Foram encontradas 26 questões
Resolva questões gratuitamente!
Junte-se a mais de 4 milhões de concurseiros!
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
Based on the information provided by the text, mark the statements below as true (T) or false (F).
( ) An inquisitive mind is germane to those engaged in auditing.
( ) Bringing out a verifiable estimate on skepticism can be done in no time.
( ) On no account should professional skepticism be brushed aside when focusing on audit quality.
The statements are, respectively:
Professional skepticism and why it matters to audit stakeholders
In auditing, the concept of professional skepticism is ubiquitous. Just as a Jedi in Star Wars is constantly trying to hone his understanding of the “force”, an auditor is constantly crafting his or her ability to apply professional skepticism. It is professional skepticism that provides the foundation for decision-making when conducting an attestation engagement.
A brief definition
The professional standards define professional skepticism as “an attitude that includes a questioning mind, being alert to conditions that may indicate possible misstatement due to fraud or error, and a critical assessment of audit evidence.” Given this definition, one quickly realizes that professional skepticism can’t be easily measured. Nor is it something that is cultivated overnight. It is a skill developed over time and a skill that auditors should constantly build and refine.
Recently, the extent to which professional skepticism is being employed has gained a lot of criticism. Specifically, regulatory bodies argue that auditors are not skeptical enough in carrying out their duties. However, as noted in the white paper titled Scepticism: The Practitioners’ Take, published by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, simply asking for more skepticism is not a practical solution to this issue, nor is it necessarily always desirable. There is an inevitable tug of war between professional skepticism and audit efficiency. The more skeptical the auditor, typically, the more time it takes to complete the audit.
Why does it matter? Audit quality.
First and foremost, how your auditor applies professional skepticism to your audit directly impacts the quality of their service. Applying an appropriate level of professional skepticism enhances the likelihood the auditor will understand your industry, lines of business, business processes, and any nuances that make your company different from others, as it naturally causes the auditor to ask questions that may otherwise go unasked.
Applying skepticism internally
By its definition, professional skepticism is a concept that specifically applies to auditors, and is not on point when it comes to other audit stakeholders. This is because the definition implies that the individual applying professional skepticism is independent from the information he or she is analyzing. Other audit stakeholders, such as members of management or the board of directors, are naturally advocates for the organizations they manage and direct and therefore can’t be considered independent, whereas an auditor is required to remain independent.
However, rather than audit stakeholders applying professional skepticism as such, these other stakeholders should apply an impartial and diligent mindset to their work and the information they review. This allows the audit stakeholder to remain an advocate for his or her organization, while applying critical skills similar to those applied in the exercise of professional skepticism. This nuanced distinction is necessary to maintain the limited scope to which the definition of professional skepticism applies: the auditor.
It is also important to be critical of your own work, and never become complacent. This may be the most difficult type of skepticism to apply, as most of us do not like to have our work criticized. However, critically reviewing one’s own work, essentially as an informal first level of review, will allow you to take a step back and consider it from a different vantage point, which may in turn help detect errors otherwise left unnoticed. Essentially, you should both consider evidence that supports the initial conclusion and evidence that may be contradictory to that conclusion.
The discussion in auditing circles about professional skepticism and how to appropriately apply it continues. It is a challenging notion that’s difficult to adequately articulate.
Source: Adapted from https://www.berrydunn.com/news-detail/professional-skepticism-and-why-it-matters-to-audit-stakeholders
another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions
27 to 30.
Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)
On December 30, nearly three months into the fi scal
year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year
2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006
appropriation process to a close. The American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the
federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals
$134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase.
But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specifi c
areas: defense weapons development and human space
exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal
R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall
nearly 2 percent after adjusting for infl ation. Leaving out
large federal investments in development, congressional
appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0
billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over
2005. But NASA applied research on human space fl ight
technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,
leaving most agency research portfolios with modest
increases falling short of infl ation, or cuts. Many fl agship
federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in
2006.
another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions
27 to 30.
Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)
On December 30, nearly three months into the fi scal
year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year
2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006
appropriation process to a close. The American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the
federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals
$134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase.
But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specifi c
areas: defense weapons development and human space
exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal
R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall
nearly 2 percent after adjusting for infl ation. Leaving out
large federal investments in development, congressional
appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0
billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over
2005. But NASA applied research on human space fl ight
technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,
leaving most agency research portfolios with modest
increases falling short of infl ation, or cuts. Many fl agship
federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in
2006.
another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions
27 to 30.
Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)
On December 30, nearly three months into the fi scal
year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year
2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006
appropriation process to a close. The American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the
federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals
$134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase.
But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specifi c
areas: defense weapons development and human space
exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal
R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall
nearly 2 percent after adjusting for infl ation. Leaving out
large federal investments in development, congressional
appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0
billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over
2005. But NASA applied research on human space fl ight
technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,
leaving most agency research portfolios with modest
increases falling short of infl ation, or cuts. Many fl agship
federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in
2006.
another Disappointing Year" in order to answer questions
27 to 30.
