Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00096:body:0:p55
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025C00096
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 157821–160878

group financial report is a cumulative and iterative process.  As the group auditor performs planned audit procedures, the audit evidence obtained may cause the group auditor to modify the nature, timing or extent of other planned audit procedures as information may come to the group auditor's attention that differs significantly from the information on which the risk assessment was based.  For example:

           * The misstatements identified at a component may need to be considered in relation to other components; or

           * The group auditor may become aware of access restrictions to information or people at a component because of changes in the environment (e.g., war, civil unrest or outbreaks of disease).

    In such circumstances, the group auditor may need to re-evaluate the planned audit procedures, based on the revised consideration of assessed risks for all or some of the significant classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures and related assertions.

 1.       The evaluation required by paragraph 51 assists the group auditor in determining whether the overall group audit strategy and group audit plan developed to respond to the assessed risks of material misstatement of the group financial report continues to be appropriate.  The requirement in ASA 330[88] for the auditor, irrespective of the assessed risks of material misstatement, to design and perform substantive procedures for each material class of transactions, account balance, and disclosure also may be helpful for purposes of this evaluation in the context of the group financial report.

 2.       The group auditor may consider the engagement team's exercise of professional scepticism when evaluating the sufficiency and appropriateness of audit evidence obtained.  For example, the group auditor may consider whether matters such as those described in paragraph A17 have inappropriately led the engagement team to:

           * Obtain audit evidence that is easier to access without giving appropriate consideration to its relevance and reliability:

           * Obtain less persuasive evidence than is necessary in the circumstances; or

           * Design and perform audit procedures in a manner that is biased towards obtaining evidence that is corroborative or excluding evidence that is contradictory.

 1.       ASA 220[89] requires the engagement partner to determine, on or before the date of the auditor's report, through review of audit documentation and discussion with the engagement team, that sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained to support the conclusions reached and for the auditor's report to be issued.  Information that may be relevant to the group auditor's evaluation of the audit evidence obtained from the work performed by component auditors depends on the facts and circumstances of the group audit, and may include:

           * The communications from the component auditors required by paragraph 45, including the overall findings or conclusions of the component auditors on the work