Text/HTML
Text/HTML
If you are a registered user please log in to see more postings.
 

The AAO Weblog covers accounting issues and current events as they relate the practice of investment analysis.

 
 
Apr 19

Written by: Jack Ciesielski
4/19/2007 5:53 AM 

Yesterday, the PCAOB released its report on the study of 275 examinations of internal control audits performed by auditors engaged to report on 2005 financial statements. Their findings are a bit dated, but about as timely as can be: the 2006 audit season is just now finished. The tuna doesn't just swim into the can, and you can't report on 2006 audits until you've inspected the work.

Their findings might not be terribly startling: yes, there's room for improvement in the way auditors audited internal controls. Keep in mind however, that these reports covered the second year that Section 404 reviews were being performed. Auditors were still sliding down that learning curve. In fact, the report specifically states that "progress was made in improving the efficiency of internal control audits. Many of these improvements resulted from the easing of time constraints that auditors and issuers faced in the first year, issuers' and auditors' additional experience..." Which is the way it's supposed to go, and has.

Nevertheless, the Board's examiners found room for improvement in some key areas. From the report:

Some auditors did not fully integrate their audits; that is, they didn't mesh their internal control study findings with their plans for auditing the financial statements.

Some auditors failed to apply a top-down approach to testing controls. (They didn't pick the most critical areas for testing first.)

Some auditors assessed the level of risk only at the account level - which led to more detail work than perhaps was needed.

Some auditors could have increased their use of the work of others - which naturally, could have sped things along.

The examiners also found that some auditors didn't make use of rule guidance that relieved them of some of the required assessments in the original standard (Auditing Standard 2), which is itself now in the midst of an overhaul.

The findings aren't terribly surprising: given that the exams were of a second-year step in a long overdue process, you'd expect that auditors are still finding their feet. The report mentioned progress, but the emphasis of those participating in the process of overhauling Auditing Standard 2 is going to be the flaws.

Tags:
 

Pension & Other Benefit Plans: A Look Ahead


    Investors in firms with defined benefit pension plans always face the risk of suddenly being pushed farther back in line when it comes to being served their returns. Variability in plan assets and variability in benefit plan obligations are the reason: poor asset returns coupled with sinking interest rates always spell tough times for defined benefit plan funding. In that regard, this year’s asset returns combined with the Fed’s “Operation Twist” add up to “Operation Agony” for defined benefit pension plans. If trends continue along their current path, firms that may have anticipated moving to more realistic pension accounting - like Honeywell, AT&T and Verizon already have done - might forego that decision. It could be just too painful. 

    Pensions aren’t the only kind of benefit plan affected by Operation Twist. Other postemployment benefit (OPEB) plans share much the same accounting model as pensions, including the calculation of a projected benefit obligation that similarly incorporates a discount rate - one that will also be affected by Operation Twist. The net OPEB obligations were slightly less than pension obligations at the end of 2010, but also promise to grow in 2011. Investors perceive them as less threatening than pension obligations because they don’t require funding. Strangely, there are a number of firms that are recognizing income from these benefit plans - without ever creating a dime of cash for investors.

A recent edition of The Analyst’s Accounting Observer dissects these issues, and is available only to paid subscribers. A condensed version is available for free upon request. To receive it, send an e-mail to Brenda Rappold at brappold@accountingobserver.com, with “PENSIONS” in the subject line.

For information about subscribing to The Analyst’s Accounting Observer, click here.