IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Dumps - IIA CIA Questions and Answers

The chief audit executive (CAE) typically performs several activities following an audit engagement, including reporting follow-up activities to senior management, implementing follow-up procedures to evaluate residual risk, and evaluating the extent of improvements. These activities are crucial to ensure that audit recommendations are properly addressed and that any residual risks are managed effectively. However, determining the costs of implementing the recommendations is not typically a responsibility of the CAE. This task is usually handled by the management of the area being audited, as they have the detailed operational knowledge necessary to accurately estimate these costs. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Follow-up Processes.

External benchmarking using trend analysis involves comparing a company's performance metrics with industry standards or averages over a certain period to identify trends and areas for improvement. Comparing common-size financial statements of the subsidiary with the averages of the industry for the last two periods allows for a normalized comparison by expressing financial statement items as a percentage of a common base figure (e.g., total assets or sales). This method highlights the subsidiary's financial structure and performance trends in relation to industry norms, facilitating a comprehensive analysis. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Benchmarking: An Essential Tool for Assessment, Improvement, and Market Leadership" (Michael J. Spendolini)

When an internal auditor identifies a potential control deficiency based on a preliminary survey, such as the lack of established procedures for adding and approving new vendors, the next appropriate step is to gather more detailed information. Interviewing personnel involved in the accounts payable function allows the auditor to understand the context, confirm the accuracy of the questionnaire responses, and gain insights into the potential risks and impacts associated with the observed deficiency. This step is crucial before documenting the issue or planning further audit procedures to ensure the information is accurate and complete.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

Root cause analysis identifies underlying reasons for control deficiencies or inefficiencies, enabling organizations to address systemic issues and enhance controls. IIA Practice Guide: Root Cause Analysis (2018) highlights its role in promoting continuous improvement. Reperformance (Option A) and vouching (Option B) are audit techniques to verify accuracy but do not diagnose systemic issues. Independent confirmation (Option C) corroborates evidence but does not uncover root causes. Root cause analysis aligns with the CIA Part 2 objective of enhancing organizational efficiency.

Sending written preliminary observations to the audit client serves an important purpose in the audit process. It allows internal auditors to convey their findings clearly and helps in highlighting the significance of the issues identified during the audit.

IIA Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating:

This standard requires that communication must be accurate, objective, clear, concise, constructive, complete, and timely. Written observations help ensure that these criteria are met, particularly in expressing the significance of the audit findings.

Importance of Written Communication:

Clarity and Precision: Written communication allows the auditor to carefully craft the message, ensuring that the findings are communicated clearly and precisely, reducing the risk of misinterpretation.

Expressing Significance: By putting observations in writing, auditors can emphasize the importance of the findings, ensuring that the client understands the potential impact on the organization.

IIA Practice Advisory 2410-1:

This advisory suggests that written observations allow auditors to provide a detailed explanation of the findings, including the root cause, potential effects, and recommendations. This is particularly important when the auditor needs to convey the seriousness or significance of the issues found.

Option A (Allows more interpretation): Written observations are intended to reduce misinterpretation, not increase it.

Option C (Equally effective): Written observations often have more weight and permanence than verbal ones, especially in formal settings.

Option D (Limits premature agreement): This is not the primary purpose of written observations; rather, it is to clearly express the auditor’s findings and their significance.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it highlights the role of written observations in conveying the significance of audit findings, consistent with IIA guidance on effective communication.

Combining observations into one reported finding can be appropriate when they were noted during the same audit and the action plan has a common owner. In this case, the failure of both the financial reporting function and the AR staff to perform reconciliations regularly is interconnected and points to a systemic issue under the responsibility of the controller. Addressing these issues together can provide a more comprehensive view of the control deficiencies and facilitate more effective remediation. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.

The IIA’s Practice Advisory on Communicating Results.

A risk-based approach to control self-assessment focuses on aligning the organization’s business objectives with the risks managed by specific work units. This method ensures that the controls are effectively designed and operated to mitigate risks that could impede achieving business objectives. Options A, B, and C describe evaluating controls and processes in specific contexts but do not illustrate the primary focus of linking business objectives with the associated risks at the work unit level, which is central to a risk-based approach.References:

IIA Practice Guide on Control Self-Assessment.

IIA Standard 2120: Risk Management.

The rotational model refers to a staffing arrangement where employees, such as internal auditors, are rotated into different roles within the organization, often for a fixed period. In this scenario, a senior internal auditor is hired within the internal audit activity for two years before transitioning to an operations manager role. This model helps in developing a deeper understanding of the organization, broadening skill sets, and fostering cross-functional expertise. It benefits both the internal audit activity and the broader organization by facilitating knowledge transfer and career development.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide on "Implementing a Rotational Internal Audit Program"

IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency: "Internal auditors must possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their individual responsibilities."

In the risk control map, Risk C is positioned in the upper left quadrant, indicating it is critical (high risk significance) but with a low level of control. This suggests that the current controls are insufficient to mitigate the high level of risk associated with Risk C. For critical risks, a higher level of control is necessary to ensure that the risk is properly managed and mitigated. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Risk Management Framework" (COSO)

Coordinating audit plans with other internal and external assurance providers is critical to ensure coverage and avoid duplication of efforts. According to IIA Practice Advisory 2050-1, sharing high-level information such as objectives, scope, and timing supports effective coordination and minimizes the risk of conflicts of interest, while still maintaining confidentiality. Detailed sharing of risk assessments, planned tests, and past results might breach confidentiality and independence standards.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Advisory 2050-1: Coordination of Internal and External Audit Activities