April 11, 2022

Preliminary Analytical Review Procedures in a Financial Statement Audit

6 Key Things You Need to Know!

If you’re responsible for conducting audits of privately-held entities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAS), there are some key considerations pertaining to performing preliminary analytical review procedures during planning.


Keep in mind that AU-C Section 315, Understanding the Entity and Its Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement, specifies that our risk assessment activities should include analytical procedures.


Well-designed preliminary analytical review procedures are based on appropriate expectations of plausible relationships can be very effective in identifying risks of material misstatement (RMM) during the risk assessment process in audit planning. However, because preliminary analytical review procedures are ideally performed early in the process, the analytical procedures may use information that is aggregated at a relatively high-level (i.e., recent interim financial statements or, if financial statements are not available, a general ledger or trial balance). Information aggregated at a relatively high-level is appropriate at this stage of the audit because the intent of the audit engagement team is to identify potential audit issues or risks, and not reach a conclusion on the reasonableness of a specific balance. Accordingly, audit engagement teams need to consider the results of preliminary analytical review procedures along with other information gathered in identifying the risks of material misstatement.


Here are six factors to be aware of:

 

Prior Knowledge of the Client’s Industry and Business Operations

Knowledge of audit clients’ operations and the industry in which they operate in is strongly linked to the effective use of analytical procedures for audit planning and assessing risk. 


Engagement teams are expected to understand a client's business and industry and to know what relationships could be expected to exist, what relationships would be considered unusual or unlikely, and what plausible explanations might exist for observed relationships, prior to performing preliminary analytics.


Preliminary analytical review procedures might include reviewing changes in account balances from the prior to the current year using the client’s internal financial statements or a grouped trial balance or analysis of ratios or trends related to profitability, liquidity, solvency, and activity.

 

Identification of Potential Risks in an Audit 

Analytical review procedures, among other procedures used in the planning stage only need to be designed to identify audit areas with unusual or unexpected relationships that may be indicative of potential risks and material misstatements, thus needing linkage and consideration of impact on the audit plan by the engagement team. In the audit of companies with simple operations, simple comparisons and ratios are ordinarily effective, whereas in more complex engagements the engagement team may need to make use of complex mathematical or statistical models such as ratio or trend analysis.

 

Consideration of Revenue

In addition to the requirement in AU-C 315 to perform analytical procedures as part of risk assessment procedures, AU-C 240, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit, requires that, to the extent they are not already included, analytical procedures should include procedures related to revenue recognition. Audit engagement teams perform preliminary analytical review procedures related to revenue to identify unusual or unexpected relationships that may indicate fraudulent financial reporting. 

 

Use of Interim Financial Information

When audit engagement teams are using interim financial information for their preliminary analytical review, keep in mind certain factors, such as seasonal trends, that might be considered in making comparisons. For example, if the audit engagement team is using information as of the end of November and the client's business is highly seasonal with substantial activity in December; a straight annualization of interim information will not provide a meaningful comparison. Sometimes, particular accounting methods may make comparisons less meaningful such as if the client uses the LIFO inventory method; comparison of gross profit ratios might be improved by restoring LIFO reserves before computing the ratio. Audit engagement teams should also be aware of the possibility of events such as strikes or changes in production methods that influence comparability.

 

Bring Professional Skepticism to the Assessment

Audit engagement teams should avoid making mechanical computations and comparisons when documenting their preliminary analytical review. We encourage audit professionals to bring in as much skepticism, creativity and insight to the assessment as possible.

In the audits of most recurring clients, audit engagement teams likely have a sufficient understanding of the client and its operations to judgmentally consider the expected relationships. The audit engagement team will need to document these expectations based on their knowledge of the client, the industry, the economy and current discussions with management.

 

Included below are some examples of unusual or unexpected relationships and possible risks that may exist for audit engagement teams to consider:

Unusual or Unexpected Relationships Potential Implications to the Audit
Increased sales with decreased inventories Improper revenue recognition, theft of inventory, inventory valuation issues, physical inventory observation errors, etc.
Decreased sales with increased receivables Uncollectible receivables
Decreased compensation expense with increase in sales Payroll accrual recognition issues, improper cost allocation issues, etc.
Increased net income with decreased cash flows Uncollectible receivables, going concern issues, sales or expense cut-off issues, etc.
Increased payables with decreased inventory Going concern issues, payable defalcation schemes, physical inventory observation errors, theft of inventory, etc.
Unusual increases in miscellaneous income Revenue classification issues, improper revenue recognition or customer deposits, etc.
Unusual items in operating expenses Issues in expense classification, improper expensing of capital acquistions, missappropriation of assets, etc.

