- This topic has 10 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Mr Mike,
As my current understanding, review engagement (in specific case: review financial statements) is a type of limited assurance service.
However, in a technical article written by P7 examiner “Continue to be rest assured”, the review engagement is classified into 3 main areas of non-assurance services. The others are agreed-upon procedures and compilation.
So which one is correct? Thank you in advance!
I have below reproduced paragraph 9 from the following link
https://www.ifac.org/system/files/downloads/b010-2010-iaasb-handbook-isre-2400.pdf
Moderate Assurance
9. A review engagement provides a moderate level of assurance that the information subject to review is free of material misstatement, this is expressed in the form of negative assurance.That seems to me to be reasonably clear – what do you think?
So, review engagement is definitely an assurance service NOT non-assurance, sir?
It also means that the examiner is not truly correct when considering it as non-assurance in his/her technical article.
I did not expect that “error” in these “official” study material. It may be not my right to complain but ACCA should have been more careful in reviewing technical articles posted. I noticed that they have not even removed or at least left some alert notes for the P2 technical article referring to old standards of Revenue (IAS 18 and 11).
Anyway, thank you Mr Mike!
Binh, when was the article written? When technical articles are written, they are not updated as the World moves on. They are valid as at the time of writing but no-one would ever claim that they continue to be valid when new standards are issued that make the original article no longer up-to-date
In addition, I think that I would check very carefully that you have correctly interpreted the article “Continue to be rest assured” – it’s most unlike the examiner to have made a mistake
I just would like ACCA to remove articles which are no longer valid (or leave some notes saying that this article refers to old standards, very easy to do so). We, students, tend to read all the articles available then a mixed of “valid” and “expired” articles sometimes makes us confused.
By the way, I am looking forward the news from you! I also did not expect that mistake from examiner. Thank you sir!
You’re welcome Binh, but let’s get you through these last exams first and then you can think again about wording a critical email to ACCA
So far as I am aware, it’s an engagement that hopefully results in a limited amount of assurance along the lines of negative assurance
Point me in the direction, please, that tells me that it’s a non-assurance engagement
i agree with Mike, as the review engagement is considered as “limited” assurance , pay attention to limit, it is still considered as an assurance service, however the scope, or the “range’ isn’t broad
compared with Auditing, which provide “reasonable” assurance, means true and fair , it will perform a much more detailed procedures to ensure the financial statement is “reasonably” true and fair
to be precise:
Review engagement reviews financial performance and non financial performance, non financial performance include operational issue, company stuffs ..It performs limited amount of financial statement review…more on forecast and checking stuffs
auditing provides a full financial statement checking, it includes further transaction testing to ensure that it is true and fair ..and conclude that the financial statement is true and fair
both provides assurance ( yes practitioner assures you) , only differs in limited, and reasonable assurance
sorry Mike i Hijacked this thread, just wanted to practice more ..heh
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.