Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
Integrated within MPR requirements, minimum cooling-off periods regulate audit quality at the time of a rotation-back. Within the context of a proposed extension to the minimum cooling-off period, we examine the association between the length of the cooling-off period and audit quality.
1 Οκτ 2021 · This paper examines the association between the length of the cooling-off period and audit quality: (1) when partners rotate back and (2) during the cooling-off period, ahead of an...
With regard to both, calculation of the maximum duration and cooling-off period, national competent authorities are encouraged to closely monitor compliance by auditors with the intention and spirit of the rotation and cooling-off requirements, within the boundaries set by national legislation.
We understand the need for a “cooling off” period for serving as EQR partner. However, the two-year requirement may be burdensome for smaller firms. If the “cooling off” period is retained, we would highly recommend a one-year period. that operate under all three sets of standards.
Four-year cooling-off period is required. The requirement for ‘key audit partners’ to rotate after a maximum of seven years, followed by a three-year cooling-off period is retained under the new legislation; however, member states have an
7 Φεβ 2024 · Relative to the year before rotation, audit quality after rotation-back is higher if the auditors use the ‘substantive’ cooling-off mode, whereas the audit quality decreases if the auditors use the ‘non-substantive’ cooling-off mode.
1 Ιαν 2018 · Our results show that audit risk (the probability that fraud exists and goes undetected) is lower in both periods for the continuing auditor than with a change in auditors.
