Question

Graeme Brown, chartered accountant, has been the partner in charge of the audit of Merkle Manufacturing Ltd, a client listed on the Australian Stock Exchange, for 13 years. Merkle has had excellent growth and profits in the past decade, primarily as a result of the excellent leadership provided by Bill Merkle and other competent executives. Brown has always enjoyed a close relationship with the company and prides himself on having made several constructive comments resulting from consultancies over the years that have aided in the success of the firm. In particular, a number of recommendations were implemented from his firm’s work on installing the company’s new computer system. Brown has also made a valuable contribution as a member of the company’s audit committee. Several times in the past few years, Brown’s firm has asked him to consider rotating a different audit team on the engagement, but this has been strongly resisted by both Brown and Merkle, as the staff are very familiar with the company and its processes, and such a change will serve only to increase audit costs. Mandatory rotation of the audit partner won’t occur for some time. For the first few years of the audit, internal controls were inadequate and the accounting personnel had inadequate qualifications for their responsibilities. Question 2 continued over next page Question 2 continued Extensive audit evidence was required during the audit, and numerous adjusting entries were necessary. However, because of Brown’s constant prodding, the internal controls improved gradually and competent personnel were hired. In recent years, no audit adjustments had normally been required, and the extent of the evidence accumulation was gradually reduced. During the past three years, Brown has been able to devote less time to the audit because of the relative ease of conducting the audit and the cooperation obtained throughout the engagement. In the current year’s audit, Brown decides that the total time budget for the engagement should be kept approximately the same as in recent years. The senior in charge of the audit, Phil Warren, is new on the job and highly competent, though this is his first involvement in an audit in the industry in which Merkle operates. The fact that Merkle had recently acquired a new division through merger will probably add to the audit time, but Warren’s efficiency will probably compensate for it. The interim tests of internal controls take somewhat longer than expected because of the use of several new assistants, a change in the accounting system to computerise inventories and several other aspects of the accounting records, a change in accounting personnel, and the existence of a few more errors in the tests of the system. Neither Brown nor Warren is concerned about the deficit in the audit budget, however, because they can easily make up the difference at year-end. At year-end, Warren assigns responsibility for inventory to an assistant who also hasn’t been on the audit before but is competent and extremely fast at his work. Even though the total value of inventory has increased, Warren reduces the size of the sample from that of other years because there have been few errors in the preceding year. He finds several items in the sample that were overstated due to errors in pricing and obsolescence, but the combination of all the errors in the sample is immaterial, and therefore projection of errors to the inventory balance is considered unnecessary. He completes the tests in 25% less time than in the preceding year, helped by the fact that the IT manager had written a program for Warren to list all obsolete inventory items on the company’s inventory master file. This was done because Warren wasn’t familiar with IT systems and needed the computer program to save time and cost. There were many obsolete items listed on the obsolete inventory report, but none were material and Warren decided they didn’t require further action. The entire audit was completed on schedule and in slightly less time than in the preceding year. There were only a few adjusting entries for the year and only two of them were material. Brown was extremely pleased with the results and wrote a special letter to Warren and the inventory assistant, complimenting them on the audit. Six months later, Brown received a telephone call from Merkle and was informed that the company was in serious financial trouble. Subsequent investigation revealed that the inventory had been significantly overstated.   The main cause of the misstatement was the inclusion of obsolete items in inventory (especially in the new division), errors in pricing due to a fault in the inventory valuation program in the new computer system, and the inclusion of non-existent inventory in the final inventory listing. The new financial controller had intentionally overstated the inventory to compensate for the reduction in sales volume from the preceding year. Errors were also found in the computer report of obsolete items produced for Warren by the IT manager. Required List the major deficiencies in the audit, and state why they took place.

Answer 1

The major deficiencies in the audit and the reasons for their occurrence are:

1. There is a latent understanding danger under APES110 as the auditor has been involved in the execution of the new computer system.

2. The senior in control of the audit, Phil Warren is ‘new on the job....; however this is his first participation in an audit in the industry. (ASA 220).

3. The alteration in the accounting system to mechanize the inventory, a alteration in accounting employees, and the presence of a few more mistakes in the tests of controls should have warned the auditors to magnify the opportunity of the audit work. (ASA315 – need to assess the impact of this change of events).

4. Lessening in the scope of the inventory work created on the absence of misstatements last year was inappropriate since new internal control were in use with new recruits this year and the inventory balance was higher.

5.The new division should have been audited more systematically

7. Given the new workers on the appointment, Brown failed to sufficiently oversee and analyse the work of assistants (ASA 220).

9. There was seeming absence of the use of analytical procedures (ASA 520). A drop in sales should have cautioned the auditor to a probable drop in profits and outdated inventory.

10. The individuality of the auditors may be brought into question as Brown has had a long association with the client (without any seeming replacement of audit partners, and having accepted many consulting engagements) and he is a member of the Audit Committee.