ISSUE 191

JULY/AUGUST
2014
ICAEW.COM/AAF

WRITTEN IN STONE JOHN SELWOOD BUILD A PICTURE

HOW TO KEEP THE SHOULD YOU STILL AUDIT INSIGHTS:
BEST POSSIBLE GIVE MORTGAGE THE LATEST REPORT
DOCUMENTATION REFERENCES? ON CONSTRUCTION

Provocative
questions
Probing reliability at the
Audit Quality Forum

THE MAGAZINE FOR AUDIT & ASSURANCE FACULTY MEMBERS

 PLAN FOR
TOMORROW
LIVE MORE
TODAY
THREE YEAR FIXED RATE PROFESSIONAL MORTGAGES
PROVIDED BY SCOTTISH WIDOWS BANK.

With our three year fixed rate Professional Mortgages you’ll feel free to enjoy life more today.

As a member of ICAEW you can apply for three year fixed rate Professional Mortgages, exclusively
available to our affinity partners. We also have a range of Professional Mortgages offering a selection of
additional fixed rates and variable rates. All of our Professional Mortgages offer you the option to offset,
you could use your savings to pay off your mortgage sooner or reduce your monthly mortgage payments.
With a Professional Mortgage you can borrow up to 90% of the value of the property you’d like to buy.

Full terms apply. A booking or arrangement fee is payable and Early Repayment Charges apply.

Applicants for a Professional Mortgage must be 21 or over and a fully qualified and registered
accountant, actuary, barrister, dentist, engineer, medical doctor, optometrist, pharmacist, solicitor,
teacher or vet. We will also consider trainee accountants, actuaries and solicitors. Professionals
(including trainee accountants, actuaries and solicitors) employed in a role outwith their qualification
will be considered on an individual basis.

YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP REPAYMENTS ON YOUR MORTGAGE.

Call Scottish Widows Bank on 0845 845 0222

or visit www.icaew.com/scottishwidows
Lines are open 8am to 6pm weekdays (10am to 6pm Wednesdays). Telephone calls may be recorded and
monitored. Calls are charged at local rates from a BT landline, mobiles and other networks may vary.

LIFE FEELS BETTER WHEN YOU HAVE A PLAN

MEMBER
REWARDS
PARTNER

Scottish Widows Bank plc. Registered Office: PO Box 12757, 67 Morrison Street, Edinburgh EH3 8YJ. Registered in Scotland no. 154554.
Authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority under registration number 201601. 2078(2) 05/14.
Dreams of audit WRITTEN IN STONE
HOW TO KEEP THE
BEST POSSIBLE
DOCUMENTATION
JOHN SELWOOD
SHOULD YOU STILL
GIVE MORTGAGE
REFERENCES?
BUILD A PICTURE
AUDIT INSIGHTS:
THE LATEST REPORT
ON CONSTRUCTION
ISSUE 191
JULY/AUGUST
2014
ICAEW.COM/AAF

Provocative
questions
Probing reliability at the
Audit Quality Forum

THE MAGAZINE FOR AUDIT & ASSURANCE FACULTY MEMBERS

Auditors tend to stand with both feet firmly 04 News and

events
planted on solid ground, their focus very much Audit and assurance

on the facts – which is exactly as it should be. news from the faculty

Yet the professional necessity to look backwards should not stop

the profession from moving forwards. Sometimes, even auditors 06 Keeping record
Whether its written
need to take a break from the cut-and-dried world of figures and communications or audit
let their imaginations run wild. Dare to dream. completion reviews,
Change is one of life’s inevitabilities – like birth, death and adequate documentation
taxes – and audit is not immune. The world is now far more is a must, says Michael Scott
complex than it was when the audit model was first conceived,
and audit must evolve if it is to be as valuable tomorrow as it is
today. So ICAEW and the Audit & Assurance Faculty are exploring 09 Building
on audit
the possibilities in a number of thought leadership initiatives. Louise Sharp looks at the
Audit Insights is demonstrating how auditors can work collectively to enhance the latest Audit Insights report
value of their statutory activities (see page 9); AuditFutures is inspiring innovation and into the construction
debate about the future of audit among stakeholders inside and outside the profession industry, and how it can
(auditfutures.org); and the Audit Quality Forum is asking difficult questions see (page benefit faculty members
10) about important matters such as trust and reliability and the assurance of the
financial and the non-financial metrics in the annual report.
These initiatives aim to stimulate auditors and other business stakeholders into 10 The evolution
of audit
thinking beyond where we are today. Research by Forbes Insights (see page 11) into Can auditors help make
how audit can evolve to meet the needs of an increasingly complex world indicates an annual reports more
appetite for auditors to look beyond the financial statements, and also conveys a reliable? The Audit
strong sense of urgency. Quality Forum tackled
Demands from investors and other stakeholders have already delivered mandated one of the profession’s
change from regulators and standard setters – with more on the horizon. However, toughest questions
Forbes’ research suggests that the wheels of regulatory change do not turn fast enough
for many stakeholders; they want auditors to provide more momentum. Perhaps the
time has come for individual firms and auditors to take the initiative, and do more to 12 Q&As
John Selwood answers
control the conversation and the direction in which audit evolves. Dare to dream. some questions from the
faculty’s recent webinar
on mortgage references

14 Technical
updates
Legal and regulatory
changes affecting the
profession
Henry Irving
Head of faculty
18 From the
faculties
A round up of features
from other faculty
magazines

© ICAEW 2014. All rights reserved. The views expressed in this publication are those of the contributors; ICAEW
does not necessarily share their views. ICAEW and the author(s) will not be liable for any reliance you place on
information in this publication. If you want to reproduce or redistribute any of the material in this publication, you
should first get ICAEW’s permission in writing. No responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or
refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication can be accepted by ICAEW, the publishers or the
author(s). Whilst every care is taken to ensure accuracy, ICAEW, the publishers and author(s) cannot accept liability
for errors or omissions. Details correct at time of going to press.

