Full Text Available
Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.
Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko
Tesis (M. Rek.) -- Universiteit van Stellenbosch, 1991.
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | af_ZA |
| Published: |
Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Tags: |
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867613756831301632 |
|---|---|
| access_status_str | Open Access |
| author | Brink, Petrus Johannes |
| author2 | Van Zyl Smith, J. |
| author_browse | Brink, Petrus Johannes Van Zyl Smith, J. |
| author_facet | Van Zyl Smith, J. Brink, Petrus Johannes |
| author_sort | Brink, Petrus Johannes |
| collection | Thesis |
| dc_rights_str_mv | Stellenbosch University |
| description | Tesis (M. Rek.) -- Universiteit van Stellenbosch, 1991. |
| format | Thesis |
| id | oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/69187 |
| institution | Stellenbosch University (South Africa) |
| language | af_ZA |
| last_indexed | 2026-06-10T12:41:12.661Z |
| license_str | Other — see source repository |
| provenance_str_mv | Harvested via OAI-PMH from SUNScholar — Stellenbosch University Repository |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publishDateRange | 2012 |
| publishDateSort | 2012 |
| publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| publisherStr | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| record_format | dspace |
| source_str | SUNScholar — Stellenbosch University Repository |
| spelling | oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/69187 Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko Brink, Petrus Johannes Van Zyl Smith, J. Vorster, Q. Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences. School of Accountancy. Auditing -- South Africa Dissertations -- Accountancy Tesis (M. Rek.) -- Universiteit van Stellenbosch, 1991. Statement AU202 (1986) of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants, defines audit risk as being "the risk that the auditor will unknowingly express an inappropriate opinion on financial information". Audit risk (AR) is analysed further as being the product of the following elements: - Inherent risk (IR), which is determined by the environment in which the audit is conducted, before the effect of internal control is taken into account. - control risk (CR), which is determined by the adequacy of and compliance with the internal control system. - Detection risk (DR), which is determined by the adequacy of the audit procedures of the auditor. If the elements of the audit risk formula (AR = IR x CR x DR) are further analysed, in order to quantify audit risk, they would be as follows: IR - determined by the general environment in which the audit is conducted, i.e. excluding the presence or effectiveness of any controls or the control environment. CR1 - determined by evaluating the adequacy of the system of internal control (in other words the auditors opinion on the adequacy of internal control before compliance tests are conducted). CR2 - determined by evaluating the results of the compliance tests conducted by the auditor (in other words by evaluating the quality of the work performed by the personnel involved in the system). OR1 - determined by evaluating the results of the analytical review procedures (this includes the results of the testing of identified key items). OR2 - determined by evaluating the results of the substantive tests on transactions. DR3 - determined by evaluating the results of the substantive tests on account balances. These components can be quantified seperately in order to quantify audit risk by using the followinq formula: AR = IR x (CR1 + (1 - CR1) X CR2) x (OR1 x OR2 X DR3) This quantification of audit risk is only possible if the components are quatified independent of each other. In a questionnaire used for an empirical study, respondents were required to indicate, by way of percentages, the following regarding each of the tests discussed above: experience, contributed to the detection of material audit differences in the past. The highest relative percentage had to be allocated to the audit test that detected the most material audit differences. The percentages allocated to the tests should when added to the undetected material audit differences (discovered later), amount to 100%. This total represents all the material audit differences present. - The percentage of audit cost spent on conducting the test. Audit cost is the audit time spent on the tests, multiplied by the hourly rate of the person conducting the test. The percentages of audit cost should, when added, equal 100%, being the total audit cost. - The percentage by which the audit cost (as defined above) directed towards a specific test should, in their opinion, be increased or decreased, if they were of the opinion that the audit cost has in the past has been too low or too high. The percentages for the suggested increases and decreases in audit cost should, when added, equal 0%. en_ZA Masters 2012-08-27T12:26:58Z 2012-08-27T12:26:58Z 1991 Thesis http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/69187 af_ZA Stellenbosch University 239 pages application/pdf Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| spellingShingle | Auditing -- South Africa Dissertations -- Accountancy Brink, Petrus Johannes Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| title | Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| title_full | Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| title_fullStr | Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| title_full_unstemmed | Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| title_short | Die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| title_sort | die kwantifisering van ouditrisiko |
| topic | Auditing -- South Africa Dissertations -- Accountancy |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/69187 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT brinkpetrusjohannes diekwantifiseringvanouditrisiko |