GAAP ALERT No.1/2012 To read on line please click here
- Asset values and going concern assessments, including adequate disclosure of material assumptions
- Consolidation decisions and off balance sheet arrangements, and
- Proper disclosure of segment information in a manner that enables useful assessment of the separate businesses.
ASIC recently issued its Regulatory Guide 230 ‘Disclosing non-IFRS financial information’ and will be monitoring both the financial reports and market releases about those reports to ensure proper balanced use of non-IFRS information in the market.
ASIC Deputy Chairman Belinda Gibson, said, “ASIC is focused on fair and efficient markets. Confidence in the quality of financial reporting is fundamental for investors, lenders and also market regulators”. “While the overall quality of financial reporting in Australia compares favourably with other major jurisdictions, we continue to find a number of cases where material adjustments are required to financial reports. This release is intended to assist companies and auditors to finalise financial reports that best meet the requirements of the law and ultimately benefit the users of financial reports”, Ms Gibson said.
The results of ASIC review of financial reports for listed and unlisted entities for the 30 June reporting seasons were:
Asset Values: Impairment testing of goodwill, identifiable intangibles and other assets continues to be an area requiring improvement. A number of companies have made substantial impairment write-downs following ASIC enquiries. ASIC is currently making further enquiries of a number of entities where there are indicators of possible asset impairments, such as reported net assets being significantly higher than the entity’s market capitalisation. ASIC has concerns that some entities are ignoring the significance of these indicators. Other impairment issues identified included:
- Use of unrealistically optimistic discount and growth rates
- Failure to disclose carrying amounts allocated to each cash generating unit and the basis for determining recoverable amounts
- Lack of disclosure of assumptions used in discounted cash flow calculations, particularly growth rates and discount rates, and
- No sensitivity analysis for changes in key assumptions.
Some topical events that may affect asset values include: exposures to countries with economic uncertainties; the impact of exchange rate movements; the imminent carbon tax and the proposed mineral resource rent tax. Focus should also be placed on values of financial assets and investment properties measured at fair value. Also the lessons from the Centro case should encourage directors to carefully consider values in light of their knowledge of the business and its prospects in the context of the economic conditions.
Going Concern: There continues to be instances where companies have failed to make adequate disclosures relating to the ability to continue as a going concern. Going concern assessments are critical. Directors need to be realistic in their assessment of the business, its’ prospects and future cash flows. Entities should also continue to focus on the ability to refinance debt at appropriate cost and compliance with lending covenants.
Off Balance Sheet Arrangements: ASIC queried a number of entities that had not consolidated entities in which they hold an ownership interest of over 50%. Many of these entities are now consolidating those interests. While ownership interest is only an indicator of control, directors should review off-balance sheet investments in which a majority ownership is held. Leaving arrangements off-balance sheet on the basis that risks may be remote is unlikely to be appropriate where no significant risks are borne by other parties. Where adverse economic circumstances may result in the entity bearing most losses, it is likely that arrangements should be on-balance sheet. Where arrangements remain off balance sheet, the details of the arrangements and any exposures should be disclosed, together with the reasons why they are not on balance sheet.
Current vs Non-Current Classifications: The correct classification of liabilities and assets between current and non-current is important to an understanding of the financial position of an entity. ASIC continues to find cases where current liabilities have been incorrectly classified as non-current and adjustments have been required. Directors should ensure that there are appropriate processes to ensure the correct classification, and should review the classification having regard to their knowledge of the business and its’ funding arrangements.
Estimates and Accounting Policy Judgements: Some entities did not make material disclosures of significant judgements in applying accounting policies and sources of estimation uncertainty. Other entities included ‘boiler plate’ disclosures. These disclosures should be specific to the entity and its assets, liabilities, equity, income and expenses. Sources of estimation uncertainty are important, as is information on accounting policy judgements. Directors should ensure that meaningful disclosures are made in these areas.
Non-IFRS Profits: ASIC released a Regulatory Guide RG 230 ‘Disclosing non-IFRS financial information’, which provides guidance on the disclosure of non-IFRS financial information in financial reports, transaction documents, and other documents. Non-IFRS financial information is financial information that is presented other than in accordance with all relevant accounting standards. Directors, preparers of financial reports and auditors should consider the impact of RG 230 at 31 December 2011. ASIC will contact companies where the disclosures breach accounting standards or are potentially misleading.
