2.3 Assessing Audit Risk and Materiality

Assessing audit risk and materiality is crucial for effective audit planning and execution. Auditors must evaluate inherent risk, control risk, and detection risk to determine overall audit risk. They also need to set appropriate materiality levels to guide their procedures and judgments.

The relationship between audit risk and materiality is inverse. Lower materiality levels require more extensive testing, while higher risk areas demand closer scrutiny. Factors like client complexity, internal controls, and industry conditions influence these assessments, shaping the audit approach and resource allocation.

Audit Risk and Its Components

Definition and Components of Audit Risk

Top images from around the web for Definition and Components of Audit Risk

• 

  Risk and Opportunity 2008: Transformation Audit – African Minds View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Infographic: 2018/19 National Departmental audit outcomes | PMG View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  2019/20 Departmental Audit Outcomes | PMG View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Risk and Opportunity 2008: Transformation Audit – African Minds View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Infographic: 2018/19 National Departmental audit outcomes | PMG View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Definition and Components of Audit Risk

• 

  Risk and Opportunity 2008: Transformation Audit – African Minds View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Infographic: 2018/19 National Departmental audit outcomes | PMG View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  2019/20 Departmental Audit Outcomes | PMG View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Risk and Opportunity 2008: Transformation Audit – African Minds View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Infographic: 2018/19 National Departmental audit outcomes | PMG View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Audit risk represents the possibility that an auditor expresses an inappropriate audit opinion when the financial statements contain material misstatements
• Audit risk consists of three components: inherent risk, control risk, and detection risk
  • Inherent risk assesses the susceptibility of an assertion about a class of transaction, account balance, or disclosure to a material misstatement before considering any related controls (e.g., complex transactions or estimates)
  • Control risk evaluates the risk that a material misstatement in an assertion will not be prevented, detected, or corrected on a timely basis by the entity's internal control (e.g., weak segregation of duties)
  • Detection risk represents the risk that the auditor's procedures will not detect a material misstatement that exists (e.g., inadequate sample size or inappropriate audit procedures)

Audit Risk Model

• The audit risk model illustrates the relationship between the three components of audit risk: $Audit Risk = Inherent Risk × Control Risk × Detection Risk$
• Auditors use the audit risk model to assess the overall audit risk and determine the appropriate level of detection risk based on the assessed levels of inherent and control risk
• By understanding the relationship between the components of audit risk, auditors can design and perform audit procedures that reduce audit risk to an acceptably low level (e.g., increasing substantive testing when inherent or control risk is high)

Materiality in Auditing

Concept and Application of Materiality

• Materiality refers to the magnitude of an omission or misstatement of accounting information that would likely influence the judgment of a reasonable person relying on the information
• Auditors consider materiality in the context of the financial statements as a whole and in relation to specific classes of transactions, account balances, and disclosures (e.g., materiality for revenue may differ from materiality for inventory)
• Materiality guides auditors in planning the audit, evaluating audit evidence, and expressing an opinion on the financial statements
  • During audit planning, auditors establish a materiality level that serves as a basis for determining the extent of audit procedures to be performed (e.g., setting a lower materiality level for high-risk areas)
  • When evaluating audit evidence, auditors consider whether identified misstatements, individually or in aggregate, exceed the established materiality level and warrant adjustments to the financial statements or modifications to the audit opinion

Revising Materiality During the Audit

• Auditors may revise the materiality level during the audit based on new information or changes in circumstances (e.g., discovery of a significant misstatement or change in the client's financial condition)
• Revising materiality allows auditors to adapt their audit approach and ensure that the audit remains focused on areas of higher risk and significance to the financial statements
• When revising materiality, auditors should document the reasons for the change and communicate the revised level to the audit team to ensure consistent application throughout the audit

Audit Risk vs Materiality

Inverse Relationship Between Audit Risk and Materiality

• Audit risk and materiality have an inverse relationship; as materiality increases, audit risk decreases, and vice versa
• When audit risk is high, auditors set a lower materiality level to reduce the likelihood of expressing an inappropriate audit opinion (e.g., setting a lower materiality level for a client with a history of financial statement errors)
• Conversely, when the materiality level is high, auditors may accept a higher level of audit risk because the potential impact of misstatements on the financial statements is less significant (e.g., setting a higher materiality level for a stable, well-established client)

Impact on Audit Procedures

• The assessment of audit risk and materiality guides the auditor's decisions regarding the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures to be performed
• When audit risk is high or materiality is low, auditors may:
  • Increase the extent of substantive testing (e.g., larger sample sizes)
  • Perform more rigorous analytical procedures (e.g., detailed trend analysis)
  • Obtain more persuasive audit evidence (e.g., third-party confirmations)
  • Assign more experienced team members to high-risk areas
• By tailoring the audit approach based on the assessed levels of audit risk and materiality, auditors can efficiently and effectively obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support their opinion

Factors Influencing Risk and Materiality Assessment

Client-Specific Factors

• The nature of the client's business, industry, and regulatory environment can impact inherent risk and the assessment of materiality
  • Complex industries (e.g., financial services) or highly regulated sectors (e.g., healthcare) may have higher inherent risk and require lower materiality levels
  • Clients with a history of financial difficulties or operating in a volatile market may warrant increased professional skepticism and lower materiality thresholds
• The effectiveness of the client's internal control system influences control risk and the assessment of audit risk
  • Strong internal controls (e.g., effective segregation of duties, timely reconciliations) can reduce control risk and allow for a higher level of detection risk
  • Weak or ineffective internal controls (e.g., lack of management oversight, inadequate documentation) increase control risk and require more extensive substantive testing
• The complexity and subjectivity of accounting estimates and judgments can increase inherent risk and the assessment of materiality
  • Estimates involving significant assumptions or sensitive to changes in market conditions (e.g., fair value measurements, impairment assessments) may require lower materiality levels and more rigorous audit procedures
  • Transactions or balances subject to management judgment (e.g., revenue recognition, contingent liabilities) may warrant increased professional skepticism and lower materiality thresholds

Auditor-Specific Factors

• The auditor's knowledge and experience with the client, as well as the results of previous audits, can influence the assessment of audit risk and materiality
  • Familiarity with the client's operations, accounting policies, and internal controls can help auditors identify areas of higher risk and set appropriate materiality levels
  • Findings from previous audits (e.g., significant deficiencies, material misstatements) may indicate the need for increased professional skepticism and lower materiality thresholds in the current audit
• The expectations of users of the financial statements, such as investors and creditors, can impact the assessment of materiality
  • Auditors should consider the information needs and decision-making processes of financial statement users when setting materiality levels
  • For example, a lower materiality level may be appropriate for a client with a large number of public shareholders or significant debt covenants
• The potential for management bias or fraud can increase inherent risk and influence the assessment of audit risk and materiality
  • Auditors should be alert to indicators of management bias (e.g., aggressive accounting practices, unusual transactions) and adjust their risk assessment and materiality levels accordingly
  • In cases of suspected fraud, auditors may need to perform additional procedures, expand the scope of the audit, and consider the impact on the overall audit opinion