To comment on your magazine, please email publishing@icaew.com

AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014 3

 News and events
FACULTY STAFF
Henry Irving
Head of Audit & Assurance
Faculty
+44 (0)20 7920 8450
henry.irving@icaew.com

Chris Cantwell
Technical manager,
NEW FACULTY CHAIRMAN
James Roberts, BDO audit partner, was recently elected as chairman of the Audit
Practice Regulation
+44 (0)20 7920 8742 & Assurance Faculty. He succeeds Charles Bowman, who has retired from the role.
chris.cantwell@icaew.com

Kate Bond
Services executive,
Sevices & Operations
+44 (0)20 7920 8483
kate.bond@icaew.com
Louise Sharp
Technical manager,
Audit Practice Issues
+44 (0)20 7920 8552
louise.sharp@icaew.com
Ruth Ward
Technical manager, Assurance
+44 (0)20 7920 8639
ruth.ward@icaew.com
Ameena Ahmad
Technical manager
+44 (0)20 7920 8900
ameena.ahmad@icaew.com
Angela Edwards
SME programme manager
+44 (0) 20 7920 8894
angela.edwards@icaew.com
Lesley Meall
Editor
+44 (0)20 7920 8493
tdaf@icaew.com
Contact details
Audit & Assurance Faculty
Chartered Accountants’ Hall
Moorgate Place, London EC2R 6EA
+44 (0)20 7920 8493
+44 (0)20 7920 8754
tdaf@icaew.com
icaew.com/aaf
Audit & Beyond is produced by
Progressive Customer Publishing
John Carpenter House
John Carpenter Street
London EC4Y OAN
Advertising enquiries to
advertising@progressivecp.com
ISSN 1748-5789 TECPLM12632
Printed in the UK by
Sterling Solutions
END OF ANNUAL ACCOUNTANTS
REPORT FOR SOLICITORS?
Under the current SRA regulatory
regime, each and every firm holding
client money is required to submit
an accountant’s report to the SRA on
an annual basis. However, it is the
view of the SRA that this approach is
neither sufficiently targeted nor
proportionate, adding cost with only
limited benefits by way of consumer
protection and overall management
of the risk to client money.
If a recent discussion among
members of the Audit & Assurance
Faculty LinkedIn group is any
The Solicitors Regulation Authority indication, auditors are sceptical. To
(SRA) has published a consultation on learn more about their perspectives
Proportionate regulation: changes to or join the discussion visit the
reporting accounting requirements LinkedIn page at linkd.in/1kEw4F5
(bit.ly/1mjEpKY).
The two key proposals are:
the removal of the mandatory Under the current
requirement that firms must provide an
annual accountant’s report to the SRA;
SRA regime, each
requiring the compliance officer firm holding client
for finance and administration to
sign a declaration they are satisfied
money is required to
that the firm is managing client send an accountant’s
accounts in accordance with the SRA
Account Rules.
report annually
FACULTY HIGHLIGHTS
The faculty has published its latest Annual Review
(bit.ly/1oxcolR). “It has been leading the debate, leading
innovation and leading change in audit,” said Charles
Bowman, chairman of the faculty during this period. “I
am pleased to see the faculty offering evolving to meet the
changing needs of members.”
Bowman praised the ever-popular roadshow, and the increasing number of
lectures, webinars and online resources available to members. He also noted
the success of faculty initiatives including Audit Insights (see page 9), AuditFutures,
CORBIS

the Audit Quality Forum (see page 10) and re:Assurance.

4 JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND

 FACULTY NEWS & EVENTS

EVENTS
UPDATE
PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ANIMATING AUDIT
The future of audit was the subject
Louise Sharp, technical manager, audit practice issues for discussion at a faculty debate on
‘Anticipating change’ (at Chartered
Am I the only one who has ever consider the year-end audit a bit Accountants’ Hall on 2 July) and at a British
felt a little apologetic when of a chore, the value of the input Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA)
responding to the question provided by auditors extends far auditing special interest group annual conference
‘What do you do for a living?’. beyond the audit report. (in Birmingham on 29 May).
The words ‘dull’, ‘boring’ or People only need to look at At ‘Anticipating change’, the discussion on the
‘techie’ spring to mind (and the six Audit Insights reports future of audit and assurance was stimulated by a
are often stereotyped in the (the latest one on the short animated film, and framed by perspectives
media as people sitting behind construction sector has just from the faculty’s recently retired chair Charles
desks surrounded by been published – see page 9) to Bowman, a PwC audit partner, the new faculty
spreadsheets, fingers poised recognise how much knowledge chair James Roberts, a BDO audit partner, and a
over calculators). Yet the reality, auditors have about the panel of experts.
as you know, is very far removed businesses they audit and the At BAFA, faculty representatives Henry Irving
from this. sectors they work in, and how and Ruth Ward gave a keynote speech on the long
There are few professions that valuable the assurance they term evolution of audit, building on the
gain such valuable insights into provide really is. Their skills and AuditFutures RSA report Enlightening Professions
how businesses are run and knowledge are not to be (AuditFutures.org). Other speakers included
require such a wide variety of underestimated – even if they Melanie McLaren from the FRC and Hilde Blomme
technical and interpersonal skills. are always in the firing line from the Federation of European Accountants.
While some businesses might when things go wrong.
RAISING AUDIT QUALITY
The next Audit Quality Forum (AQF) on 8 July will
STAY UP TO DATE WITH consider whether the professions have made the
step change in thinking necessary to respond to
FACULTY WEBINARS the financial crisis.
All members of the faculty have access to a growing library of
webinars. Subjects include: accounting estimates, documentation, AQF debates attract a wide range of stakeholders,
subsidiary company audit exemption, the audit of owner-managed including standard setters, regulators, company
groups across a number of countries, quality monitoring and the management, academics, audit committees and
challenges faced by accountants providing mortgage references. auditors. If you would like to attend the next
Visit icaew.com/aafwebinars armed with your faculty membership meeting or get involved email aqf@icaew.com
number and password. If you have forgotten this you can request a When the AQF last met, to discuss the provocation
new one at icaew.com/password ‘Auditors should do more to make annual reports
reliable’ it prompted an interesting Tweet story by
the Financial Reporting Council (@FRCnews). You
can read this at icaew.com/auditquality
DEMYSTIFYING WEB ADDRESSES
Not all web addresses are as short such as Bitly, to create and share AUTUMN ROADSHOW
and as snappy as icaew.com is. shortened versions. These links The adoption of FRS 102 The Financial Reporting
The more information there is are used in the same way as Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland
on a website, the more likely their longer equivalents: type and the transition to the new UK GAAP will create
you are to need a much longer the bit.ly code into the web challenges for many UK companies – and their auditors.
web address (aka URL) such as browser address bar, press enter, The Autumn Roadshow will focus on FRS 102
icaew.com/en/technical/audit- and you be automatically transition, addressing ethical considerations, threats
and-assurance/faculty to find it. redirected to the relevant website. to independence, the need to maintain the highest
 ON THE
RECORD
From written communications with clients, to
recording substantive tests and conducting audit
completion reviews, the importance of adequate
documentation simply cannot be over emphasised,
as Michael Scott highlights
ocumentation. As an auditor, you
D simply can’t get away from it – or
its importance. This starts
before the firm can even accept an audit
engagement. As well as complying with
ISA 210 Agreeing the terms of audit
engagements, engagement letters (and
disengagement letters) must be easy for
clients to understand, while procedures
for acceptance, continuance and cessation
must be easy for staff to follow – and all
related documentation kept up-to-date.
The need for additions, deletions and
enhancements to written communications
with clients can be driven by a myriad of
internal and external factors. As well as
regulatory developments (of which
there have been many over the past few
years) updates can be driven by changes
to the terms of engagement of the
assignment, to remuneration, and to
other matters such as the scope and
context of the assignment.
Policies and procedures relating to
these processes and many others must
be regularly reviewed and the
documentation for this updated as
and when necessary. Some changes are
almost inevitable if the office manual
and other documentation is to:
cover everything that it should;
GALLERY STOCK
remain effective and fit for purpose;
be clearly understood by staff; and
demonstrate compliance with the
6 JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND
International Standard on Quality Control
(UK and Ireland) ISQC 1 (bit.ly/S59r1Z) and
the UK Audit Regulations and Guidance
(at bit.ly/1pZqcGK).
All of this can be challenging, so ICAEW
offers guidance. There are practice help
sheets (bit.ly/LshUbU) covering
engagement and disengagement letters,
decisions to accept appointments, audit
firm compliance reviews, gathering new
client details and more. The faculty has
produced two webinars on ISQC 1
(icaew.com/aafwebinars) and practical
guidance covering quality control in the
audit environment for the UK & Ireland
(bit.ly/1kcDqNM) and international
(bit.ly/SHtBND).
AUDIT DOCUMENTATION
Of course, auditors also need to focus on
the policies, procedures and
documentation needed to perform a
high-quality audit. Anyone who conducts
audit file reviews on a regular basis will be
familiar with the response “We have done
the work but not written it down”.
Unfortunately, if work has been carried
out but not documented, it is then very
difficult to demonstrate to the regulator
that adequate audit evidence has actually
been obtained.
Paragraph A5 of ISA 230 (UK and
Ireland) Audit Documentation indicates
that oral explanations alone are
insufficient, but they may be used to
clarify or explain audit documentation.
In practice, regulators may take the view
that the firm is using such oral
explanations as an excuse for their
inadequate documentation and, as a
consequence, they do not accept this.
When challenged, firms can often
provide regulators with additional
explanations to show how they have
obtained an appropriate audit. However,
if questions need to be asked this tends to
indicate that the work simply has not
been documented well enough. It could
also be interpreted as a sign that the firm’s
review processes have not been as
rigorous or effective as they should have
been – especially the final engagement
partner review (which should also be
thoroughly documented).
Good audit documentation is essential,
as it provides both the evidence of the
basis for the audit report and evidence
that the audit work performed was
planned and performed in accordance
with the ISAs. The audit file must
effectively stand on its own. Paragraph 8
of ISA 230 (UK and Ireland) states that:
“The auditor shall prepare audit
documentation that is sufficient to enable
an experienced auditor having no
previous connection with the audit to
understand:
 DOCUMENTATION

