HI6026 : Audit Assurance And Compliance Trimester 2

Introduction:

Investors and other users of financial reports had for a long time criticized the manner in which the auditors were giving their opinion on entities' annual performance. The previous system allowed auditors to give a pass or fail opinion. Auditors' opinion on the financial used to be a one-page report. Investors and other users of financial statements wanted an insightful opinion as well as transparency from auditors. More investors, in particular, wanted auditors to outlines to establish the critical areas in the financial reports and how such areas influenced their final opinion (Asare & Wright, 2012, p. 132).

Investors wanted an introduction of an enhanced auditor reporting system regarding insightfulness and transparency. Although the insight and transparency objectives were to be the same globally, each country was meant to have its specific measures of achieving them (Vallabhaneni, 2015, p. 87). In other words, particular requirements put in place by each country would be different. Likewise, the adoption period was to differ from one country to another. For instance, while the United Kingdom started the application of enhanced auditor reporting in 2015, it came into effect in 2016 in Australia (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2016, p. 27).

Moreover, there have been different reactions from auditors and investors one year after the introduction of enhanced auditor reporting in Australia. This report seeks to evaluate the performance of the introduced changes in the audit report. It is important also to understand how different stakeholders react to such changes. Lastly, the report will investigate the effectiveness of the introduced changes in achieving the intended objectives.

The audited report of the AMP Limited Company has been chosen to be used as a case study in analyzing the application of enhanced auditor reporting system in Australia.

The AMP Limited Company

The AMP limited Company is listed under the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) under ASX code AMP. The company was established in 1849 and operates in Australia, Zealand, and other countries. AMP operates in the financial industry. As a bank, AMP operates six segments: AMP bank, Australian Mature, AMP capital, Australian Wealth Protection, Australian Wealth Management, and New Zealand Financial Services (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 17). AMP Limited offers the following products and services to its customers: Superannuation, investment products, retirement income, financial advice, business advice, life and disability insurance, residential mortgages, and bank transactions and deposits among others. AMP Limited has over 5900 employees across Australia and New Zealand.

Just like other ASX listed Companies, AMP limited as already adopted the Enhanced Auditor Reporting (EAR) by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 23). The changes can be seen in the companies audited 2017 annual report drafted on pages 120 to 125 of the report. The 2017 financial reports was audited by the Ernst & Young Global Limited.

Adoption of Enhanced Auditor Reporting (EAR)

In 2015, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) introduced new requirements for auditor reporting. The requirements were meant to enhance information value and transparency. To be at par with the international body, the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) also adopted similar regulations which became effective on or after December 15th, 2016 (Moroney et al., 2017, p. 19).

Proposed Changes

Before the introduction of the EAR, the traditional audit report was a one-page document. The auditors were only required to state whether or not the report had passed based on their opinion. It was not an auditor's responsibility to provide a more informative and insightful report. However, the newly adopted requirement advocate for information value and transparency from auditors (Dagwell, et al., 2015, p. 79).

EAR introduced two main changes in auditor reporting:

First, the new system introduced the key audit matters (KAMs). Auditors are required to list keys areas that they assessed during the audit and how such areas impacted the entire audit process. Key audit matters refer to areas that identified to pose significant risks to the company's performance (Houghton, et al., 2010, p. 213). Such areas include significant transactions during the financial year, likely misstatements, and key management decisions like investment valuations and estimations. In their discussion, auditors are required to explain how they addressed the identified KAMs. Therefore, KAMs was introduced to inform the investors and other external users of financial information about the discussions that took place auditor, the management and the company's audit team (Greenhalgh, 2017).

The second aspect of the changes relates to an entity's going concern. Going concern is referred to a company's ability to continue operating into an unforeseeable future. Under the traditional auditing system, auditors were only required to point out material uncertainties that would negatively impact a company's going concern (Brunelli, 2018, p. 66). Under the EAR, auditors have a responsibility of ensuring that an entity disclosed adequate information on the assessment and decision taken by management on the company's going concern. Lastly, the enhanced standards require auditors to address mitigations put in place by the management to address material uncertainties as disclosed in the financial statement (Gay & Simnett, 2017, p. 39).

The two main changes were meant to ensure that auditors present fair and true value of the company. After the introduction of EAR, company management and directors have become transparent when engaging auditors and investors. EAR allows auditors to offer insightful shareholder answers to the queries raised. One year on, shareholders are more satisfied with the disclosures made by the management; quality of disclosures have improved (AUASB, 2017, p. 9).

Importance of the Enhanced Auditor Reporting

Most investors say that the introduction of EAR was a right step in realizing the value audit results. For a long time, auditors have been providing insufficient information on their finding while investors wanted full disclosure of the findings. The enhanced auditor reporting has replaced the pass or fail outcome by auditors. Auditors consider EAR standard as useful and thoughtful (AICPA, 2017, p. 23).