Operating and Financial Review: ASIC reviewed the Operating and Financial Reviews (OFRs) of 120 listed companies at 30 June 2011 for compliance with sections 299 and 299A of the Corporations Act. ASIC is concerned with a lack of meaningful disclosure of information in many OFRs, including the extent of meaningful analysis of underlying drivers of results. ASIC is also concerned by poor disclosure by many entities of business strategies and prospects for future financial years. ASIC is making enquiries of a number of companies and are planning a consultation on the proper content of these reports in the coming year. The consultation paper will also deal with the possible over-use of the exemption from disclosing information on the basis of unreasonable prejudice. Providing a meaningful OFR should continue to be a focus for directors at 31 December 2011.
Segment Reporting: Listed entities must disclose segment information to enable users to evaluate the nature and financial effects of their business activities and the economic environments in which they operate. They are also required to identify and report on segments having regard to components of their business for which there is regular internal reporting of operating results to the entity’s chief operating decision maker. Following ASIC enquiries, some entities are now reporting more segments. In some cases, information disclosed in documents such as market announcements or the OFR suggest that there may be more segments that should be reported in the financial report. Directors should ensure that segment disclosures at 31 December 2011 provide information based on internal reporting and any other segment information needed by investors.
Financial Instruments: A number of entities did not make adequate disclosures to enable users of financial reports to understand and evaluate the nature and extent of the specific market, credit and liquidity risks associated with their use of financial instruments. Disclosures should be meaningful to users, and specific disclosures should be made rather than boilerplate disclosures.
A number of entities failed to disclose financial asset fair value information using a three level hierarchy reflecting the extent to which observable market data is used in the measurement , or failed to disclose the methods and significant assumptions used to value assets for which there was no observable market data. Other deficiencies related to disclosing an ageing analysis of financial assets that are past due but not impaired and an analysis of impaired financial assets. Directors should focus on financial instrument disclosures at 31 December 2011.
New Accounting Standards: A number of new accounting standards have been issued recently that may impact materially on the financial reports in future years, including a new standard on consolidation accounting. The impacts of the new standards must be disclosed in 31 December 2011 full year financial reports.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT): The MRRT legislation passed the lower House of Parliament but is yet to be considered by the Senate. When enacted or substantively enacted, entities impacted by the tax may need to re-measure their deferred tax balances. The MRRT appears to be an income tax to be accounted for under AASB 112 ‘Income Taxes’ (similar to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax). Where an entity re-measures the tax base of its depreciable mining assets under the legislation, there could be a significant impact on deferred tax balances and income tax expense. Entities should adequately plan for any valuation advice required and take care when re-measuring the tax base of their depreciable assets. Entities should assess the impact of the proposed MRRT on asset impairment and consider disclosing expected future impacts on deferred tax balances.
Rights to Future Income: ASIC is making further enquiries of some entities that have recognised a right to future income as a financial asset at fair value rather than intangible assets required to be measured at amortised cost. Recently, two companies have amended their treatments. Directors should ensure the correct classification of rights to future income at 31 December 2011.
Intangible Asset Revaluation: Accounting standards only allow entities to revalue certain identifiable intangible assets to fair value and only then where an active market exists for the asset. ASIC is not aware of any identifiable intangible assets for which an active market exists in Australia. After ASIC enquiries, some entities have recently ceased using fair values. Recent changes in accounting standards will not change the ‘active market’ test. Directors should ensure that the active market test is met for any revalued intangible assets at 31 December 2011.
“Most of the ASIC findings are perennial issues, and indicate that preparers, governance and auditors are not learning lessons from the past reviews”, said Colin Parker, Head of the GAAP Consulting Network. “ASIC’s patience must surely be wearing thin as users of financial reports are being short changed by substantive non-compliance with the law– stronger enforcement action is more likely in the future”, he added. “Preparers and governance need to review the financial reporting templates well in advance of year end and update the templates for further developments”. “Auditors should redouble their efforts in the pre-issuance reviews of financial reports”, he added. “Entities and auditors would benefit from refresher training on the accounting standards and a review of the financial reporting processes”, he concluded.
The 31 December reporting period may give rise to need for independent technical consultation on financial reporting such as those identified by ASIC. The GAAP Consulting team would be pleased to assist, contact Colin Parker on 0421 088 611 or colin@gaap.com.au. Our technical consultation protocol may assist in framing your question.
