An auditor’s objective in a review engagement is to obtain limited assurance, primarily by performing inquiry and analytical procedures, about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, thereby enabling the auditor to express a conclusion on whether anything has come to the auditor’s attention that causes the auditor to believe the financial statements are not prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with an applicable financial reporting framework.
MindBridge empowers auditors to enhance their analytical capabilities by analyzing the underlying data contained in the financial statements. The use of advanced analytics, such as multivariate regression, statistical analyses, and data visualization, provides insights that improve the sufficiency and appropriateness of review evidence.
6 reasons to leverage MindBridge for you next review engagement
- Reliability of data: Easily check the accuracy and completeness of the data provided by the client.
- Understanding the entity: Leverage trends and ratios to obtain an understanding of the entity, focus on areas likely to contain a misstatement and ask more specific questions to the client.
- Materiality and Scoping: Automate the scoping procedures by updating Materiality and focus on Material account balances.
- Preliminary Analytical procedures: Automate your preliminary analytical procedures and include in-line commentary from the preliminary discussion between the engagement team and the client.
- Documentation and Evidence: For all scoped-in accounts, a significant account report can be generated with an ability to add in-line commentary. These reports will help automate and standardize working papers and bring in efficiency and consistency in your firm.
- Communication to those charged with governance: The high-fidelity reports and visualizations can be included in the communication with those charged with governance which will provide greater insights to client's business and internal controls.
Apart from these, an auditor can still take benefit of different control points, risk percentages and enhance the overall risk assessment process but given that a review is a limited assurance engagement, an auditor should use professional judgment and evaluate overall risk of an engagement before leveraging all additional details on their review engagement.
Anything else on your mind?