Due in 8 hours for zeek the geek

FINAL PROJECT BASED ON MILESTONE ONE- THREE WORTHY 50% (400 POINTS)OF THE COURSE.

Here is the Final Project based on Milestone one-Two-Three-Four. It is 400 marks.

The final project for this course is the creation of a case study analysis. You will use the article The SOX Compliance Journey at Trinity Industries as a resource for this project.http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/docview/963675948?accountid=3783

Companies today must ensure that operational processes are performing efficiently and effectively in compliance with current regulations. Accountants must adhere to domestic standards set by organizations—such as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and the Financial Accounting and Standards Board—as well as global standards, such as the International Financial Reporting Standards, requiring appropriate implementation and assessment of internal controls. Whether developing appropriate processes internally or preparing substantive testing, external auditors must be able to quickly and completely assess the financial processes, determine weaknesses, and provide recommendations for improvement.

 The ability to transcribe formalized or narrative processes into functional workflows allows an auditor to identify potential gaps in accounting systems. These gaps can result in material audit findings necessitating changes in the company’s control structure. 

 However, it is not only the process and flow of transactions that requires scrutiny. Companies evolve into sophisticated, computerized systems that require an indepth understanding of administrative rights, electronic process flows, and end user reporting.

 In this case study, you will apply all of these skills in developing recommendations for Trinity Industries. Though the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) promulgated many internal control structure changes, the company is unsure as to whether they are applying too few or too many internal controls. Unnecessary controls place added burden on staff and cost the company thousands of dollars in monitoring and maintenance. 

 Your role will be to provide an overview of the company and its market industry. From this you will formulate your processes into a comprehensive flowchart that will be used to identify gaps in processes and other threats to potential audit weaknesses.

Final Submission: Case Study Analysis

You will submit your case study analysis. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the main elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded using the Final Project Rubric.

Deliverables:-

Milestone One Company Overview Report (Section I).

Milestone Two First Year of SOX Compliance (Section II).

Milestone Three Comparative Systems Report (Sections III and IV).

Milestone Four IFRS Report (Section V).

Final Submission: Case Study Analysis

Guidelines for Submission: Your case study analysis (including flowcharts and memo) should be 10 pages(3000 WORDS) (400 Marks), double-spaced, with one-inch margins, 12-point Times New Roman font, and APA format.

Instructor Feedback: This activity uses an integrated rubric in Blackboard. Students can view instructor feedback in the Grade Center. For more information, review these instructions---

Overview Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise (100%). First Year of SOX Compliance: Success -Meets “Proficient” criteria and determination is well-supported with concrete examples (100%).

First Year of SOX Compliance: Internal Controls -Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise (100%).

First Year of SOX Compliance: Material Weakness -Meets “Proficient” criteria and definition is exceptionally clear and contextualized (100%).

First Year of SOX Compliance: Specific Meets “Proficient” criteria and shows keen insight into the types of material weaknesses (100%).

First Year of SOX Compliance: PCAOB -Meets “Proficient” criteria and shows keen insight into SOX requirements (100%).

First Year of SOX Compliance: Factors -Meets “Proficient” criteria and both artifacts are exceptionally clear and contextualized (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Strengths and Weaknesses -Meets “Proficient” criteria and determination is well-supported with concrete examples (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Recommend -Meets “Proficient” criteria and recommendation uses industry specific language to establish expertise (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Top-Down -Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates a nuanced understanding of the differences between the two approaches.

Bottom-Up Approach: Compliance Project -Meets “Proficient” criteria and determination is well-supported with concrete examples (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Internal Control Structure -Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates a nuanced understanding of internal control structures (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Chief Insights -Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates a nuanced understanding of SOX requirements (100%)

Bottom-Up Approach: Testing Processes -Meets “Proficient” criteria and supports claims with examples (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Most Useful -Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides relevant examples (100%).

Bottom-Up Approach: Results and Recommendations -Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise (100%).

SOX-Related Expenses: Further Reduce -Meets “Proficient” criteria and shows keen insight into potential barriers related to SOX (100%)

SOX-Related Expenses: Software System -Meets “Proficient” criteria and shows a nuanced understanding of the various types of software systems available (100%).

SOX-Related Expenses: Defense -Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides relevant examples to support decision (100%)

IFRS: Change -Meets “Proficient” criteria and is well-supported with concrete examples  (100%).

IFRS: Improve -Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides relevant examples to support determination (100%).

 IFRS: Standards -Meets “Proficient” criteria and provides relevant examples to support determination (100%).

IFRS: Role Meets “Proficient” criteria and uses industry-specific language to establish expertise (100%).

Articulation of Response

Submission is free of errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format (100%)