Economic Conditions Continue to Challenge Preparers and Auditors Alike
In light of the current environment, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) reminded auditors of their important responsibilities under the International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and that the appropriateness of management’s use of the going concern assumption is a matter to be considered on every audit engagement. IAASB notes that global economy continues to experience difficult conditions as the effects of the financial crisis, for example, on corporate cash flows and access to credit, persist. Volatility in capital markets, and issues including measurement and disclosure of exposures to sovereign debt of distressed countries, continue to create uncertainty. The impact of these issues and uncertainty has wide-ranging financial reporting implications that often extend beyond national borders. These and other current economic conditions present unique challenges for management of entities, those charged with governance, and auditors in meeting their responsibilities, including assessing an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and making relevant disclosures in the financial statements and, as appropriate, the auditor’s report.
Prof. Arnold Schilder, Chairman of the IAASB, commented “Difficult economic conditions give rise to many important audit considerations, but none more important, or more difficult, than evaluating management’s assessment of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and determining the appropriate auditor reporting in the circumstances.” He added “auditors must remain alert throughout the audit for evidence of events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. We cannot stress enough the importance of professional skepticism and judgment in evaluating financial statement disclosures and the implications for the auditor’s report when a material uncertainty exists relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.”
The 2009 IAASB Staff Audit Practice Alert ‘Considerations in Respect of Going Concern in the Current Economic Environment’ highlighted matters relevant to the consideration of the going concern assumption in the preparation of financial statements. Among other matters, it addressed factors relevant to the assessment of going concern; the period of time considered in making a going concern assessment; financial statement disclosures; forming an opinion on the financial statements and the implications for the auditor’s report.
“While this Audit Practice Alert was released in context of the 2008-2009 credit crisis, many of the matters addressed in it are equally relevant today. For example, an entity may be experiencing a decline in its financial health, or may have material uncertainties arising from direct or indirect exposures to sovereign debt of distressed countries. Auditors are therefore encouraged to review the Alert and, importantly, the relevant requirements in the ISAs,” emphasised Prof. Schilder. The Audit Practice Alert Audit ‘Consideration in Respects of Going Concern in the Current Economic Environment’ was also released in the Australian context by AUASB.
“The reminder from the IAASB is most timely”, said Michael Cain, Head of Assurance Services, at the GAAP Consulting Network. “The application of auditing and accounting standards needs to be reassessed in the context of the economic and regulatory conditions at each reporting date”, he added. “Tone at Top the messages to audit team, learning lessons from internal and external inspection program, and focused training on contemporary issues should be a regular part of the audit practice’s preparation for the year end”, he concluded.
New Risk Management Standard for Accounting Firms
The Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Board’s (APESB) has released a compulsory professional and ethical standard requiring accounting firms to establish a risk management framework. The new standard APES 325 ‘Risk Management for Firms’ means accounting practices will now be required to develop a risk management framework that includes policies and procedures to identify, assess and manage key organisational risks.
Requirements of the framework include governance, legal matters, finance, human resources, technology and any other broader considerations, which may have an impact on business continuity and quality of service.
The new standard will come into effect 1 January 2013 (the ED foreshadowed an operate date of 1 April 2012). The APES 325 will replace RMS 1 ‘Risk Management Statement’ issued by CPA Australia and N3 ‘Risk Management Guidelines’ issued by The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia.
APESB Chair Kate Spargo says: “A Risk Management Framework is a set of elements that provide the foundations and arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing and continually improving risk management throughout the firm.” Many accounting firms already have risk management practices in place but this new standard reinforces the importance of risk management and provides a framework for it,” she added. “We believe the standard will be of particular value to small-to-medium private practices in helping them to consider and manage the strategic and operational risks that come with running a professional practice.” Ms Kate Spargo concluded.
Commenting on the release of APES 325, Colin Parker, Head of the GAAP Consulting Network stated “Understanding and implementation of a RMF may pose a significant challenge in terms of the implementation time table and resourcing”. “The nature and extent of the policies and procedures developed by a firm will depend on various factors and this means that any off-shelf one size fits product may be unsuitable to meet individual practice needs” he stated. “Start early and integrate existing ethical and technical requirements under APES 325 umbrella”, he added.
