Pass the IIA CIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Introduction:

Review notes are comments or questions posed by engagement supervisors during the review of workpapers to ensure audit quality and completeness.

IIA Guidance on Review Notes:

According to the IIA, review notes serve as a tool for engagement supervisors to seek additional evidence or clarification.

Options Analysis:

Option A: This is correct as per IIA guidance, once concerns have been addressed, review notes can be cleared from the final documentation.

Option B: Management does not typically address review notes; these are internal audit processes.

Option C: The CAE does not need to initial or sign the review notes, as the engagement supervisor's review is sufficient.

Option D: While review notes must be addressed, they do not necessarily need to be retained after being resolved.

Conclusion:

The correct procedure allows for review notes to be cleared once the engagement supervisor’s concerns are addressed, streamlining the documentation process.

IIA’s International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF).

Introduction:

Inherent risk refers to the susceptibility of an assertion to a material misstatement, assuming no related controls.

IPO Risks:

Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) inherently carry a high level of risk due to the uncertainty and complexity involved in the process, the lack of historical data, and market volatility.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Residual risk is the risk remaining after controls are applied.

Option B: Net risk is not a standard term in audit risk assessments.

Option C: Inherent risk is the appropriate term for the risks associated with an IPO, which exist before considering any controls.

Option D: Underlying risk is not a standard audit term.

Conclusion:

The risk associated with an IPO for a new stock is best described as inherent risk due to the nature of the uncertainties involved.

Audit Standards and Securities Regulation Guidelines

According to IIA guidance, the chief audit executive (CAE) is responsible for establishing policies and procedures for the internal audit activity, including the retention of audit records. These requirements should be aligned with the organization’s overall processes and procedures to ensure consistency and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements. This approach ensures that the retention policy is tailored to the specific needs and context of the organization, while also maintaining alignment with broader organizational policies.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2330 - Documenting Information

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Advisory 2330-1: Document Retention

The chief audit executive (CAE) should meet with the chief IT officer to discuss the incident, the investigation, and any control improvements that will be implemented (1). Additionally, developing an appropriate audit program with the IT auditor to review the organization’s Internet-based sales process and key controls (3) is a proactive approach to ensure future incidents are prevented and to enhance the organization's security posture. References: = IIA Standard 2120 - Risk Management and IIA Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

To gather relevant feedback on the newly implemented software used by 3,000 employees in South America and Europe, distributing surveys to the software users in both regions is the best approach. Surveys can reach a large number of users quickly and can provide comprehensive feedback on various aspects of the software, including usability, functionality, and user satisfaction. This method allows for the collection of a wide range of opinions and experiences, which can be analyzed to identify common issues and areas for improvement.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Auditing IT Projects

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

Analytical procedures involve evaluating financial and operational information by comparing it with expected values. These expectations can be based on historical data, industry benchmarks, budgets, or other relevant criteria. The primary purpose of analytical procedures is to identify any unusual or unexpected variations that could indicate potential issues or areas requiring further investigation.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2320: Analysis and Evaluation requires internal auditors to analyze and evaluate the information gathered during an engagement. Analytical procedures are a critical part of this process, as they help auditors identify trends, anomalies, and areas of risk by comparing actual results with expectations.

The Practice Guide on Analytical Procedures defines these procedures as the analysis of relationships between different sets of data, with the goal of identifying inconsistencies or unexpected patterns.

Confirmation letters are generally considered the most reliable source of documentary evidence because they involve direct verification of information with an independent third party. This type of evidence is less prone to bias or manipulation compared to internal documents like policy statements or remittance advices.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to support engagement results. Third-party confirmations, such as confirmation letters, are considered highly reliable because they come from independent sources.

The Practice Guide on Audit Evidence highlights that external confirmations provide strong evidence of the accuracy of the information being audited.

Introduction:

Heat maps are tools used in risk management to visualize the impact and likelihood of risks.

Limitations of Heat Maps:

Despite their usefulness, heat maps have several limitations, including difficulties in prioritizing risks when impact and likelihood are closely matched.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Impact can be represented qualitatively as well, not just in financial terms.

Option B: Differentiating the relative importance of impact versus likelihood can be challenging, leading to potential misinterpretation of risk priorities.

Option C: Heat maps can be used without a risk and control matrix, although such a matrix enhances their effectiveness.

Option D: Qualitative factors can be incorporated into heat maps, adding depth to the analysis.

Conclusion:

The limitation of a heat map is that at times, impact and likelihood cannot be differentiated as to which is more important, making it difficult to prioritize risks accurately.

Internal Audit Standards and Practice Guides .

