Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
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 extension...
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.
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.
The reviewer needs to consider whether the audit team has applied appropriate professional scepticism. A two-year cooling off period is required before an audit engagement partner can act as a reviewer for their former client.
We explore the elements of an effective project reporting system; identify how to determine the relevance and purpose of information to be reported; provide guidance on how to produce useful reports that are easy to understand; and outline example formats and guidance on timing and report distribution.
17 Δεκ 2018 · We provide preliminary evidence that extending the cooling-off period does not enhance audit quality when a partner rotates-back on to a client and uncover an unintended consequence of the effect of this policy during the cooling-off period.
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.