Good audit documentation does not

comprise endless ticking of boxes and
checklists. It involves recording the key
judgements that the auditor has made

the nature, timing and extent of the

audit procedures performed to comply
with the ISAs (UK and Ireland) and
applicable legal and regulatory
requirements;
the results of the audit procedures and
the audit evidence obtained; and
significant matters arising during the
audit, the conclusions reached thereon
and significant professional judgments
made in reaching those conclusions”.

It is important to appreciate who this

“experienced auditor having no previous
connection with the audit” might be. In
reality, for most ICAEW practices it is
their external file reviewer or ICAEW’s
Quality Assurance Department. This
should be borne in mind when audit work
is being documented.
It is also important to appreciate what
the potential fallout could be, should
something go awry. If a serious problem is
encountered and the quality of the firm’s

AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014 7

DOCUMENTATION
audit work is examined in court, for
example, then the documentation of that
work will be of paramount importance.
Poor documentation will undoubtedly
give rise to serious problems.
Good audit documentation does not
comprise endless ticking of boxes and
checklists in the firm’s standard audit
programme: it involves recording the key
judgements that the auditor has made. All
of the guidance notes to ISA 230 (UK and
Ireland) point to the view that auditors
should not merely tick such checklists;
instead, they need to think and document
the key decisions and considerations
made during the audit in a concise and
logical fashion (practice note 26 may be
particularly helpful).
CONSISTENCY COUNTS
From a practical point of view, a good
way of ensuring consistency of audit
documentation across the firm and to
help ensure that the requirements of
paragraph 8 of the ISA are met, is to use
a standard format for the audit working
papers when conducting a substantive
test. One such format is to use the
headings ‘objective’, ‘work performed’,
‘results’, ‘evaluation’ and ‘conclusion’ on
all such working papers.
Objective: Showing the purpose of the
test, specifically linking to one of the audit
assertions defined in ISA 315 (UK and
Ireland) Identifying the risk of material
misstatement through understanding the
entity and its environment, namely
existence, completeness, ownership
(rights and obligations), valuation and
accuracy, valuation and allocation, cut off,
classification, understandability and
occurrence.
Work performed: Recording details of the
specific audit test performed, the
direction in which the test has been
carried out, the size of the sample and
method of selection.
Results: Recording specific details of the
items tested. It is not enough to say that
you tested 10 items and they were all fine;
you need to make clear which 10 items
you looked at and include an audit tick
showing exactly what audit work was
performed on them.
Evaluation: Recording details on the
impact of any errors found. When
appropriate, it should also be used to
justify why the audit evidence obtained is
sufficient: for example, explaining why
the sample size does not need to be
increased. Information on your decision-
8 JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND
In most audit files, the vast majority, if
not all of the audit documentation
should be present when the audit report is
signed off. In larger group files with audit
subsidiaries, this may be difficult
making processes is particularly
important during a regulatory visit.
Conclusion: Confirming whether or not
the audit assertion has been satisfied. The
working paper must also document who
performed the audit work and the date
that the audit work was completed. It
should also indicate who reviewed the
audit work and the date of review.
Audit documentation may be recorded on
paper or electronically – whichever the
auditor prefers. An electronic format
might aid efficiency as some working
papers can be rolled forward to future
years. It is easier to add additional
information and to make amendments
following any review of the file.
COMPLETION
ISA 230 specifies that auditors must
assemble the file and complete the
documentation on a timely basis. This is
understood as being not more than 60
days after the date of the audit report.
This does not mean that you can sign off
the audit report and you then have 60
days in which to start and complete the
audit work. Rather it means that you
have 60 days to finish the assembly of
the file and ensure that all relevant
documentation is present.
In most audit files, the vast majority, if
not all of the audit documentation should
be present when the audit report is signed
off. In a larger group file with a number of
audit subsidiaries this may be more
difficult and the 60-day requirement may
have to be utilised. From a practical point
of view, the sooner, the better. If
amendments are made to the file after the
60 days, then there must be a record of
when the changes were made, by whom
they were made and why they were made.
It should not be removed or deleted.
BALANCING NEEDS
Good documentation is essential in
quality audits, and insufficient or
inadequate documentation may result
in serious regulatory problems. On the
other hand too much documentation
can be inefficient and impact on audit
profitability and recoverability for the
auditor. It might also indicate an inability
to focus the audit on the most important
matters. So for most firms, the biggest
documentation challenge could be
finding the right balance.
Michael Scott is joint owner and
director of Proactive Consulting
for Professionals, a specialist in
audit compliance reviews and
practice management

