Auditing case study 2500words

Assignment.docx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Accounting homework help >Auditing case study 2500words

ACCT1059 AUDITING 1

Semester 2, 2018

Individual Assignment 2 (30%)

RELIABLE PRINTERS LTD (RPL) CASE STUDY

Aims of this individual assignment:

This assignment is designed to facilitate your learning of the key skills and knowledge needed when facing a financial report audit of a company, and how to analyse, research and pinpoint facets of the company that require auditing attention.

Case Background

This case analysis relates to the continuous case study, titled Reliable Printers Ltd (RPL), which is featured in the Appendix of the Gay & Simnett (2017) textbook. The details of the case study commences from Chapter 04 onwards, covering key aspects of a financial report audit.

RPL business primarily involves traditional paper-based book printing and e-book production. More specifically, RPL prints magazines, books, and advertising material for publishing, educational, and advertising industries. Their print-on-demand system allows their clients to print the exact amount of stock that is needed.

INSTRUCTIONS:

A. Please read the RPL continuous case study background information in the textbook, and

B. Answer the following FOUR questions – as enumerated below. In doing so, cite relevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations where appropriate.

· This individual assignment is worth 30 points (25 points content and 5 points written communication/presentation) and comprises 30% of your overall grade in this course.

· Your answer should be approximately 2,500 words. Submit your answer in TurnItIn by end of Week 9 (Sunday 11.59pm, Melbourne time). Submission via email will not be marked.

· Late submission will be deducted 10% of the awarded marks per calendar day. Submission is not accepted after being late 10 days.

Important Note:

· The RPL Case study are copyright of MHE Publisher. Further distribution (share, upload on internet) is NOT allowed and subject to heavy penalty of copyright infringement.

· This assignment is RMIT copyright. Please do NOT upload on internet, distribute or share with others this instruction without consulting Course Coordinator. Academic misconduct hearing and/or heavy penalty of copyright infringement might apply.

Questions:

Please answer ALL Questions after fully reading the RPL case study.

1. RPL is a new client to your firm. As the audit senior for Rogers & Brown, leading the audit team of RPL for the first time, discuss factors that will influence your:

· Client Acceptance (3 points)

· Preliminary risk assessment (3 points)

· Preliminary materiality calculation (3 points)

· Audit Planning (3 points)

(3 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 12 points)

2. Review the initial fundamentals of the business (Appendix pages A1 to A3), analyse the financial information identify FOUR specific types of business risks that are involved in RPL, and how you (as senior auditors of RPL) will response to these identified risks.

(4 points)

3. Internal controls are a vital aspect of any company. Please review the RPL Case Study (Appendix, pages A1 to A13) and discuss the following:

a. Identify THREE control strengths and THREE control weaknesses (3 points)

b. How the identified control strengths and control weaknesses may influence the effectiveness of the control environment (3 points)

c. What control tests would be applicable for each control strength (3 points)

(3 + 3 + 3 = 9 points)

Total Content – 25 points

RPL Assignment Rubrics

CONTENT (25 points)

25.0 to > 20.0 points

Excellent (HD)

Very clear identification and discussion/ explanation of the questions. Discussion is always relevant to the questions. Discussion always includes adequate detail of the case study. Cite all relevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations

20.0 to >15.0 points

Good (DI/CR)

Clear identification and discussion/ explanation of the questions. Discussion is mostly relevant to the questions. Discussion mostly includes adequate detail of the case study. Cite most relevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations

15.0 to > 10.0 points

Satisfactory (PA)

Fairly clear identification and discussion/ explanation of the questions. Discussion is usually relevant to the questions. Discussion usually includes adequate detail of the case study. Cite many relevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations

10.0 to > 5.0 points

Needs improvement (NN)

Identification but only limited discussion/ explanation of the questions. Discussion sometimes too general and/or not relevant to the questions. Discussion is lack of adequate details of the case study. Cite some irrelevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations

5.0 to > 0.0 points

Poor (NN)

Identification but very limited discussion/ explanation of the questions. Discussion usually too general and/or not relevant to the questions. Discussion is very lack of details of the case study. Cite many irrelevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations

0.0 points

No mark

Incorrect identification and irrelevant discussion/ explanation of the questions. Discussion does not include details of the case study. No attempt to cite relevant sections of the Auditing standards and/or related regulations

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION/PRESENTATION (5 points)

5.0 to > 4.0 points

Excellent (HD)

The written submission is professionally presented. All grammar and punctuation is correct. No spelling or other communication errors. It is at an excellent standard that could be presented to a superior in the workforce or a client. Sources acknowledged with full reference details. Turn-it-In similarity percentage is under 10%. Words count = +/- 10% the recommended words count.

4.0 to >3.0 points

Good (DI/CR)

The written submission is generally well presented. Occasional errors in grammar and punctuation are present. Very few spelling and/or other communication errors. It is at a very good standard that could be presented to a superior in the workforce or a client. Sources acknowledged with full reference details. Turn-it-In similarity percentage is between 10% and 19%. Words count: +/-20% the recommended words count.

3.0 to >2.0 points

Satisfactory (PA)

The written submission is averagely presented. Errors in grammar and punctuation are usually present. Many spelling and/or other communication errors. It is at a low standard that should not be presented to a superior in the workforce or a client. Sources are not always acknowledged with full reference details. Turn-it-In similarity percentage is between 20% and 29%. Words count: +/-30% the recommended words count.

2.0 to >1.0 points

Needs improvement (NN)

The written submission is poorly presented. There are many spelling, grammar, punctuation errors that detract from the quality of the communication but do not prevent the ideas being effectively communicated. It is at low standards that could not be presented to a superior in the workforce or a client. Sources are not acknowledged or insufficient reference details. Turn-it-In similarity percentage is between 30% and 39%. Length: 40-50% recommended words count.

1.0 to > 0.0 points

Poor (NN)

Major improvements in the presentation of the written submission. The level of errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation are such that the statement cannot be understood. It is at too low standards that could not be presented to a superior in the workforce or a client. Sources are not acknowledged, without reference details. Turn-it-In similarity percentage is between 40% and 49%. Length: 30-40% recommended words count

0.0 points

No mark

The level of errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation are such that the statement cannot be understood. It is at too low standards that could not be presented to a superior in the workforce or a client. Sources are not acknowledged, without reference details. Turn-it-In similarity percentage is 50 and above. Length: under 30% recommended words count

Total: 30 points