To help practitioners in dealing with the RMF rules, Colin provided the 11 action items:
- Place on partners’ agenda and discuss implications for the practice (and, where applicable, for the Network)
- Assign responsibility for RMF monitoring, implementation and maintenance
- Consider timing and resourcing for RMF project, including the use of external resources
- Schedule risk management training and a workshop for partners and senior staff
- Integrate existing policies re service lines (e.g., assurance, compilations, insolvency, management consulting, forensic, taxation, valuations, and APES 320 ‘Quality Control of Firms’) into a coherent RMF
- Update QA and staff manuals
- Organise a quality assurance review of the new/revised RMF and changes to policies and procedures regarding the service lines
- Train staff on revised policies and procedures
- Determine frequency of reviews to comply with APES 320 monitoring requirements
- Consider the impact on the professional indemnity insurance policy of the firm – a number of such policies require a description of risk management policies and procedures, and
- Update tender template for revised description of RMF.
“We have previously released a review of the RMF proposals in our GAAS Insight resource and covered the topic in our GAAPinars and in-house training sessions in 2011. We look forward to assisting practices in understanding, implementing and QAing these new requirements”, Colin concluded.
Financial Reporting
Reduce Financial Reporting Disclosures By RDR Adoption
With the 31 December year end on upon us, entities (in particular NFP entities) may look to simply the financial reporting disclosures. One way in though the adoption of new Reduced Disclosure Regime. AASB 1053 and AASB 2010-4 provide a new 2 Tier framework and amend 28 Accounting Standards and 10 Interpretations for the RDR. Our publication ‘The Reduced Disclosure Regime: A Practical Guide to Implementation’, authored by Carmen Ridley and Colin Parker, will be of particular assistance to all those involved in the financial reporting supply chain.
Highlights of ‘The Reduced Disclosure Regime: A Practical Guide to Implementation’ include:
- Executive Summary
- Explanation of the Regime: Summary; History; Timeframe; Impact on different entities and our recommendations for you
- Implementation Plan: Key Considerations; Plan for Early adoption; What if we are not going to early adopt?
- Sample directors’ resolutions, directors’ declarations and extracts from Note 1
- Four Disclosure Checklists for the RDR (over 150 pages): Reduced Disclosure Regime; Disclosures No Longer Required under RDR; AASB Standard Applicable to Tier 2 without Amendment; and AASB Standards Excluded from Tier 2
Place your order now or seek our implementation assistance.
IFRS 10 Consolidation Transition Guidance Proposed Clarification
The IASB published for public comment proposed amendments to IFRS 10 ‘Consolidated Financial Statements’. The objective of the proposed amendments is to clarify the transition guidance in IFRS 10 by confirming when an entity needs to apply IFRS 10 retrospectively. The proposals are intended to allay the concerns of some who thought that the transition provisions were more burdensome than originally intended. It is proposed that the effective date of the proposed amendments would be aligned with the effective date of IFRS 10. The exposure draft ‘Transition Guidance (Proposed amendments to IFRS 10)’ is open for comment until 21 March. The AASB issued ED 224 ‘Transition Guidance (proposed amendments to AASB 10 ‘Consolidated Financial Statements’)’ that incorporates IASB ED/2011/7 with comments are due to the AASB by 22 February.
Auditing
Remember Auditing NFP Fundraising Revenue Guidance Operative for 31 December Year Ends
Many Not-for-Profit Entities have a 31 December balance date. In auditing the fundraising revenue auditors will need to be familiar with the recently issued Guidance Statement GS 019 ‘Auditing Fundraising Revenue of Not-for- Profit Entities’ (April 2011). Auditors will need to understand the characteristics of the NFP environment and sources of fundraising and the associated risks.
GS 019 provides guidance to auditors on the factors to consider when planning, performing and reporting on the completeness of fundraising revenue, in particular, cash donations for NFPs. It replaces AGS 1054 ‘Auditing Revenue of Charitable Entities’ (July 2002). The major changes from AGS 1054 to GS 019 are the incorporation of risk-based audit methodology, fraud standard, updated audit reporting requirements, and reflection of the Clarity Auditing Standards requirements. The source of fundraising revenue does not automatically result in a modified opinion. Issues of materiality and risk mitigation need to be considered.
Auditors may wish to consider the following action items in relation to the completeness assertion when auditing fund raising revenue:
- For each NFP that has fund raising revenue revisit the audit approach and benchmark it against GS 019 guidance
- Tailor audit programs for client specific risks, audit risk assessment procedures and tests
- Reconsider the need for training on the risk based auditing standards (e.g., ASA 315 ‘Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement through Understanding the Entity and Its Environment’, ASA 330 ‘The Auditor’s Responses to Assessed Risks’, and ASA 240 ‘The Auditor’s Responsibilities Relating to Fraud in an Audit of a Financial Report’)
- Update NFP audit report precedents
- Place additional emphasis on communicating to governance internal control deficiencies over fund raising, and
- Seek assistance with emphasis of matter and modified audit opinions.