The introduction of EAR has obliged auditors to hare more useful information to the stakeholders interested in the performance of a company. Besides using such information to make the right investment decisions, investors rely on it when analyzing the performance of the capital market. Limited information disclosure cannot be relied upon for right financial decision making (James, 2017). The auditor reporting contained in the AMP Limited 2017 annual is a detailed as compared to the one page report under the traditional auditor reporting system. The auditor has comprehensively addressed the key audit matters (KAM) as well as the procedures they followed to arrive that KAMs.

The key audit matters (KAMs) listed under AMP Limited 2017 annual Report

According to the auditor's report, AMP Limited prepared its financial report in accordance with the Australian Corporations Act 2001. The auditor concluded that:

During the audit process the following listed KAMs were identified and tested:

1. Valuation of life insurance policy liabilities

Life insurance policy liabilities were considered to be significant for the auditors because of its size and corresponding assumption. According to the 2017 financial statement, AMP the Life insurance contract policies account totaled $ 23,683 million representing 17% of the total liabilities (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 120). Valuation of this account involves subjective and complex judgments. A small alteration in the assumption would lead to a serious material effect. Some of the assumptions made by the management during the valuation of the account were: Discount rates, In?ation and indexation, Forecast lapse rates, book of business, Future maintenance and investment expenses, Taxation, Surrender values, and Mortality and morbidity (Suwardy & Yong, 2017).

Procedures followed to address the KAM

First, the auditors assessed the company internal control over policy administration, claims processes and recording new businesses. Second, auditors investigated the process used to value policy liability by reconciling the data that was used to support the valuation process. Third, assessing the effectiveness of the IT system controls used for policy valuation. Fourth, auditors evaluated the objectivity and completeness of the company's life entities (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 120). Fifth, auditors, an actuarial specialist evaluated how reasonable were the key assumptions and valuation methodology and how they impacted the life insurance policy. Lastly, the accrual specialists tested the validated of the changes made in the valuation model and how they impacted the final outcome of the account.

2. Valuation of investment contract liabilities

Valuation of investment contract liabilities was treated as KAM because of its size. According to the AMP 2017 financial statement, the account was valued at $ 75, 235 million representing 53% of the total liabilities (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 121).

The Valuation of investment contract liabilities account was significant to the auditors because it comprised of investment management and financial instrument elements. The two elements were presented at their fair value. The account has a direct impact on the valuation and performance of AMP assets. Likewise, fair value was determined using unit prices published by a third party and not internal judgment. Therefore, it is important to assess the reasonability of using third party price units to determine the fair value of account elements (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 121).

Procedures followed to address the KAM

First, the auditors assessed the control used by the company to record benefits processes, renewals, and new business. Second, the effectiveness of the IT control system used to handle valuation of investment contract liabilities. Third, auditors assessed the testing and design controls associated with unit pricing process. Fourth, auditors assessed an assurance report addressed to AMP by an audit firm. Lastly, auditors recalculated the investment contract liability account based on the reconciliations and the fair value.

3. Valuation of complex and illiquid financial investments

The account totaled $ 136,675 million representing 92% of total assets (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 123). Auditors sought to establish if the account had been recorded in accordance with the accounting standards and the fair value hierarchy.  AMP relied on judgment and assumptions to arrive at the best fair value estimate. Therefore, the auditors assessed the assumptions, modelling methodologies, and associated risks.

Audit procedures used to address the KAM

First, auditors examined the control process used by AMP to value its illiquid financial investments. Second, auditors evaluated the modelling methodologies, valuation, key assumptions, and market conditions that contributed to the final valuation of the account.  And third, where there were no specific requirements used to value assets, the auditors tested valuation samples (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 123).

4. Recoverability of Goodwill and intangible assets

According to the 2017 financial statement, intangible assets were valued at $ 3,218 million representing 2% of the total assets (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 124). Recoverability of Goodwill and intangible assets was regarded as a KAM because of complexity involved in valuation. Valuation of this asset requires a high level of judgement. The judgements arise from key assumptions that have been taken by the management. Therefore, the auditors had to test the account for completeness, reasonability, and verifiability (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 124).

Audit procedures used to address the KAM

First, the auditors sought to establish whether or not AMP had completed an assessment of impairments in accordance with the Australian Accounting Standards. Second auditors evaluated if the assumptions were consistent with those used to value the life insurance

Contract liabilities. Third, the auditors evaluated the assumptions and methodologies used to calculate discount rates as well as comparing them with the market rates. Fourth, the auditors conducted a sensitivity analysis on the key assumptions. Fifth, the auditors used multiple methods to calculate the valuation of new businesses. Sixth, auditors examined the methods used by the company to determine CGUs. Lastly, auditors tested mathematical accuracy of the methods used by AMP to calculate impairment (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 125).