Congress Caps another Disappointing Year
Source: www.aaas.org
4th January 2006 (Adapted)
On December 30, nearly three months into the fi scal
year, President Bush signed the last two Fiscal Year
2006 appropriations bills into law, bringing the FY 2006
appropriation process to a close. The American Association
for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) estimates that the
federal Research & Development (R&D) portfolio totals
$134.8 billion in 2006, a $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent increase.
But 97 percent of the increase goes to just two specifi c
areas: defense weapons development and human space
exploration technologies. Funding for all other federal
R&D programs collectively will barely increase, and will fall
nearly 2 percent after adjusting for infl ation. Leaving out
large federal investments in development, congressional
appropriations for basic and applied research total $57.0
billion, an increase of $1.0 billion or 1.8 percent over
2005. But NASA applied research on human space fl ight
technologies accounts for a majority of the increase,
leaving most agency research portfolios with modest
increases falling short of infl ation, or cuts. Many fl agship
federal science agencies have disappointing budgets in
2006.
in order to answer questions 24 to 26.
A modest proposal
Source: www.economist.com
14 Dec 2005 (Adapted)
What on earth is the European Union budget for? It
is too small (taking up just over 1% of EU-wide GDP) to
have any serious effect. To judge by the wrangling before
this week's EU summit in Brussels, it has become mostly
an opportunity for countries to air their pet grievances
and to demand their money back. If there is a deal on the
budget this week, it will be an agreement reached for its
own sake, because EU leaders cannot bear to be blamed
for yet another summit failure. And if there is no deal, it will
similarly be a disagreement for its own sake - because
France rather likes the idea of putting Britain, which holds
the rotating EU presidency, in the dock for one more
fi nancial fi asco.
Yet if there was ever a good moment to think hard
about how the budget might be better designed to
advance the Union's stated aims, it ought to be now. The
"fi nancial perspective" is negotiated once every six years.
That ought to create enough time to step back a bit and
consider some fi rst principles. The present negotiation
is also the fi rst since French and Dutch voters rejected
the EU constitution this summer, creating another good
opportunity to ask whether the club is still spending its
money on the right things. What would a budget look like if
it took the EU's goals at all seriously?
in order to answer questions 24 to 26.
A modest proposal
Source: www.economist.com
14 Dec 2005 (Adapted)
What on earth is the European Union budget for? It
is too small (taking up just over 1% of EU-wide GDP) to
have any serious effect. To judge by the wrangling before
this week's EU summit in Brussels, it has become mostly
an opportunity for countries to air their pet grievances
and to demand their money back. If there is a deal on the
budget this week, it will be an agreement reached for its
own sake, because EU leaders cannot bear to be blamed
for yet another summit failure. And if there is no deal, it will
similarly be a disagreement for its own sake - because
France rather likes the idea of putting Britain, which holds
the rotating EU presidency, in the dock for one more
fi nancial fi asco.
Yet if there was ever a good moment to think hard
about how the budget might be better designed to
advance the Union's stated aims, it ought to be now. The
"fi nancial perspective" is negotiated once every six years.
That ought to create enough time to step back a bit and
consider some fi rst principles. The present negotiation
is also the fi rst since French and Dutch voters rejected
the EU constitution this summer, creating another good
opportunity to ask whether the club is still spending its
money on the right things. What would a budget look like if
it took the EU's goals at all seriously?
in order to answer questions 24 to 26.
A modest proposal
Source: www.economist.com
14 Dec 2005 (Adapted)
What on earth is the European Union budget for? It
is too small (taking up just over 1% of EU-wide GDP) to
have any serious effect. To judge by the wrangling before
this week's EU summit in Brussels, it has become mostly
an opportunity for countries to air their pet grievances
and to demand their money back. If there is a deal on the
budget this week, it will be an agreement reached for its
own sake, because EU leaders cannot bear to be blamed
for yet another summit failure. And if there is no deal, it will
similarly be a disagreement for its own sake - because
France rather likes the idea of putting Britain, which holds
the rotating EU presidency, in the dock for one more
fi nancial fi asco.
Yet if there was ever a good moment to think hard
about how the budget might be better designed to
advance the Union's stated aims, it ought to be now. The
"fi nancial perspective" is negotiated once every six years.
That ought to create enough time to step back a bit and
consider some fi rst principles. The present negotiation
is also the fi rst since French and Dutch voters rejected
the EU constitution this summer, creating another good
opportunity to ask whether the club is still spending its
money on the right things. What would a budget look like if
it took the EU's goals at all seriously?
answer questions 21 to 23.
Job Outlook
Source: www.bls.gov
20th Dec 2005 (Adapted)
Competition for budget analyst jobs is expected over
the 2004-14 projection period. Candidates with a master's
degree should have the best job opportunities. Familiarity
with computer fi nancial software packages also should
enhance a jobseeker's employment prospects.
