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...
A two-year cooling off period is required before an audit engagement partner can act as a reviewer for their former client. The reviewer must be competent and capable of performing the role including understanding the legal and professional framework, firm policies relevant to the engagement and have an appropriate knowledge of the client industry.
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.
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.
6 Ιουν 2023 · A project-accompanying audit (audit carried out ex-ante) requires a continuous deployment of the construction auditor over the entire project period. Within this assignment, interim reports will help to improve certain construction processes and influence further project processing.
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.
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.
