Using the work of an expert

In audit, it is not uncommon for management to rely on the work's of expert to assist in preparing the financial statement of the Company. The common work of experts relied by management are as follows:

- engaging external valuer to perform valuation of property ( for impairment assessment of the property)
- engaging corporate finance expert to assist in Purchase Price Allocation review
- engaging actuary to estimate the defined benefit plan of the Company
- engaging corporate finance expert to assist in impairment assessment of goodwill / brand / etc

Generally, management relied on the subject matter expert to provide their opinion on certain aspects.What did we do as an auditor to address this matter?

International Standard of Auditing specifically mention that we need to review and/or evaluate the independence, competency and objectivity of these experts. It is important for us to carry a rigid assessment on the external valuer and its work to ensure that the results is not unreasonable. For instance, we need to check that the valuer is independent from management, such that the opinion provided by expert is independent and not under the influence of management.

When the work performed by subject matter expert become very technical, we may consider to consult our in-house expert (e.g. transaction service department/ valuation team). This is to check that the methodology / work performed by subject matter expert is not unreasonable. The opinion provided by subject matter expert could affect our audit opinion directly. Hence, we urge all auditors to ensure that all mandatory procedures are performed and all factors are consider to deal with this.

Can Accounting Systems be TOO Integrated?

Systems like SAP, Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft attempt to integrate all aspects of a business, regardless of the number of countries, industries, product lines they operate in.  They address all areas of the business, from accounting, to manufacturing, to planning, to human resources, to management.  There is no question that large corporations have benefited from this integration, but is it possible that we’ve gone too far?

The larger the computer system, the higher the cost of change.  For example, one of my clients was an international oil company which wanted to experiment with a new subsidiary.  The company found it cost effective to do a whole installation of Microsoft Dynamics (and throw it away when the experiment proved to be a success) than to integrate the new subsidiary into their main system right away.

But, more importantly, large systems become increasingly complex, reducing their ability to adapt to change.  I don’t have an inside track, but I have noticed that my telephone company’s billing system seems to be unable to keep up with changes in cellphone services and fees.  In any competitive industry, even large companies need to be nimble and respond to changes in the marketplace quickly.

Finally, there is the “best of breed” problem.  You may have the biggest, most integrated system, but there are other systems that handle specific functions better.  You then are faced with the choice of the one-vendor-solution versus assembling a system from the best of breeds by several vendors.  So, you get your basic General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Banking and Accounts Receivable from one vendor, your Point-of-Sale system from another and your document imaging from a third.

A good example of this type of thinking was a client who wanted to connect his ordering system to his web site.  Both systems claimed to be able to handle the sales tax, but in testing, the engine in the accounting system proved to be more robust than the web site.  The client decided to process the order in the web site, but have it pass the information to the accounting engine to calculate the taxes and send the result back to the web site.  The result was a better system with no tax discrepancies.