Guidance Statement GS 019 ‘Auditing Fundraising Revenue of Not-for- Profit Entities’ is one of the topics covered in our audit resource GAAS Insight (over 80 pages of analysis of contemporary audit issues is available and more to come). In addition to the analysis of the revised guidance in GS 019, GAAS Insight No.12011 ‘Auditing Fundraising Revenue of Not-for-Profit Entities’ contains two appendices ‘Fundraising and Possible Internal Controls’ and ‘Indicative Audit Procedures’. Subscribe to GAAS Insight now.
Pro Forma Financial Information New International Assurance Standard
Recognising the need for reliable information in domestic and cross-border securities offerings and other fundraising activities, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) released new International Standard on Assurance Engagements ISAE 3420 ‘Assurance Engagements to Report on Compilation of Pro Forma Financial Information included a Prospectus’. The new ISAE 3420 provides comprehensive guidance on the nature and extent of a practitioner’s work when engaged to report on the compilation of pro forma financial information. Among other matters, it establishes minimum benchmarks for suitable criteria for the compilation of such information. It also covers related engagement acceptance and reporting considerations. ISAE 3420 is effective for assurance reports dated on or after 31 March 2013.
Companies seeking to access capital markets commonly include pro forma financial information in their prospectuses as a key element to enable investors and others to better assess the investment opportunities presented. Pro forma financial information included in an issuer’s prospectus illustrates the impact of a proposed acquisition, equity or debt issuance, or other transactions on the issuer’s historical financial information as if such event or transaction had occurred at an earlier selected date.
“Pro forma financial information included in prospectuses plays an important role in informing the public’s investment decisions in today’s increasingly global capital markets. Enhancing public confidence in how such financial information has been produced is therefore especially important,” said Prof. Arnold Schilder, Chairman of the IAASB. “The IAASB is confident that this new standard will help meet the public interest need for harmonised practices internationally in this area,” Prof. Schilder added.
Reminder Revised ‘Agreed-Upon Procedures’ Standard for 31 December Engagements
Remember, ASRS 4400 ‘Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements to Report Factual Findings’ replaces AUS 904 ‘Engagements to Perform Agreed-Upon Procedures’, and is applicable to agreed-upon procedures engagements commencing on or after 1 October 2011. Agreed-upon procedures engagements can address such matters as: turnover lease agreements, management agreements, leave provisions, loan securitisation, stocktake procedures, and debtors’ balances or controls to meet contractual obligations.
We have reviewed ASRS 4400 in a recently GAAS Insight “ASRS 4400 ‘Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements – Analysis and Implementation’” that provides:
- An overview of the changes from the existing AUS 904 ‘Engagements to Perform Agreed-Upon Procedures’ to the new ASRS 4400 ‘Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagements to Report Factual Findings’
- A summary of the key requirements from ASRS 4400
- A work program (appendices 1 and 2) which includes the procedures an assurance practitioner is to apply using their professional capabilities and competence
- Examples of the engagement letter (appendix 3) and report of factual findings (appendix 4) from ASRS 4400, and
- Templates of ‘Example Template Engagement Letter for an Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagement’ (appendix 5) and ‘Example Template of Report of Factual Findings’ (appendix 6).
Subscribe to GAAS Insight now.
Governance
‘Internal Control – Integrated Framework’ Revamped
The US Committee of Sponsoring Organisations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) released, for public comment, an updated ‘Internal Control – Integrated Framework (Framework)’ intended to help entities improve performance with greater agility, confidence and clarity. The original framework (1992) has become one of the most widely used internal control frameworks in the world.
“The Framework can be of considerable use to accountants and auditors, it has stood the test of time and is good to be see that the Framework is being updated”, said Michael Cain, GAAP Consulting Network Head of Assurance Services. “The risk based auditing standards make much of understanding the internal control environment and key controls, the Framework provides a means of obtaining such an understanding, identifying and reporting internal control deficiencies”, he added. “CFO’s and internal auditors will also find the modernised Framework helpful”, he stated.
The Framework retains the core definition of internal control and the five components of a system of internal control. One of the most significant enhancements is the codification of internal control concepts introduced in the original framework into 17 principles and supporting attributes that further support organisations as they apply judgment in managing risk and improving performance in an increasingly complex and rapidly changing environment. Following the comment period, which ends 31 March, the Framework will be revised and release of the final Framework is expected in spring of 2012.
