Αποτελέσματα Αναζήτησης
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.
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...
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.
It requires a one-year cooling-off period before public companies may hire former auditors from their current audit firm in senior-level accounting positions, assuming that the company wishes to retain the same audit firm.
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.
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.
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.