Employment of budget analysts is expected to
grow about as fast as the average for all occupations
through 2014. Employment growth will be driven by the
continuing demand for sound fi nancial analysis in both the
public and the private sectors. In addition to employment
growth, many job openings will result from the need to
replace experienced budget analysts who transfer to other
occupations or leave the labor force.
answer questions 21 to 23.
Job Outlook
Source: www.bls.gov
20th Dec 2005 (Adapted)
Competition for budget analyst jobs is expected over
the 2004-14 projection period. Candidates with a master's
degree should have the best job opportunities. Familiarity
with computer fi nancial software packages also should
enhance a jobseeker's employment prospects.
Employment of budget analysts is expected to
grow about as fast as the average for all occupations
through 2014. Employment growth will be driven by the
continuing demand for sound fi nancial analysis in both the
public and the private sectors. In addition to employment
growth, many job openings will result from the need to
replace experienced budget analysts who transfer to other
occupations or leave the labor force.
answer questions 21 to 23.
Job Outlook
Source: www.bls.gov
20th Dec 2005 (Adapted)
Competition for budget analyst jobs is expected over
the 2004-14 projection period. Candidates with a master's
degree should have the best job opportunities. Familiarity
with computer fi nancial software packages also should
enhance a jobseeker's employment prospects.
Employment of budget analysts is expected to
grow about as fast as the average for all occupations
through 2014. Employment growth will be driven by the
continuing demand for sound fi nancial analysis in both the
public and the private sectors. In addition to employment
growth, many job openings will result from the need to
replace experienced budget analysts who transfer to other
occupations or leave the labor force.
and 30:
Responsibility of Accountants and Auditors
How can accountants and auditors help in this
anticorruption drive? First of all, accountants are the
first set of gatekeepers to ensure that transactions are
valid, at arm's-length, captured, and properly
recorded according to established standards.
Secondly, "as professionals with a duty to protect the
public interest, they are bound by rigorous codes of
professional and personal ethics calling for the
highest levels of integrity and objectivity". Thirdly,
"their key strategic positions within an enterprise or
organization - whether in an internal position or as an
external auditor or adviser - mean that they very
often have access to highly privileged and confidential
information."(Frank Harding: "Corruption: Rising to the
Challenge", IFAC - May/1999.)
Both accountants and auditors perform their
respective functions on the bases of national and
international standards of practice which have clear
guidelines in identifying, for instance, indicators of
fraud and other irregularities, and reporting these to
the highest levels of authority.
Internet: www.guyanajournal.com
Accessed in Nov/2003
and 30:
Responsibility of Accountants and Auditors
How can accountants and auditors help in this
anticorruption drive? First of all, accountants are the
first set of gatekeepers to ensure that transactions are
valid, at arm's-length, captured, and properly
recorded according to established standards.
Secondly, "as professionals with a duty to protect the
public interest, they are bound by rigorous codes of
professional and personal ethics calling for the
highest levels of integrity and objectivity". Thirdly,
"their key strategic positions within an enterprise or
organization - whether in an internal position or as an
external auditor or adviser - mean that they very
often have access to highly privileged and confidential
information."(Frank Harding: "Corruption: Rising to the
Challenge", IFAC - May/1999.)
Both accountants and auditors perform their
respective functions on the bases of national and
international standards of practice which have clear
guidelines in identifying, for instance, indicators of
fraud and other irregularities, and reporting these to
the highest levels of authority.
Internet: www.guyanajournal.com
Accessed in Nov/2003
to 28:
Brazil's Central Bank Rate Vote Underscores
Division
Two of the Brazilian central bank's nine-member
board called for a smaller interest rate cut last week
than policy makers approved, underscoring
disagreement over the pace of a recovery in Brazil
and its effect on inflation.
The vote, the first show of dissent since Henrique
Meirelles became the bank's president, may signal
that the bank may be less inclined to lower the
benchmark lending rate in coming months after
cutting it six times since June.
The board said in minutes of the meeting
distributed today that its vote to lower the overnight
target rate to 17.5 percent from 19 percent was aimed
at giving a boost to an economy that suffered its
biggest back-to-back quarterly contractions in seven
years between April and September.
Internet : www.bloomberg.com
Accessed in Nov/2003
to 28:
Brazil's Central Bank Rate Vote Underscores
Division
Two of the Brazilian central bank's nine-member
board called for a smaller interest rate cut last week
than policy makers approved, underscoring
disagreement over the pace of a recovery in Brazil
and its effect on inflation.
The vote, the first show of dissent since Henrique
Meirelles became the bank's president, may signal
that the bank may be less inclined to lower the
benchmark lending rate in coming months after
cutting it six times since June.
The board said in minutes of the meeting
distributed today that its vote to lower the overnight
target rate to 17.5 percent from 19 percent was aimed
at giving a boost to an economy that suffered its
biggest back-to-back quarterly contractions in seven
years between April and September.
Internet : www.bloomberg.com
Accessed in Nov/2003
Conheça nossos planos