Accounting Essay
{draw:g} {draw:g} {draw:g} {draw:frame}
Introduction Over the years, with the corporate development and social or statutes pressure, some concepts and standards related with audit is uncertainly or ambiguous. The obvious question is whether auditors should be blame when they failing to warn investors to ailing firms’ financial problems and risks (McNabb, 2009). In my opinion, auditors should be blame when they did not provide sufficient and useful information to alert to investors. Prior to answer the question, according to the NZICA (2007) required that be a auditor should to compliance with the code of ethics’ five necessary principles, integrity, objectivity and independence, competence, quality performance, and professional behavior. Those five points show auditing is a more complex and harder work than usually work. Auditors have to pay more attention to correspond with the highly criterion. However, in the other side, the expectation gap for audit will emerge between auditors and auditees or others, which can block auditors to research sufficient and useful information (Van Peursem & Pratt, 2006). “The ‘expectation gap’ is an apt description of the diverse perceptions and expectations held by various corporate stakeholders regarding the external audit” (Fran, James, & Gregory, 1999). For this reason, the truth thing is auditors can not always to provide absolute right information to all investors or shareholders, but always provide right information is an aim and goal for auditor. If auditors will not suffer rebuke, someone will pass the buck to “expectation gap”. It will drop the self-regulation or personal liability, and result in useless auditing. Oppositely, blaming can give an impetus to auditors act profession and work hard to overcome bad influences from expectation gap. Background In order to improving and systematization audit, professional communities establish a few of definitions and standards
Introduction Over the years, with the corporate development and social or statutes pressure, some concepts and standards related with audit is uncertainly or ambiguous. The obvious question is whether auditors should be blame when they failing to warn investors to ailing firms’ financial problems and risks (McNabb, 2009). In my opinion, auditors should be blame when they did not provide sufficient and useful information to alert to investors. Prior to answer the question, according to the NZICA (2007) required that be a auditor should to compliance with the code of ethics’ five necessary principles, integrity, objectivity and independence, competence, quality performance, and professional behavior. Those five points show auditing is a more complex and harder work than usually work. Auditors have to pay more attention to correspond with the highly criterion. However, in the other side, the expectation gap for audit will emerge between auditors and auditees or others, which can block auditors to research sufficient and useful information (Van Peursem & Pratt, 2006). “The ‘expectation gap’ is an apt description of the diverse perceptions and expectations held by various corporate stakeholders regarding the external audit” (Fran, James, & Gregory, 1999). For this reason, the truth thing is auditors can not always to provide absolute right information to all investors or shareholders, but always provide right information is an aim and goal for auditor. If auditors will not suffer rebuke, someone will pass the buck to “expectation gap”. It will drop the self-regulation or personal liability, and result in useless auditing. Oppositely, blaming can give an impetus to auditors act profession and work hard to overcome bad influences from expectation gap. Background In order to improving and systematization audit, professional communities establish a few of definitions and standards