Per Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision, engagement supervision includes reviewing and approving work programs, changes, and results to ensure objectives are met and quality is maintained. This activity is part of supervision (C), not reporting (A), monitoring (B), or risk assessment (D).

In the five-attribute approach to documenting deficiencies, the attribute that answers the question "What should be in place?" is Criteria. Criteria represent the standards, measures, or expectations used in making an evaluation and/or verification (what should be). It defines what the process or control should achieve, serving as a benchmark against which the actual condition (what is) is compared. The criteria are essential for identifying deviations and determining the nature and significance of deficiencies.

IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating.

Sorting the customer information is the most effective method for identifying duplicate accounts in a database of 100,000 customers. By sorting the database based on key identifiers such as customer name, address, or email, an internal auditor can quickly identify and review records that appear consecutively and have similar details, which is indicative of potential duplicates. This method is efficient and practical for handling large datasets.

In this situation, the internal auditor has identified a significant risk related to the failure to maintain air quality monitoring equipment. Since the CEO and the manager have acknowledged the risk but decided not to take corrective action due to cost concerns, the chief audit executive (CAE) should escalate the issue to the board. This step is necessary to ensure that the board is fully informed of the potential regulatory and reputational risks.

IIA Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks:

This standard requires the CAE to communicate to senior management and the board when management has accepted a level of risk that the CAE believes is unacceptable. The board needs to be made aware of the situation to ensure they can take appropriate action if needed.

Risk Communication:

The CAE’s responsibility includes ensuring that all significant risks are communicated to the highest level of the organization. In this case, the potential for regulatory sanctions and reputational damage due to inaccurate air quality monitoring is a significant risk that the board should be aware of.

IIA Practice Advisory 2600-1:

The advisory emphasizes that when the CAE believes that management has accepted a level of risk that could be detrimental to the organization, it is the CAE’s duty to escalate the matter to the board.

Option A (Implement corrective actions): It is not the CAE's role to implement corrective actions; this responsibility lies with management.

Option C (Discuss with external auditors): While external auditors can provide additional perspectives, the CAE should directly communicate significant risks to the board.

Option D (Contact the regulatory agency): This is an extreme step that should only be considered if the organization fails to address the issue after internal escalation.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

An The top-down approach to understanding business processes is conducted from a broad organizational perspective, beginning with the overall objectives and strategic goals of the organization and then drilling down into the specific processes that support these goals. While this approach ensures alignment with the organization's objectives, it has the greatest risk of overlooking critical processes at the lower levels, especially those that might be operationally significant but not directly linked to top-level objectives.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2010: Planning suggests that internal auditors should understand the organization’s business processes in relation to its objectives. The top-down approach aligns with this but can risk missing important operational details that might be captured through a more granular (e.g., bottom-up) approach.

According to IIA guidance, before implementing any changes to the audit program's scope prior to beginning fieldwork, the most important action is to seek approval from the chief audit executive (CAE) for the proposed scope change. This ensures that any significant modifications are reviewed and authorized at the appropriate level, maintaining the integrity and alignment of the audit activity with the organization's audit plan and objectives.

IIA Standards: 2240 - Engagement Work Program

IIA Standards: 2020 - Communication and Approval

When planning an assurance engagement, especially for a foreign subsidiary, it is essential to communicate effectively with management to ensure transparency and set expectations. According to IIA guidance, the preliminary communication should include critical information that helps the management of the area under review understand the purpose, scope, and logistics of the audit.

IIA Standard 2201 – Planning Considerations:

This standard emphasizes that the internal auditor should plan the engagement to achieve the engagement objectives effectively. It includes discussing the scope, objectives, timing, and resource allocations with management.

Key Elements to Include in Preliminary Communication:

Scope of the Engagement: Clearly defining what the audit will cover ensures that both the auditors and the management understand the boundaries and focus areas of the audit.

Estimated Time Frame: Providing a timeline helps management plan their activities and ensures that the audit process does not interfere with critical operations.

Names of the Auditors: Identifying the audit team helps in establishing a working relationship and allows management to know who will be conducting the audit.

IIA Practice Advisory 2201-1:

This advisory suggests that early communication of the scope, timing, and staffing helps in gaining the management’s cooperation and sets the stage for a successful audit.

Option B and D (Including resources and travel budget): These details are more administrative and do not need to be included in the preliminary communication to management.

Option C (Resources, budget, and scope): While scope is important, resources and budget are internal matters and not essential in preliminary communication with management.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct as it ensures that the management is informed about the key aspects of the audit that directly impact them, aligning with IIA’s standards for audit planning and communication.