The five components of the COSO Internal Control framework are:
Control Environment: The foundation for all other components of internal control, providing discipline, process and structure as established by the board and senior management with the following principles:
- Commitment to integrity and ethics
- Oversight for internal control by the board of directors, independent of management
- Structures, reporting lines and appropriate responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives established by management and overseen by the board
- A commitment to attract, develop and retain competent individuals in alignment with objectives, and
- Holding individuals accountable for their internal control responsibilities in pursuit of objectives.
Risk Assessment: The basis for how risks should be managed involves a dynamic process. Management must consider possible changes in the external environment and within the business that may be obstacles to its objectives. There are four principles of risk assessment:
- Specifying objectives clearly enough for risks to be identified and assessed
- Identifying and analysing risks in order to determine how they should be managed
- Considering the potential of fraud, and
- Identifying and assessing changes that could significantly impact the system of internal control.
Control Activities: These are established to help ensure management’s directives to mitigate risks get carried out. Control activities are performed at all levels and at various stages within the business process and over technology. There are three principles of control activities:
- Selecting and developing controls that help mitigate risks to an acceptable level
- Selecting and developing general control activities over technology, and
- Deploying control activities as specified in policies and relevant procedures.
Information and Communication: Communication must occur internally and externally to provide information needed to carry out day-to-day internal control activities. All personnel must understand their responsibilities. There are three principles relating to information and communication:
- Obtaining or generating relevant, high-quality information to support internal control
- Internally communicating information, including objectives and responsibilities, necessary to support the other components of internal control, and
- Communicating relevant internal control matters to external parties.
Monitoring Activities: Evaluations ascertain whether each component of internal control is present and functioning. Deficiencies are communicated in a timely manner, with serious matters reported to senior management and the board. There are two principles relating to monitoring activities:
- Selecting, developing and performing ongoing or separate evaluations of the components of internal control, and
- Evaluating and communicating deficiencies to those responsible for corrective action, including senior management and the board of directors, where appropriate.
“Issued in 1992, the COSO ‘Internal Control-Integrated Framework’ has become the most widely used internal control framework in the world,” said David L. Landsittel, Chairman of COSO. “The key concepts proposed in our original framework are timeless, yet the changes we have seen in the business and operating environments have driven the need for this update. The update should allow organisations to more effectively utilise the framework to develop and maintain systems of internal control in support of their long-term success.”
Miles Everson, Global Leader of Governance, Risk and Compliance with PwC and Project Leader noted, “We are spearheading this update to enable organisations of all types and sizes to efficiently develop systems of internal control that further enhance the likelihood of achieving their objectives.” “Effective internal control allows organisations to adapt to a changing business landscape, and obtain confidence that controls mitigate risks to acceptable levels,” added Landsittel. “This is key for the long-term success of any organisation”.
GAAP Consulting
2012 Dates for Our Financial Reporting and Auditing Conference
The GAAP Consulting team will be presenting our popular financial reporting and auditing conference in March 2012, so pencil in the following dates in your diary:
- Melbourne – Wednesday 7th; Thursday 8th & Friday 9th March
- Sydney – Wednesday 14th; Thursday 15th & Friday 16th March, and
- Brisbane – Wednesday 28th; Thursday 29th & Friday 30th March.
Follow Us on Twitter and LinkedIn
The GAAP Consulting team continues to tweet away with over 370 tweets in 2011 that provided a real time heads up on a topic; succinct and to the point. Retweet to your contacts and clients to keep them informed! Our tweets are followed up in more detail in GAAP Alert, in our subscription services, GAAPinars, and in-house training. Follows us at Twitter: gaapconsulting, ‘What’s New’ on www.gaap.com.au, or LinkedIn: Colin Parker.
Please forward this GAAP Alert to a colleague for their information and use. GAAP Alert registrations can be made directly at http://www.gaap.com.au
Please click here if you wish to unsubscribe.
Consulting, Training, Information Services
© GAAP.COM.AU
While all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of information contained in this newsletter, we take no responsibility for any action(s) taken on the basis of information contained herein or for any errors or omissions in that information. We expressly disclaim any liability whatsoever, to any person in relation to any reliance, in whole or in part, on such information. Readers should consult a suitably qualified professional adviser to obtain advice tailored to their particular circumstances.
|