5. Information technology (IT) environment

Information technology (IT) environment is significant for AMP operations. The success of the company heavily depends on IT systems and controls. The auditors sought to ensure that the company had put in place appropriate program change management, and access management. Lastly, auditors wanted to ascertain that the management was adhering to the existing IT operational protocols (AMP Limited Group, 2018, p. 125).

Responsibility of Company directors

The auditors went further to discuss the roles and responsibilities of respective parties. According to the audit report, directors stated that directors were responsible for ‘other information' contained in the annual report besides their auditor's report. Auditors were not responsible for ‘other information' contained in the report.

The directors also have a responsibility to give relevant information to the auditors as well as offer clarification when required by the auditors. The responsibility of preparing financial reports that gave a true and fair value of the company lied with the directors. Lastly, the responsibility of assessing the company's going concern lied with the directors.

Conclusion:

The report sought to evaluate the impact of enhanced auditor reporting in Australia. The AMP limited Company is listed under the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) under ASX code AMP was used a case study. Before the introduction of the EAR, the traditional audit report was a one-page document. However, the adoption of the EAR requirement advocate for information value and transparency from auditors. The 2017 AMP auditors report has addressed key issues that were considered to be significant by the external auditors. The new system introduced the key audit matters (KAMs) (AUASB, 2017, p. 22). KAM was introduced to inform the investors and other external users of financial information about the discussions that took place auditor, the management and the company's audit team. While examining the 2017 AMP annual report, auditors identified five KAMs that needed comprehensive analysis. Under the EAR, auditors have a responsibility of ensuring that an entity disclosed adequate information about the assessment and decision taken by management on the company's going concern (AICPA, 2017).

However, the transparency, insightfulness, liability, usefulness, and relevance of audit reports under EAR cannot depend entirely on the new system. Most investors say that the introduction of EAR was a right step in realizing the value audit results. With the value of information, introduced under the EAR, investors do not invest more in detailed research and analyses to understand audit reports (Houghton, et al., 2010, p. 513).

Generally, EAR has shown encouraging results one year into the adoption of enhanced auditor reporting. However, there is the need to continue improving the system to enhance communication among external auditors, internal audit team and management.

Most importantly, enhanced auditor reporting is considered to be a game changer in the Australian auditing reporting system.

References:

AICPA, 2017. Audit and Accounting Guide: Investment Companies, 2017. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

AMP Limited Group, 2018. 2017 Annual Report. Sydney: AMP Limited Group.

Asare, S. K. & Wright, A. M., 2012. Investors’, auditors’, and lenders’ understanding of the message conveyed by the standard audit report on the financial statements. Accounting Horizons, 26(2), pp. 193-217.

AUASB, 2017. Auditing Standard ASA 701 Communicating Key Audit Matters in the Independent Auditor’s Report, Melbourne Victoria: Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.

Brunelli, S., 2018. Audit Reporting for Going Concern Uncertainty: Global Trends and the Case Study of Italy. New York: Springer.

Dagwell, R., Wines, G. & Lambert, C., 2015. Corporate Accounting in Australia. Sydney: Pearson Higher Education AU.

Gay, G. & Simnett, R., 2017. Auditing and Assurance Services in Australia. Sydney: McGraw-Hill Education Australia.

Gay, G. & Simnett, R., 2018. Auditing and Assurance Services in Australia. Seventh Edition ed. New Tork: McGraw-Hill Education.

Greenhalgh, J., 2017. Why 'Key Audit Matters' matter. [Online]
Available at: https://www.investsmart.com.au/investment-news/why-key-audit-matters-matter/139748
[Accessed 13 09 2018].

Houghton, K. A., Jubb, C., Kend, M. & Ng, J., 2010. The Future of Audit: Keeping Capital Markets Efficient. New York: ANU E Press.

James, K., 2017. Understanding the New Independent Auditor’s Report. [Online]
Available at: https://pbconsult.com.au/duis-aute-irure-dolor-reprehenderit-voluptate-velit-esse-cillum/
[Accessed 13 09 2018].

Moroney, R., Campbell, F. M. & Hamilton, J. M., 2017. Auditing: A Practical Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ralph, C., 2017. Key Audit Matters: Auditor’s report snapshot 28 March 2017. [Online]
Available at: https://home.kpmg.com/au/en/home/insights/2017/03/key-audit-matters-auditor-report-28-march-2017.html
[Accessed 13 09 2018].

Suwardy, T. & Yong, M., 2017. Enhanced auditor reports off to promising start but risks need watching, Sydney: The Business Times.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), 2016. United Nations. Geneva: United Nations.

Vallabhaneni, S. R., 2015. Wiley CIAexcel Exam Review 2016: Part 2, Internal Audit Practice. Sydney: John Wiley & Sons.