【正文】 on that probably would have made a difference in the judgment of someone relying on that information (FASB 2). What is materiality? three significant dimensions ? 錯報的金額：重要性的程度和金額的大小有關(guān)； ? 對照環(huán)境：重要性的程度取決于被審計企業(yè)的經(jīng)營規(guī)模和業(yè)務(wù)性質(zhì)。 因此，盡管審計人無法控制環(huán)境風(fēng)險，但審計人可以通過必要的審計程序來分析和判斷固有風(fēng)險水平，根據(jù)被審計企業(yè)的內(nèi)部控制的健全性和有效性情況，估計控制風(fēng)險水平，計劃可接受的檢查風(fēng)險水平，使審計風(fēng)險降低到可接受的水平。 ?不同交易循環(huán)的控制風(fēng)險的程度可能不同。s corporate governance ? Client39。 Sources of Information ? 智能代理（ Intelligent agents） ? 知識管理系統(tǒng)（ Knowledge management systems） ? 在線搜索（ Online searches） ? 電子數(shù)據(jù)收集及檢索系統(tǒng)（ Electronic research Electronic data gathering and retrieval system：EDGAR ） ? 經(jīng)濟(jì)統(tǒng)計（ Economic statistics） ? 專業(yè)手冊（ Professional practice bulletins） ? 股票分析報告（ Stock analysts39。 ③ 簽約風(fēng)險（ Engagement risk） — 與某個特定的客戶簽訂審計業(yè)務(wù)約定而帶來的風(fēng)險。 ? 第十四條 由于審計中存在的固有限制影響注冊會計師發(fā)現(xiàn)重大錯報的能力，注冊會計師不能對財務(wù)報表整體不存在重大錯報獲取絕對保證。 COSO defines ERM as a 一個由一個單位的董事會、經(jīng)營者和其他成員實施的，應(yīng)用于戰(zhàn)略制定并貫穿于整個企業(yè)、旨在識別可能影響該單位的潛在事項，管理風(fēng)險使其控制在風(fēng)險容量之內(nèi)，并為單位目標(biāo)的實現(xiàn)提供合理保證的過程 。 Audit Risk ? Adjusting audit staff to reflect risk associated with a client ? Developing direct tests of account balances consistent with detection risk ? Anticipating potential misstatements likely associated with account balances ? Adjusting the timing of audit tests to minimize overall audit risk 簽約風(fēng)險管理 ? 簽約風(fēng)險管理的 意義 ? 簽約風(fēng)險管理中 對客戶的考慮 ? 簽約風(fēng)險 管理所需信息的獲得 ? 簽約風(fēng)險管理中對 自身因素的考慮 審計業(yè)務(wù)約定書 ? What is an engagement letter? ? Executory contract between the auditor and client ? Why is it necessary? ? To document terms of the audit and minimize misunderstandings. ? Do you know a lawsuit case? ? The letter is written by the auditor to the client, then signed by both. ? When should the letter be signed? ? Before or after the predecessor/successor auditor munication? ? Before or after the audit procedures? ? Must an engagement letter be in a written form? 1136 Tenants’ corporation vs. Rothenberg case ? Tenants are the owners ? Managed by third party realtor ? CPAs maintained accounting books (book keeping) ? Sued for failure to discover defalcations of management ? Confusion between the role of CPA and Auditor ? Lessons ? CPAs are supposed to audit the financial statements (Expectation Gap) ? Engagement letter ? Alert for any sign of defalcation ? Report any sign of fraud to owners, regardless of services rendered 1136 Tenants’ Corporation CPA firm A realtor (president: Rothenburg) Only book keeping No Audit service ? Rothenburg stole $130,000. ? The auditor did not report the Rothenberg’s fraud to the managements of 1136 Tenants’ Corpororation ? Compilation fee: $600 ? Court’s judgment: pay $230,000 to the 1136 Tenants’ Corp. Managed by Hired Oral agreement Lessons ? CPAs are supposed to audit the financial statements (Expectation Gap) ? Engagement letter ? Alert for any sign of defalcation ? Report any sign of fraud to owners, regardless of services rendered Engagement Risk ? 簽約風(fēng)險管理是最重要的審計決策之一。 ? 公司治理的質(zhì)量反映了經(jīng)營者履行經(jīng)管責(zé)任的質(zhì)量和財務(wù)報告的質(zhì)量。 NonSampling Risk is the Primary Culprit 2021年 SEC公布的 SOX704條報告分析審計失敗的原因后指出 ? 對非經(jīng)常性事項、期末交易或者關(guān)聯(lián)方交易未能保持應(yīng)有的職業(yè)懷疑心（ professional skepticism）， ? 沒有獲得充分適當(dāng)?shù)淖C據(jù)資料支持他們關(guān)于財務(wù)報表的意見是審計人被指控的最主要原因。 例子 審計人關(guān)于某個特定財務(wù)報表項目所能接受的審計風(fēng)險水平為 3%，并估計該財務(wù)報表項目的固有風(fēng)險為 90%，當(dāng)控制風(fēng)險分別為 80%和 20%時： 第一種情況 第二種情況 AR: 3% 3% IR: 90% 90% CR: 80% 20% DR: % % 解釋 ? 第一種情況表示，要使審計風(fēng)險控制在 3%以內(nèi)，必須將檢查風(fēng)險控制在 %以內(nèi)，也就是說，所計劃的測試范圍要足夠大到至少要保證審計有效性的水準(zhǔn)達(dá)到 96%。 重要性及其運(yùn)用 ?確定財務(wù)報表層次的重要性 ?確定賬戶交易層次的重要性水平 Set Planning Materiality for the Statements as a Whole Not required to quantify Judgmental Rules of thumbs 5% to 10% of ine before tax