Beneath
the top line
The latest Audit Insights report adds construction to the list of sectors to
benefit from the profession’s expertise and experience – and now
members of the faculty can benefit too, as Louise Sharp explains
lthough auditors have unique
A access to companies and their
financial reports,
confidentiality makes it difficult for
them to share insights and observations
that could benefit investors, non-execs,
senior managers, politicians,
policymakers and other stakeholders,
including their fellow professionals. But
since 2013, when the faculty launched
its Audit Insights programme, it has
successfully done this for a number of
sectors and issues (see box).
“The Audit Insights programme was
set up to recognise that audit and the
profession is about more than providing
audit reports and opinions,” says
Charles Bowman, who was chairman of
the Audit & Assurance Faculty at the
time. By getting auditors to share their
sector-specific knowledge of business
processes and best practices and
highlight trends, challenges and
opportunities in the wider market,
ICAEW believes Audit Insights reports
are adding more value to what is
already a public interest activity.
“Confidence in the construction
industry is at a high and there are
opportunities ahead, but there is no
room for complacency,” says Phil
Westerman, spokesperson for Audit
Insights: Construction and Grant
Thornton audit partner. Periods after
a downturn are risky for the
FURTHER READING
Audit Insights reports are available on the
construction, retail, manufacturing and
banking sectors and cyber security –
download them at bit.ly/1dfEIBT
AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014
construction sector. “The risk of
overtrading needs to be managed. A slow
and steady approach to growth is better
than just looking at the top line,” he says.
To take advantage of emerging
opportunities, the sector needs to learn
from past experiences and do more to
address the important issues this diverse
and fragmented UK industry faces. So
the report directs the attention of
government, the sector and investors
“ Confidence in the
construction industry
is at a high, but there
is no room for
complacency ”
to the most interesting, relevant and
urgent issues with the help of the
following flags (and suggestions on how
to address them):
Flag 1: work collaboratively to help plan
for the future;
Flag 2: procure and bid responsibly and
deliver consistently;
Flag 3: address the shortage of skilled
labour;
Flag 4: be more transparent in reporting;
and
Flag 5: invest in information systems.
AUDIT INSIGHTS
“These are fundamental issues and
more key than ever,” comments Emily
Biddulph, equity research analyst at
JP Morgan Cazenove. The report also
highlights some of the biggest risks
facing those in the sector, such as the
cost challenges of delivering on contract
bids during the recession on very low
margins, the shortage of skilled labour,
and a lack of transparency in profit
recognition policies and order book
reporting. Westerman says: “To secure
economic stability, future growth and
long-term confidence in the sector,
businesses must plan for the longer term.”
Audit Insights: Construction can also
be useful to auditors. “Meeting your
peers helps you to realise that some of
the concerns you have are the same as
theirs,” says Jonathan Hook, PWC
partner and member of the working
group behind the report.
And the flags do seem to resonate
with other auditors. Peter Upton,
whose firm does some small entity
audits in the construction sector, says:
“After I’ve read it, I’ll take it to some
audit planning meetings we are going
to have soon.”
Louise Sharp is a
technical manager
in the Audit &
Assurance Faculty
CHRIS KEEGAN/IKON
9
EVOLUTION OR
REVOLUTION?
Panellists at the last Audit Quality Forum
debated the role of auditors in making
annual reports more reliable. Lesley Meall
shares their perspectives
uditors should do more to make
A annual reports reliable: that was
the provocation put to a panel of
experts at the most recent meeting of the
Audit Quality Forum (AQF). It’s an
assertion that could prompt some
auditors to throw their metaphorical toys
out of their metaphorical prams, so it
merits clarification. “We are not talking
about doing existing audits better,” said
Louise Sharp, a technical manager in the
Audit & Assurance Faculty, although she
isn’t discouraging this. “We mean
encouraging the development of new and
innovative ways of making other
information in annual reports more
reliable, as this could then provide a
launch pad for looking at the reliability of
other forms of corporate reporting,” she
explained (see box, opposite).
This goes beyond financial statements
and auditors’ reports on them. It’s about
the bigger picture; working towards a
world with more joined up reporting. As
ICAEW highlights in The Journey: Assuring
All of the Annual Report? (bit.ly/1c97sk9),
auditors can, in principle, report on
anything. “They have the tools and the
knowledge to report on information
beyond the existing statutory audit
requirements and some auditors are
already demonstrating this by performing
similar engagements in different
contexts,” says Sharp. The faculty is
supporting this with technical guidance,
case studies and other material (see
bit.ly/1hPWb7h) including articles in
Audit & Beyond (bit.ly/1foBFiB).
But what do regulators, investors,
auditors and other business stakeholders
have to say? Felice Friedman, deputy
global public policy leader at EY, began
the AQF discussion by sharing the results
of a survey of global audit stakeholders,
10
conducted by Forbes Insights on behalf of
the global public policy committee of the
six largest audit networks. She explained:
“We wanted to find out how audit might
evolve and what the audit of the future
should look like, because it was very
apparent, that as a profession, we needed
to do more to be able to continue to serve
the public interest and help to create
confidence between investors and
companies.” The suggestion that audit
“Now we are beginning
must evolve seemed to be met with to see more
approval by others on the panel and in the
audience, though opinions differed on
transparency, this gives
how to achieve this, and how fast. investors a hook to
Stakeholders in the Forbes survey urged
the profession to move quickly and
challenge management
suggested three ways for audit to move judgements and
forward (see box); some of which are
easier to achieve than others. Panellist
assertions in accounts”
and PwC partner, Andrew Ratcliffe,
observed: “On transparency, the UK has
jumped ahead with the new audit report Audit professionals gathered
and what the FRC has done,” and auditors to hear a panel discussion at
can already offer perspectives on key the recent AQF event, which
was hosted by Stephanie
management information within the McGovern, the business
current assurance framework. “The reporter for BBC Breakfast
difficult one is providing insights,” he said.
If the auditor is to give new and original
information on what management is
doing, this will probably require a change
in the reporting model.
Liz Murrell, director of corporate
governance and reporting at the
Investment Management Association,
noted that the reporting framework had
changed with IFRS, and that the auditing
model dragged behind this – until very
recently. “Investors appreciate the
risk-based approach adopted by the FRC,”
she said, before suggesting that all
standard setters could have gone further.
“Nobody has actually asked the auditors
‘What did you actually find? How good or
JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND

bad were management’s estimates?’,” she
explained, praising one audit firm for
going a step further in its audits of
Rolls-Royce and New World Resources by
describing some management judgements
as “mildly optimistic” and “mildly cautious”.
Panellist John Lelliott, finance director
at the Crown Estate, talked about another
pioneering approach to making the
annual report more insightful. “We have
myriad stakeholders who don’t
understand what we do and we felt that
integrated reporting was a good way of
explaining and putting across a consistent
message,” he said. So in the spirit of the
recently released draft framework of the
International Integrated Reporting
Council (iirc.org), the Crown Estate has
produced an integrated report that pulls
together financial, social, economic and
environmental information, and shows
how all of these interlink to impact on the
business – to make its reporting “material,
responsive to stakeholder concerns, and
as complete as possible”.
Bringing the debate down to earth,
Melanie McLaren, FRC executive director
of governance, codes and standards,
focused less on where the annual report
is heading and more on where it is. “As a
regulator, we have tried to unshackle the
GUILHEM ALLANDRY
reporting regime and make it more fit for
purpose,” she said. Measures include long
form audit reports, the requirement for
directors to state that accounts are fair,
AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014
balanced and understandable, and for the
auditor to speak out if they do not agree.
However, she also cited FRC research on
stakeholder views (see box right and page
14): “There are some investors who would
like to have more confidence in audit, but
they don’t yet see it as justifiable
confidence,” she said, adding: “Current
audit quality does need attention.”
Murrell confirmed investors’ “concerns
about audit quality”, attributing some of
these to the limitations of the pass/fail
opinion. “Now we are beginning to see
more transparency, this gives investors a
hook to challenge management judgements
and assertions in the accounts. We can
have a better dialogue with audit
committees and that can help build
confidence between investors and
companies,” she said. An IMA benchmark
in 2013 (bit.ly/1oWD5ST) found that many
institutional investors have increased the
headcount among those ‘responsible for
engagement’. With so many initiatives in
play, it is understandable that the panel
seemed to agree on the need for evolution
rather than revolution. “We have put our
best efforts into landing the changes we’ve
already agreed,” said McLaren. “We need
to be patient and see whether some of the
things we are suggesting actually work.”
A two-part video recording of the AQF
event is available at bit.ly/1n3fVsF and
bit.ly/RWJikG
AUDIT QUALITY FORUM
WHAT STAKEHOLDERS WANT
FROM AUDIT
The Forbes Insights report Future role of
audit – a more insightful audit for a more
complex world confirmed demand from
stakeholders for audit to evolve.
Stakeholders suggested audit could
move forward by providing:
1. more transparency into what has
been learned during the course of
the audit;
2. perspectives on key information
generated by management; and
3. deeper insights on company
performance, operations and risks.
The report is at onforb.es/1rBC8Tx.
FRC research into perceptions of the
value of audit are at bit.ly/1oZRv3R
WHY RELIABILITY MATTERS
These themes have been explored in
recent ICAEW publications including:
Reliability Matters: Reliability and the
Central Role of the Auditor.
icaew.com/auditquality
The Journey: Assuring All of the
Annual Report? and Milestone 1:
Assurance Over Key Performance
Indicators. bit.ly/1c97sk9
Related articles in Audit & Beyond:
Reframing audit quality: bit.ly/1khFhUH)
Future prospects: bit.ly/1hPWW0b
Great leap forward: bit.ly/1wSwoVB
11
John Selwood’s Q&As
The recent faculty webinar on the trouble with
mortgage references sparked an avalanche of
questions – and it was impossible to answer all of
them on the day. This month, John tackles some
of the most asked – and the most interesting
Q What is the legal basis for your
suggestion that accountants
should not charge the client for
providing a mortgage reference?
As accountants often receive
A requests from banks, building
societies and other lenders on the
financial status of their clients when they
intend to obtain a loan or enter into some
other obligation, this is a very common
question – and it has generated a certain
amount of heat. However, the question is
not whether an accountant can charge for
a mortgage reference, but whether it is
advisable to charge.
I am an accountant, not a lawyer, but it
is my understanding that if an accountant
provides a mortgage reference and takes
payment for it, this could constitute an
implied contract. As a result, the
accountant could be seen to owe a duty of
care to the lender or the client, which
could lead to potential legal risks. You
might be exposed to a claim, for example,
if a lender makes a loan as a result of
relying on your reference and something
goes awry, or you provide information
which results in a client loan application
being declined.
However, this is a complex area where
the legal issues are not clear cut. It is not
simply the case that charging for the
reference makes you liable and not
charging means that you have no liability
to the lender or client; this is merely one
of a number of contributing factors.
12
Technical Release Audit 2/01 Requests
for references on client’s financial status
and their ability to service loans provides
guidance to accountants that seek to
manage their risks effectively, when they
receive these requests. Accountants need
to use their professional judgement when
applying Audit 2/01. It does not provide
legal advice, but it does say that it is
appropriate to provide this type of
reference only when “there is no need for
the accountants to perform any work,
research or investigation to produce the
reference.”
Where this is not the case, Audit 2/01
suggests that accountants agree a specific
formal engagement, following ICAEW
guidance on Reporting to Third Parties
(currently TECH 10/12 AAF). Audit 2/01
also reminds accountants of the need to
be aware of the duty of care implications
of entering into such engagements.
Where there is potential
that the practitioner has
accepted risk, the
practitioner needs to
ensure that their insurer
is comfortable with the
nature of the work
The question of whether or not to
charge for mortgage references was also
covered in the November 2011 issue of
Audit & Beyond (which is archived at
bit.ly/1rchskY) and more recently in
economia (bit.ly/1kjTT4W). Although
neither of these articles provides legal
advice, they do explore some of the
associated risks, so they may both have
something to add to the decision-making
process.
When making your decision on whether
or not to provide a mortgage reference
and whether or not to charge for this
service, you will also need to consider
the fact that all client work needs to be
covered by professional indemnity
insurance, and the implications of this.
Where there is potential that the
practitioner has accepted risk, the
practitioner needs to ensure that their
insurer is aware of, and comfortable
with, the nature of the work that is
being undertaken.
Ultimately, the decision will be a
commercial one. Some accountants
may chose to provide mortgage
references as a specific formal
engagement, charging for them and
appropriately managing and mitigating
the associated risks. Accountants who
charge for references without taking
these steps are not doing anything
technically wrong. But they are taking a
risk, and it is one that ICAEW suggests can
and should be avoided – as I mentioned
during the webinar.
JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND

Q You said in your webinar that
an accountant should not sign a
reference that uses a standard form
from a lender if the accountant is
unhappy about what they are being
asked to sign. How realistic is it to
refuse, if the lender will not accept
any alternative form of wording?
A This is another hot topic. Since the
credit crunch, lenders have sought
to place as much reliance as possible on
income references from accountants. In
their enthusiasm, lenders have made
their standard forms more robust and
have asked for information such as
“confirmation of income” or “future
income projections”. I have spoken to
delegates on courses who report that
the word “guarantee” sometimes
appears. Would your insurer be happy
with this wording?
Hopefully, it goes without saying that
accountants should not sign anything that
they are unhappy with. Instead, the
lender’s wording could be tailored by the
accountant to produce something they
would be willing to sign, or the example
wording from the faculty technical release
Audit 2/01 Requests for references on
client’s financial status and their ability to
service loans could be used or adapted.
Sometimes the lender will not accept
either of these options. If after
discussions with the lender to see if a
solution could be found, the accountant
finds themselves at an impasse, he or
AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014
Q&A
Refusing to provide a
future income or future solvency”.
Accountants can legitimately decline to
provide a reference if they judge the risks
reference can be very to be too high. An accountant’s income
damaging to the client/ reference is not a right, it is a privilege –
and accountants have the right to give
accountant relationship. references on their own terms, which
The accountant is, quite does not seem unreasonable to me.
rightly, following
guidance from ICAEW Q You referred to ICAEW
guidance in the webinar.
Where can I find this?
The current ICAEW guidance is
she should refuse to provide a reference.
Both lenders and clients have been
A Audit 2/01 Requests for references on
client’s financial status and their ability to
known to complain about this. service loans. This is going to be updated
Unhelpfully, lenders often say, “you are in the near future. Meanwhile, it can be
the only accountant who has complained found at bit.ly/1rchVUd.
about our standard reference form”.
Given how often I hear this from A recording of the faculty webinar The
accountants, it simply cannot be true. trouble with mortgage references is
available at icaew.com/aafwebinars
Some clients may also view the
accountant as being unreasonable. I
recognise that refusing to provide a
reference can be very damaging to the
client/accountant relationship, which is
unfortunate. However, there is no way
around this, as the accountant is, quite
rightly, acting prudently and following
guidance from ICAEW.
It is not the accountant’s responsibility
to assess affordability on a lender’s
behalf. As Audit 2/01 highlights, future
income and expenditure is “inherently John Selwood is a member
uncertain” and this prevents accountants of the faculty’s Practitioner
from reporting “in positive terms on Services Committee
13
 Technical
updates
Our round-up of legal
and regulatory changes
AUDITING AND ASSURANCE:
UK & IRELAND
CONFIDENCE IN THE QUALITY
OF AUDIT (APRIL 2014)
The Financial Reporting Council
(FRC) has set out its programme of
work to give justifiable confidence in
the quality of audit. This expands on
the outline of projects and activity
that was recently announced in the
FRC’s current three-year strategic
programme.
In the near- to medium-term, the
FRC will focus on the expansion of its
audit inspection work (in line with
recommendations from the
Competition Commission), the
implementation of the new EU
Directive on statutory audit, and
AUDIT AND ASSURANCE:
INTERNATIONAL
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENTS TO
AUDITING STANDARDS IN RELATION
TO FINANCIAL STATEMENT
DISCLOSURES (MAY 2014)
The International Auditing and
Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) is
proposing changes to the
International Standards on Auditing
to clarify expectations of auditors
when auditing financial statement
disclosures.
The proposals include new
guidance on considerations relevant
to disclosures at the stage when the
auditor plans the audit and assesses
the risks of material misstatement,
through to when the auditor
evaluates misstatements and forms
an opinion on the financial
statements.
14
enhancing the quality of bank audits.
It also plans to:
develop best practice guidance
for audit committees on assessing
audit quality;
assess whether the ethical
standards for audit remain fit for
purpose; and
review audit firm governance,
including whether the declining
proportion of audit in the total
business of the major audit firms
poses unacceptable risk to audit
quality and capacity.
Over the longer term, the FRC will
assess whether any change to the
This work has been informed by
feedback to the IAASB’s January
2011 discussion paper, The evolving
nature of financial reporting:
disclosure and its audit implications.
The board has also undertaken
liaison and outreach with
stakeholders, including accounting
standard setters, which are actively
exploring initiatives relating to
disclosures. The IAASB recognises
that many of the issues around
disclosures cannot be solved by the
IAASB alone and that collaboration
and cooperation between many
interested stakeholders is necessary
to further enhance the public’s
confidence in financial statement
disclosures.
bit.ly/1gOFMFd
scope of audit is necessary to meet
investor expectations.
The FRC commissioned a survey in
2013 which benchmarked the views
of stakeholders on confidence in the
quality of audit. This has been
developed partly in response. The
stakeholder survey will be repeated
in future to test the effectiveness of
the FRC’s programme in meeting
legitimate expectations.
bit.ly/1gOFjCY
GUIDANCE ON RECEIPT OF
INFORMATION IN CONFIDENCE
The faculty has updated its guidance
for auditors when they receive
IAASB RE-PROPOSES STANDARD
ADDRESSING INFORMATION IN
ANNUAL REPORTS (APRIL 2014)
The IAASB has released for re-exposure
an enhanced International Standard on
Auditing (ISA) 720 (Revised), The
auditor’s responsibilities relating to other
information. The proposed standard
clarifies and strengthens the scope and
focus of auditor efforts on information
(other than the audited financial
statements) included in entities’ annual
reports, and introduces new auditor
reporting responsibilities.
Under the proposed ISA, the auditor
would now be required to perform
limited procedures to evaluate the
consistency of the other information
with the audited financial statements.
In addition, while reading the other
JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND

