraded by Standard & Poor's in 2020 from BB+ to BB, reflecting concerns over its cash flow and production scalability (S&P Global, 2020). Similarly, Ford's bonds were downgraded by Moody’s from Baa3 to Ba1 in 2021 due to declining profitability and supply chain disruptions (Moody’s Investors Service, 2021). These rating downgrades serve as external signals of increased financial risk, prompting auditors to scrutinize the companies' financial statements more thoroughly.

Use of Downgrades in Auditing and Business Risk Assessment

Auditors utilize rating downgrades to identify heightened business risks. Downgrades may indicate deteriorating liquidity, increased leverage, or declining market confidence—all of which influence an auditor’s evaluation of the client's risk environment (Arens et al., 2019). Specifically, these external signals alert auditors to potential misstatements stemming from financial instability, such as impairment of assets or increased provisions for doubtful debts. Consequently, auditors may adjust the level of substantive testing and control testing procedures.

Furthermore, downgrades impact the components of the audit risk model, expressed as AR = IR × CR × DR, where AR denotes the audit risk, IR the inherent risk, CR the control risk, and DR the detection risk (ALCPA, 2018). A downgrade heightens inherent risk because the company's financial situations are more volatile; control risk may also increase if internal controls are less effective during turbulent times. This, in turn, necessitates a lower detection risk, implying that auditors need to perform more substantive procedures to maintain audit quality.

Impact on the Audit Risk Model

The audit risk model is directly affected by external financial signals such as credit ratings. Specifically, a downgrade signals higher inherent risk because it reflects underlying financial distress. As the inherent and control risks escalate, auditors adjust their detection risk accordingly; this typically results in increased audit procedures, focusing on areas most affected by the downgrade (Arens et al., 2019). For example, auditors might perform more detailed testing of receivables, inventories, or property, plant, and equipment to detect potential misstatements resulting from the financial decline.

Types of Evidence and Their Reliability

Evidence in audits can be classified into several types, but generally, they fall into two broad categories: internal evidence and external evidence. Internal evidence comprises documents and records generated within the company, such as internal reports, spreadsheets, and management representations. External evidence includes third-party confirmations, bank statements, and credit reports obtained from independent sources.

The reliability of evidence depends significantly on its source and nature. For instance, external evidence, such as bank confirmations or credit ratings, tends to be more reliable because it is less susceptible to manipulation by client management. Conversely, internal evidence, while useful, relies heavily on management integrity and may be subject to bias or errors (Louwers et al., 2018).

Comparison of Evidence Types and Their Effectiveness in Reducing Risks

External evidence generally provides a higher degree of assurance because it is obtained from independent parties and less likely to be manipulated. For example, third-party confirmations verify account balances directly from external entities, reducing detection risk related to fictitious balances. This external corroboration is especially critical when external signals, such as credit downgrades, suggest increased financial instability (Knechel & Salterio, 2016).

Internal evidence, while valuable for assessing internal controls and operational performance, may be less reliable when external risk signals indicate financial distress. Management's incentives might lead to selective or biased reporting, increasing the risk of material misstatement. However, internal evidence is still essential for understanding internal control effectiveness and operational procedures.

Recommendation: Most Reliable Evidence to Reduce Risk

Among the two types, external evidence is generally more reliable for reducing audit risk, particularly in circumstances where external signals indicate financial instability, such as credit rating downgrades. External evidence’s independence minimizes management bias and manipulation, providing higher assurance of the accuracy of the audited information (Louwers et al., 2018). In high-risk scenarios prompted by downgraded ratings, reliance on external evidence like third-party confirmations and credit reports is critical.

However, internal evidence remains important as it offers insight into internal processes and controls. Effective internal control assessments can help identify areas where internal risks may lead to misstatements. Nonetheless, for reducing detection risk and ensuring robust audit conclusions in the context of financial distress, external evidence should be prioritized.

Conclusion

External credit rating downgrades serve as vital external indicators that significantly influence an auditor’s assessment of business risk. Incorporating this external information into the audit risk model necessitates enhanced audit procedures and increased reliance on high-quality, external evidence sources. While internal evidence is useful for understanding internal processes, external evidence’s independence makes it more reliable in scenarios marked by heightened financial uncertainty. To effectively mitigate audit risk, auditors must prioritize external evidence, especially in situations influenced by external signals such as credit downgrades, thereby ensuring a more accurate and reliable audit opinion.

References

  • Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2019). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach. 16th Edition. Pearson.
  • Knechel, W. R., & Salterio, S. E. (2016). Auditing: Assurance and Risk. Routledge.
  • Louwers, T. J., Ramsay, R. J., Sinason, R. H., & Strawser, J. R. (2018). Auditing and Assurance Services. 7th Edition. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Moody’s Investors Service. (2021). Credit opinion: Ford Motor Company. Retrieved from https://www.moodys.com
  • S&P Global. (2020). Credit ratings for Tesla Inc. Retrieved from https://www.spglobal.com
  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). (2018). AU-C Section 330: The Auditor’s Procedures in Obtaining Sufficient Appropriate Audit Evidence.
  • CPA Journal. (2021). The role of evidence reliability in auditing. CPA Journal, 41(4), 45-51.
  • International Audit and Assurance Guidelines (IAAG). (2017). External and Internal Evidence in Auditing.
  • Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2019). AU Section 333: The Effect of Internal Control on Financial Statement Audit Evidence.
  • Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2020). Accounting Standards Update (ASU) on Credit Losses.

Related Assignments