Talk:Auditor's report/Archives/2012

Rewrite
Well, I did a complete re-write because the older version was just to limited, basically a stub. More information is needed, but I think it's getting a little long. We might need to convert sections into separate articles. - Mtmelendez 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be updated for ISAs. Many of the sample audit reports are out of date too. Hopefully a bunch of people can find the time to update this soon. AnthonyUK 12:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Should it be Auditor's Report or Auditors' Report - I know in the UK it is usually pluralised (i.e. the latter). -- anon.


 * It depends who the auditor is. If the auditor is an individual, they will use "I" and "Auditor's". If the auditor is a firm they will use "We" and "Auditors'" The current title is fine. AnthonyUK 18:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * this should be mentioned in the article methinks -anon

Minor typo in 4th paragraph under "Disclaimer of Opinion"

A disclaimer of opinion differs substantially from the rest of the auditor’s reports because it provides very little information regarding the audit itself, and includes an explanatory paragraph stating the reasons for the disclaimer. Although the report still contains the letterhead, the [replace "auditee’s" with "auditor’s"] name and address, the auditor’s signature and address, and the report’s issuance date, every other paragraph is modified extensively, and the scope paragraph is entirely omitted since the auditor is basically stating that an audit could not be realized. 64.129.170.221 (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Jeff

It is Auditors' Report, not Auditor's Report. If you are doing audits all by yourself, my hat is off to you. CB 12/7/11

Considering a page move
I feel that the term audit report is much more common than is auditor's report or auditors' report. For example, Google shows 14.6 million results for audit report and 4.45 million for the others combined. Is there a general consensus on this potential move? Thanks. -- Saaga (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it makes sense to rename the article to audit report. Renaming it would also resolve the question discussed above of where to put the apostrophe (auditor's vs. auditors'). Otto Neubauer (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree! I totally disagree with the proposal to rename the article as Audit Report. International Standards on Auditing (ISA) recognises the term Auditor's Report and not Audit Report. E.g. ISA 705, Modifications to the Opinion in the Independent Auditor's Report ISA 706, Emphasis of Matter Paragraphs and Other Matter Paragraphs in the Independent Auditor's Report . Hence I am in principle against renaming.  R.Sivanesh ✆ 11:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The title "independent auditor's report" is required for reports relating to audit and attestation services under the US GAAP (and accounting guidelines of many countries overseas). If anything, the page should be named "independent auditor's report," not audit report.

Unqualified Opinion vs. "Clean Bill of Health"
Please pardon me for not being more familiar with article editing and/or discussion practices. I'm not an experienced contributor, and simply happened to notice the "Please Clarify" template appended to the following sentence:

The most frequent type of report is referred to as the Unqualified Opinion, and is regarded by many as the equivalent of a “clean bill of health” to a patient, which has led many to call it the Clean Opinion, but in reality it is not a clean bill of health.

I surmise that the editor was attempting to distinguish between certification of the accuracy of the audited financial statements, internal controls, and adherence to GAAP, and the overall financial "health" of the auditee. The casual reader might otherwise incorrectly infer that an Unqualified Opinion certifies that the auditee is currently generating a net profit, has a capital surplus, has signficant Equity, etc... when, in fact, an auditee in dire financial straits may also receive an Unqualified Opinion, provided that the auditee's accounting methods, internal review process, and financial statements properly record and demonstrate their fiscal woes.

--216.248.153.133 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch. Someone improved that sentence, using your language, and I made a small improvement on top of that.--Elvey (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Examples
A real report would provide a useful illustration (in both senses of the word. How 'bout adding an image or two to the article - e.g. pages 3 and 4 of: http://www.dof.ca.gov/osae/audit_reports/documents/Edit2011-001_2011-002.pdf ?  It's in the public domain, and it's a qualified opinion, so a bit more interesting.--Elvey (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)