information in confidence. TECH
10/14AAF Receipt of information in
confidence supersedes AUDIT 2/99/
TECH 16/99 (Dec 99), which is now
withdrawn.
TECH 10/14AAF covers the
requirements that apply in situations
where the information might be
relevant to the audit and the duty
auditors have to those providing the
information. It is at bit.ly/1kBMptX
The technical release can be
downloaded and printed off, but
it is worth noting that the online
version helpfully includes hot links
to the other documents it
references. See bit.ly/1ojfF6I
information, the auditor would be
responsible for considering whether
there is a material inconsistency
between the other information and the
auditor’s knowledge obtained during
the course of the audit, and remaining
alert for other indications that the
other information appears to be
materially misstated. The terms ‘other
information’ and ‘annual report’ are
defined and explained in the standard
with the intention of making the scope
of the standard as clear as possible,
while enabling its appropriate
application in light of differing
corporate reporting regimes and
practices in a wide variety of
jurisdictions and circumstances.
bit.ly/1kG9cRp
AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014
FINANCIAL REPORTING:
UK & IRELAND
FINANCIAL REPORTING LAB
STAKEHOLDER SURVEY
(MAY 2014)
Working with companies and
investors, the FRC’s Financial
Reporting Lab (the Lab) has
published seven reports that have
covered a range of governance and
financial reporting topics. The Lab
was launched to facilitate
improvements in the effectiveness of
corporate reporting in the UK and the
FRC wants to ensure that its work
remains focused on issues important
to the reporting community.
Via a short survey, feedback has
been requested from all those
involved in reporting, including
companies, their advisers, auditors,
representative/professional bodies
and investors (institutional and
individual) and analysts. The survey
focuses on subject areas that should
be a priority for the Lab in future.
bit.ly/1vFkH4a
FRC CONSULTS ON CONVENTIONS
FOR ELECTRONIC TAGGING OF
ACCOUNTS (MAY 2014)
Following transfer of responsibility
to the FRC, the eXtensible Business
Reporting Language accounts tagging
conventions (“taxonomies”) have
been updated and the FRC has
published a consultation on three of
the taxonomies to enhance the
quality of financial reporting in the
UK and Ireland.
These are the first taxonomies
resulting from the project which was
announced in September 2013 to
improve the quality of electronic
tagging of accounts and reflect UK
reporting using EU adopted IFRS, as
UPDATES
well as the new financial reporting
standards (FRS 101 and FRS 102) for
the UK and Ireland.
The consultation deadline is 8 July
2014 and the taxonomies will then be
finalised. HMRC and Companies
House are expected to adopt the
taxonomies in due course for filings
of accounts under the relevant
standards. The Irish Revenue
Commissioners also expect to
adopt these taxonomies once the
appropriate Irish extensions are
available.
bit.ly/1sTSgLw
CORPORATE REPORTING IN A
DIGITAL WORLD (APRIL 2014)
The FRC has announced a project to
investigate how companies currently,
and might in the future, use digital
media in their corporate reporting
to improve investors’ access to
information.
The project will be undertaken
by the Financial Reporting Lab (the
Lab). The Lab will initially review
how companies use a wide range
of digital media, including
websites, videos, apps, social
media platforms and blogs in their
external communications to
investors, and how investors use
what is produced.
This project is the first part of a
series of three projects on Corporate
Reporting in a Digital World. Over
the next 18 months, the Lab plans to
investigate:
Digital Present: the current state
of corporate reporting through
digital media;
Digital Challenges: barriers to the
use of digital media in reporting; and
15
 Digital Future: how companies
might make the most of technological
opportunities.
The Lab has invited listed companies,
investors and analysts to take part in
the project.
bit.ly/1o5vdQe
FRC SIMPLIFIES ACCOUNTING
FOR MICRO-ENTITIES
(APRIL 2014)
The FRC has published an amended
version of the Financial Reporting
Standard for Smaller Entities
(FRSSE) for use by micro-entities
that want to take advantage of new
regulations allowing them to prepare
simplified financial statements.
Following new EU legislation, the
micro-entities regime was introduced
in UK company law in November
2013. Micro-entities can now use the
FRSSE when choosing to apply the
new micro-entities regime and
prepare simplified financial
statements with fewer disclosure
notes than previously required by
the FRSSE.
The amendments to the FRSSE are
effective for financial years ending
on or after 30 September 2013 for
companies filing their accounts on
or after 1 December 2013.
bit.ly/R8vKSU
16
CONSULTATION ON THE UK
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
CODE PUBLISHED
(APRIL 2014)
The FRC is consulting on its two-
yearly review of changes to the
UK Corporate Governance Code
following earlier consultations on
directors’ remuneration (October
2013) and risk management,
internal control and the going
concern basis of accounting
(November 2013).
The proposed changes to the UK
Corporate Governance Code are that:
greater emphasis be placed on
ensuring that remuneration policies
are designed with the long-term
success of the company in mind and
lead responsibility for doing so rests
with the remuneration committee;
companies should put in place
arrangements that will enable them
to recover or withhold variable pay
when appropriate to do so and
should consider appropriate vesting
and holding periods for deferred
remuneration;
companies should explain when
publishing AGM results how they
intend to engage with shareholders
when a significant percentage of
them have voted against any
resolution;
companies should state in their
financial statements whether they
consider it appropriate to adopt the
going concern basis of accounting
and identify any material
uncertainties to their ability to
continue to do so;
companies should robustly assess
their principal risks and explain
how they are being managed and
mitigated;
companies should state whether
they believe they will be able to
continue in operation and meet their
liabilities taking account of their
current position and principal risks,
and specify the period covered by
this statement and why they consider
it appropriate. It is expected that the
period assessed will be significantly
longer than 12 months; and
companies should monitor their
risk management and internal control
systems and, at least annually, carry
out a review of their effectiveness,
and report on that review in the
annual report.
Comments were invited by Friday 27
June 2014 and, subject to comments
received, any proposed changes will
apply to financial years beginning on
or after 1 October 2014.
bit.ly/1lbMJiG
JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND

FINANCIAL
REPORTING:
INTERNATIONAL
AMENDMENTS TO IAS 16 PROPERTY,
PLANT AND EQUIPMENT AND IAS 38
INTANGIBLE ASSETS (MAY 2014)
The International Accounting
Standards Board (IASB) has published
amendments to International
Accounting Standard (IAS) 16
Property, plant and equipment and
IAS 38 Intangible assets.
IAS 16 and IAS 38 both establish the
principle for the basis of depreciation
and amortisation as being the
expected pattern of consumption of
the future economic benefits of an
asset. The IASB has clarified that the
use of revenue-based methods to
calculate the depreciation of an asset
is not appropriate because revenue
generated by an activity that includes
the use of an asset generally reflects
factors other than the consumption
of the economic benefits embodied in
the asset.
The IASB has also clarified that
revenue is generally presumed to be
an inappropriate basis for measuring
the consumption of the economic
benefits embodied in an intangible
asset. This presumption, however,
may be rebutted in certain limited
circumstances.
bit.ly/1iS9yD3
AUDIT & BEYOND JULY/AUGUST 2014
IASB PUBLISHES AMENDMENTS TO
IFRS 11 JOINT ARRANGEMENTS
(MAY 2014)
International Financial Reporting
Standard IFRS 11 addresses the
accounting for interests in joint
ventures and joint operations. The
amendments published by the IASB
add new guidance on how to account
for the acquisition of an interest in a
joint operation that constitutes a
business. The amendments specify
the appropriate accounting treatment
for such acquisitions.
bit.ly/1j688EX
IASB DISCUSSION PAPER ON
ACCOUNTING FOR MACRO HEDGING
(APRIL 2014)
The IASB has issued a discussion
paper which explores an approach to
better reflect entities’ dynamic risk
management activities in their
financial statements, otherwise
known as macro hedging.
Many financial institutions and
other entities manage risks, such as
interest rate risk, dynamically on a
portfolio basis rather than on an
individual contract basis. Dynamic
risk management is a continuous
process because the risks that such
entities face evolve over time, as does
their approach to managing those
risks. However, the existing
UPDATES
accounting requirements of IAS 39
Financial instruments are generally
considered to be difficult to apply
when accounting for such
transactions.
The IASB is replacing IAS 39 with a
new standard, IFRS 9 Financial
instruments. That project is in the
final stages of completion. However,
the IASB decided to treat as a
separate project the macro hedging
component of these reforms in order
to seek views from a broader range of
constituents.
Comments on the discussion
paper Accounting for dynamic risk
management: a portfolio revaluation
approach to macro hedging are invited
by 17 October 2014.
bit.ly/1ro4UDN
Louise Sharp
produces Technical
Updates. She is a
technical manager
at the Audit &
Assurance Faculty
17
PORTFOLIO
From the faculties
Keep in touch with
our selection from
ICAEW’s other
faculty magazines
WE’RE SHOPPING
CORPORATE FINANCIER
The past six months have seen plenty of
retailers floating on the London Stock
Exchange: Boohoo.com and Poundland
made their stock market debut; in May,
Card Factory and Shoe Zone floated, with
market caps of £766m and £80m
respectively. Others are in the pipeline.
But why? EY partner and retail specialist
Jessica Clayton says: “There have been
pretty unfavourable conditions in the past
few years. There’s a pent-up backlog of
exits that have been waiting to happen.”
While growth has slowly edged up – EY
expects the UK economy to increase 2.9%
this year and 2.3% next – consumer
confidence has increased.
David McCorquodale, head of retail at
KPMG, says: “While we’re not back into
huge growth, the public markets are putting
higher valuations on retailer businesses.”
For a while, it seemed difficult to get
through a month without a retailer hitting
the buffers. HMV, Jessops, Comet and
Republic entered administration; some,
such as Blockbuster, couldn’t be saved.
It is far too simplistic to put the upturn
down to economic conditions. One trend
has been innovation in clearly defined
markets – value, luxury and online.
Change in retail means there are
opportunities for those who respond and
challenges for those who are slower. These
forces will continue to shape the sector,
leading to activity in the coming months.
For more from the Corporate Finance Faculty,
visit icaew.com/cff
18
A CONSISTENT AND
COHERENT STORY
BY ALL ACCOUNTS
The Financial Reporting Faculty has
profiled Russ Houlden, CFO of United
Utilities, in his role as chairman of The 100
Group’s financial reporting committee. He
discussed the issues keeping finance
directors of the UK’s biggest companies
awake at night.
As chairman of the the body that
represents UK FTSE 100 FDs, Houlden
recognises that financial reporting is in the
firing line. Critics say financial statements
are overly complex and that key messages
are increasingly lost among lengthy
disclosures and jargon. But Houlden also
has firm ideas on what needs to be done to
change perceptions.
Going back to basics wouldn’t be a bad
start, he says. “Financial statements
should be focused on the needs of debt
and equity investors. They should not
become some sort of general purpose
document that acts as a repository for
information of interest to all and sundry.”
Statements now include disclosures on
topics such as employee diversity and
human rights. But Houlden feels that
investors are interested in something more
fundamental: “They should clearly set out
the company’s strategy, and this should be
supported by financial and non-financial
performance measures.
“They must tell a consistent and
coherent story.”
For more from the Financial Reporting
Faculty, visit icaew.com/frf
SEND IN THE ACTUARIES
FS FOCUS
Solvency II has altered the roles of many
professionals. Under the new regime,
actuaries may need to play a role in risk
management that goes beyond their usual
numerical analysis.
Solvency II now requires closer co-
operation between the actuary and the risk
functions. Under article 44 in the directive,
these areas include reserves issues, asset
liability management, liquidity and
concentration risk, a review of underwriting,
operational risk, and reinsurance, together
with other risk mitigation techniques.
However, not all areas require the urgent
attention of actuaries. The reserves area,
where amounts can include uncertainty, is
particularly prominent. Technical provisions
such as calculating the risk appetite are
where the actuary really starts to get
involved. The actuary’s assessment will not
only help to provide robust and reasonable
projections, but will also give an
independent and justified view.
Risk mitigation is equally important. Here,
actuarial input is needed for an own risk and
solvency assessment, which can identify the
most effective risk mitigation for the insurer,
and can allow for various scenarios to be
assessed more accurately.
Firms should be aware of the
contribution actuaries can make.
Companies can achieve optimum results
if the actuarial function works well with
the risk management system.
For more from the Financial Services Faculty,
visit icaew.com/fsf
JULY/AUGUST 2014 AUDIT & BEYOND
WHEN YOU GET CERTIFIED,
YOU GET RECOGNIZED.
THAT MAKES CLIENTS
RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS.”
— ROSEMARY AMATO, CISA
DIRECTOR, DELOITTE
AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS
ISACA MEMBER SINCE 1998

Getting an ISACA® certification doesn’t just say you’re well read or well
connected. It announces that you have the expertise and insight to
speak with authority. The credibility that it adds lets you create value
for your enterprise. Your certification is more than a credential, it’s a
platform that can elevate your career.
Register at www.isaca.org/exams14-EC

UPCOMING EXAM DATES:

6 September 2014* CISA and CISM only 13 December 2014 Register early
Early Registration Deadline: 11 June 2014
Final Registration Deadline: 21 July 2014
Early Registration Deadline: 20 August 2014
Final Registration Deadline: 24 October 2014
to save US $50!

www.isaca.org/exams14-EC *Held in select locations

 news and views.
economia online
has all the news
Don’t miss out. Visit and updates
icaew.com/economia you need, with
regular HMRC
updates, the
latest on the
audit debate,
tax and financial
reporting, an
online data
centre, technical
updates, top
tips for practice
management,
reports on new
regulation and
government
updates, news
on mergers and
acquisitions, a
weekly email
newsletter,
sevendays, the
economia blog,
news and from
the profession,
webcasts, video
interviews, jobs