Documentation Requirements

Documentation of preliminary analytical review procedures must be sufficient to provide linkage to the audit engagement team's risk assessment. The results of the preliminary analytical review ordinarily are documented using a narrative memorandum, comparative carry forward schedule, or other combination thereof. The documentation should address how the engagement team: (a) developed their expectations, (b) compared their expectations to the client’s actual amounts to see if they were met or not, and (c) selected which balance sheet and income statement accounts require audit attention. One common form of documentation is referred to as a “flux analysis.” A flux analysis is a narrative explanation by financial statement caption or line item of the change in the amount from the prior period and of any unusual or unexpected relationships to other financial statement line items in the current period. Although a flux analysis is not required by standards, it’s recommended as a convenient means of documenting the thought process of the audit engagement team.

 

Collemi Consulting has significant expertise with respect to the performance of preliminary analytical review procedures in a financial statement audit. Contact us so we can assist with the process and help ensure that you’ll able to comply withProfessional Standards.

Learn More
December 20, 2024
Are you prepared?
A woman's hands holding a microphone
December 9, 2024
Conquer your fear of public speaking and present like a pro
Man with hand by his ear straining to listen.
December 4, 2024
Boost your business by becoming adept at active listening.
Open calendar book laying on desk next to open laptop with time on screen
November 18, 2024
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE: Since this blog was first published, the PCAOB released two new guidance documents. The Nov. 26 updates can be found here: An additional overview of the requirements of QC 1000 and staff guidance for firms about how to comply with the standard. This document provides additional staff insights on scope and applicability, responding to engagement deficiencies, and documentation for AS 2901, Responding to Engagement Deficiencies After Issuance of the Auditor’s Report. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) recently announced a new set of quality control standards designed around a risk-based approach. And there’s only one year to design and implement them. The PCAOB’s new QC 1000 standard is more than two decades in the making, as it replaces the quality control standards it adopted on an interim basis back in 2003 from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The new standard is intended to make independent registered public accounting firms significantly improve their quality control (QC) systems. QC 1000 applies to all PCAOB-registered member firms, with more extensive requirements for those that audit more than 100 issuer clients annually. It has been approved by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and goes into effect on December 15, 2025. The new requirements and the work required to implement them will be extensive, and the larger public accounting firms require external oversight of the QC system. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that firms do not put it off until the last minute. At its core, the new standard is intended to enable firms to identify their specific risks and design a quality control system including policies and procedures to guard against those risks. The overall goal is to establish what the PCAOB calls “a continuous feedback-loop for improvement.” In this, the new standard differs from the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s (IAASB) International Standard on Quality Management No. 1 (ISQM 1) and the AICPA Statement on Quality Management Standards No. 1 (SQMS 1). An extensive but not comprehensive comparison document of the three standards may be found here, but is presented only as a reference tool. New requirements QC 1000 has requirements that do not appear in other QC standards. They can be more prescriptive or more specifically tailored to the U.S. legal and regulatory environment. There are 10 main areas in which the QC 1000 standards go beyond other, existing standards. These are: Evaluation and Reporting: QC systems must be evaluated annually and reported to the PCAOB. They must be certified by specific individuals with responsibility and accountability for the firm’s QC system. Governance and Leadership: Firms must create and maintain clear lines of responsibility and supervision. Larger firms must have outside oversight and a confidential complaint system. Ethics and Independence: Quality objectives must be tailored to the U.S. regulatory environment. Larger firms must implement an automated system for identifying securities investments that could impair independence. Monitoring and Remediation: QC 1000 divides monitoring into engagement and QC system levels. Engagement and QC deficiencies are defined, including requirements for their determination. Larger firms must (and smaller ones should) monitor in-process engagements. Quality Objectives: The firm’s personnel must comply with its policies and procedures Information and Communication: Quality objectives for communication with external parties are established at the firm and engagement level. Communication of the firm’s QC system’s policies and procedures must be communicated in writing. Resources: The firm’s personnel must adhere to standards of conduct. Policies and procedures must address both enumerated and circumstance-specific competencies. Mandatory training, licensure and technological resource requirements are established Risk Assessment Processes: Quality risks must be identified and assessed annually. Roles and Responsibilities: A single person must be assigned responsibility for each role and responsibility in the QC 1000 standard. Documentation: With respect to the QC system’s operation, documentation that allows an experienced auditor to evaluate the operation of quality responses must be provided. Documentation must be retained for at least seven years. That’s not an exhaustive list, but it does give an indication of how much work will be involved. And it’s happening at the same time as the AICPA extensive new Statements on Quality Management Standards (SQMS) requirements are coming into effect . Collemi Consulting leverages nearly three decades of experience to provide trusted technical accounting and auditing expertise when you need it the most. We regularly work with CPA firm leadership to help them reduce risk and maximize efficiencies. To schedule an appointment, contact us at (732) 792-6101.
More Posts
Share by: