問題二包括了“真實和公允”原則、國際審計準則以及審計文件。問題三是基于生產打印機的Redsmith公司的。該問題包括風險識別、新審計業務的計劃與接受等領域。

Question Two
This 10-mark question covered the topics of true and fair concept,International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and audit documentation.

Part (a) for 4 marks required candidates to explain the true and fair concept.Candidates’ performance was mixed on this question.Candidates clearly are aware of the concept but struggled to explain it with sufficient clarity.Also many candidates failed to score full marks as they did not make a sufficient number of points for 4 marks.

A common answer was to describe true as being"truthful"and to explain fair in relation to"fairness".This does not answer the question.In addition a minority also confused their explanations between true and fair,for example,stating"true means unbiased”.Also a significant minority,having gained credit for stating that true and fair means that there are no material misstatements in the financial statements,then went onto a detailed description of materiality which was not required.

Part (b) for 2 marks required an explanation of the status of ISAs.Candidates performed inadequately on this question.Many candidates did not seem to understand what was required and were confused by the word"status”.However this requirement is taken from the study guide and relates to the authority of ISAs,what types of assignments they apply to,their content and also how they interact with other legislation.

Part (c) for 4 marks required four benefits of documenting audit work.This question was answered well by most candidates.In addition the verb of"state"was addressed by most candidates and answers were generally succinct.Where candidates did not score full marks this tended to be because they repeated points or because they gave points which related to the benefits of audit planning rather than the benefits of documenting audit work.

Question Three
This 20-mark question was based on Redsmith Co which produced printers.The question tested the areas of risk identification,planning and acceptance of new audit engagements.

Part (a) for 3 marks required the process an auditor would undertake for an assessment of whether the preconditions for an audit were present.This is a new topic from the revised ISA 210 Agreeing the Terms of Audit Engagements.
A large number of candidates did not attempt this question,and where it was attempted it was inadequately answered.Most candidates who provided an answer clearly did not know what the preconditions were and therefore proceeded to write down anything they knew about new audit engagements.Most provided answers which covered ethical considerations for new engagements such as contacting the outgoing auditors,or ensuring that they had an adequately trained audit team and other client screening procedures,also many covered the contents of an engagement letter.

It was fairly apparent from the answers provided that many candidates had simply not studied the new syllabus area of preconditions and hence were unable to score any marks at all.In addition many candidates wrote at considerable length for a 3 mark requirement.This put them under significant time pressure for later questions.Candidates must note the total number of available marks and provide an answer in line with this.

Part (b) for 2 marks required 4 matters the auditor should consider in obtaining an understanding of the entity.This was unrelated to the scenario and was a knowledge based question.In general candidates performed satisfactorily.Where candidates did not score full marks this was because they focused on such areas as people they would speak to,or procedures to obtain information such as"reviewing the company’s website”.They should instead have focused on the areas/matters of the company that the auditor wished to gain an understanding on,such as its industry,regulatory framework or customer base.

Part (c) for 15 marks required a calculation of 5 ratios each for 2 years and an explanation of the related audit risks and responses.The ratios requirement was answered well by the majority of candidates.However there were a significant minority who did not have a calculator in the exam and hence were unable to calculate any ratios,they failed to score any of the available 5 marks.Also some candidates were unable to calculate any relevant ratios,instead just calculating percentage increases or producing duplicating ratios such as gross margin as well as cost of sales as percentage of revenue.In addition a significant minority confused the calculation of inventory days using inventory divided by revenue rather than cost of sales.Candidates are reminded that as part of an analytical review,going concern or audit risk question they must be able to calculate and then evaluate relevant ratios.

The question then required audit risks and responses for 10 of the 15 marks.Many candidates performed inadequately on this part of the question.

As stated in previous examiner’s reports,audit risk is a key element of the Audit & Assurance syllabus and candidates must understand audit risk.

The main area where candidates lost marks is that they did not actually understand what audit risk relates to.Hence they provided answers which considered the risks the business would face or ‘business risks,’ which are outside the scope of the syllabus.Audit risks must be related to the risk arising in the audit of the financial statements.If candidates did not do this then they would have struggled to pass this part of the question as there were no marks available for business risks.

In addition many candidates chose to provide an interpretation of accounts and the ratios calculated rather than an assessment of audit risk.Comments such as"revenue has increased by 28% this could be as a result of the bonus scheme introduced"would not have scored any marks as there was no identification of the audit risk,which is overstatement of revenue.

Even if the audit risks were explained many candidates then failed to provide a relevant response to the audit risk,most chose to give a response that management would adopt rather than the auditor.For example,in relation to the risk of valuation of receivables,as Redsmith Co had extended their credit terms to customers,many candidates suggested that customers should not be accepted without better credit checks,or offering an early settlement discount to encourage customers to pay quicker.These are not responses that the auditor would adopt,as they would be focused on testing valuation through after date cash receipts or reviewing the aged receivables ledger.Also some responses were too vague such as"increase substantive testing"without making it clear how,or in what area,this would be addressed.

Future candidates must take note; audit risk is and will continue to be an important element of the syllabus and must be understood.