Auditing Special Purpose Frameworks: To Sample or Not to Sample?

Read more from Larry Perry here and in the Today's World of Audits archive.

SAS No. 39, amended by SAS No. 111 and included in the Clarified SAS, Audit Sampling (AU-C 530), defines audit sampling as the application of an audit procedure to "less than 100% of the items" within an account balance or class of transactions for the purpose of evaluating some characteristic of the balance or class. Tests of controls, accounts receivable confirmations, inventory observations, pricing and clerical tests, vouching fixed assets and expense account balances, and tests of purchases and sales cutoffs are a few examples of procedures in which sampling applications may occur.

Evaluating a Sampling Population

A sampling population is the recorded population (account balance, class of transaction, units, etc.) minus the aggregate sum of individually significant items. The sampling requirements in the Clarified Auditing Standards are applicable when sampling populations are material and other analytical and tests-of-balances procedures are not used to satisfy audit objectives. Material sampling populations are normally those in excess of the lower limit of individually significant items at the assertion level.

Individually Significant Items

Selecting individually significant items is the process by which the sampling population is derived. Individually significant items must be audited 100 percent. For accounts receivable, a 100 percent audit would mean sending a positive confirmation and/or performing alternative procedures such as examining subsequent collections and shipping documents for an account to evaluate the existence and valuation assertions.

For inventories, a 100 percent audit includes observation of the physical inventory taking procedures, making sufficient test counts and performing price testing and clerical testing to evaluate the existence and valuation assertions. For tests of completeness of accounts payable, an auditor may select major suppliers' transaction records for confirmation and/or examine support for all subsequent disbursements over a percentage of the applicable lower limit for individually significant items at the assertion (account classification) level for several weeks or months.

Deciding which items are individually significant requires reconsideration of the risk assessment procedures and any tests of controls, systems walk-through or analytical procedures performed during planning that were considered in calculating tolerable misstatement (performance materiality) at the financial statement and assertion levels during planning. Some of these factors and their affect on the determination of individually significant items (ISIs) are:

  • Risk of material misstatement at the financial statement level—high risk will lower tolerable misstatement and cause more items to be considered ISIs. Low risk will result in fewer ISIs.
  • Risk of material misstatement at the financial statement classification/assertion level—high risk in the financial statement classifications being audited will result in lower tolerable misstatement and more ISIs; low risk will produce the opposite.
  • Tolerable misstatement (performance materiality) levels—lower levels of tolerable misstatement for individual financial statement classifications will produce more ISIs. That is, a greater percentage of a classification would be subjected to audit. Higher levels of tolerable misstatement will permit lesser coverage of account balance amounts.

If the sampling population is less than the lower limit for individually significant items, AU-C 530 will not apply unless the population has some unusual characteristics such as a separate class of transactions or related party transactions. If the sampling population is greater than the lower limit of ISI, AU-C 530 will apply unless performing other analytical or tests of balances procedures can be used to evaluate relevant assertions more efficiently.

Planning a Strategy Not to Sample

Because audit sampling applications may take more time than performing non-sampling procedures, some auditors are planning strategies not to sample on all engagements other than certain audits of regulated industries or governments, which require some form of sampling. For some recorded populations, instead of sampling, it may be more cost effective to audit individually significant items covering a significant portion of the recorded population.

The dollar amount of the recorded population that is considered significant depends on the monetary amounts of the account balances, on the risks of misstatements at the assertion level, on the relative difficulty of auditing a majority of a population, and on the consideration of tolerable misstatement (performance materiality) for the financial statements as a whole. For example, confirmation of 70 percent to 80 percent of accounts receivable balances may be necessary when risk of misstatement at the financial statement and/or assertion level is high; 60 percent or less may be sufficient when these risks are moderate or lower.

Auditors will usually audit lesser amounts of inventories than of, say, receivables or fixed assets because of the relative cost of obtaining evidence. In doing so, less evidence is obtained supporting the opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole and thereby causes evidence requirements for other account classifications to be greater. This subjective consideration will also affect decisions about the necessary audit coverage of the other account classifications.

Consistent with this reasoning, less audit coverage of account classifications that are more difficult and costly to audit may be possible if larger amounts of less costly substantive evidence can be obtained from other account balances such as cash, fixed assets, etc. Depending on the relative amounts of these other account balances, it may be possible to audit individually significant items covering 10 percent to 20 percent of inventories, even if risks are high, and still not sample the remaining population. Risk assessment and analytical procedures may provide significant amounts of substantive evidence for all account classifications, also reducing the need for more costly tests of balances procedures.

Live webcasts covering materiality and sampling concepts are available by clicking on the applicable box on the left side of my home page, www.cpafirmsupport.com. Register for my newsletters and other communications and you will be notified when a 20 percent discount on all live and on-demand webcasts purchased through my website becomes available in the near future.

 

You may like these other stories...

Individuals interested in reviewing the proposed 2015 US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) taxonomy from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) have until October 31 to submit their written comments....
Ernst & Young 2013 audit deficiency rate 49%, regulators sayMichael Rapoport of the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) found deficiencies in 28 of the...
PwC must face $1 billion lawsuit over MF Global adviceA federal judge on Wednesday ordered PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) to face a $1 billion lawsuit claiming that its bad accounting advice was a substantial cause of the...

Already a member? log in here.

Upcoming CPE Webinars

Sep 9
In this session we'll discuss the types of technologies and their uses in a small accounting firm office.
Sep 10
Transfer your knowledge and experience to prepare your team for the challenges and opportunities of an accounting career.
Sep 11
This webcast will include discussions of commonly-applicable Clarified Auditing Standards for audits of non-public, non-governmental entities.
Sep 24
In this jam-packed presentation Excel expert David Ringstrom, CPA will give you a crash-course in creating spreadsheet-based dashboards. A dashboard condenses large amounts of data into a compact space, yet enables the end user to easily drill down into details when warranted.