02-14-2010, 07:33 PM
Dear Greatkhans
Thanks for your reply. Somewhere after reading your first paragraph I am feeling guilt for having done something in recent past on another thread. However, I believe you can understand that it was with purest intention, and I believe, you know I am obliged for your brotherly gesture.
Itâs really nice to see the contents, style and maturity that is reflective from your post. I appreciate people like you who have made achievements in life and are in fact using the education and qualification in the manner it requires from us.
Your friend from U.K. has highlighted a very basic element of our personalities and the society as a whole. I also appreciate that as a nation we have a basic instinct of not having open mind to listen and learn. We have lost tolerance and our behaviour is non-democratic. I have no other opinion on most of the very basic issues pointed out by you. However, with all the due honor and regard I differ couple of thing like IFACâs role and similarity with UNO (since unlike IFAC the UNO is discarded and ineffective avenue), suggesting best education/qualification alternatives to aspirant students with decent merits and demerits etc and on some of those, I have already conveyed you my ideas.
In order to remind my NAFS and in order to inform the readers, let me again mention that I have no claim for any perfection (this carries a vast meaning) and have no claim of having fullest knowledge. I have always accepted wherever I was wrong on any technical issue or wherever I did not know something. I wonder how we can argue on any thing where we are obviously lacking something. Although I keep on doing this regularly, but I thank you for highlighting, with soft spoken words, the moral issues that always are effective to remind such things to our NFAS.
I agree to you that Laws come before ethical standards. There is no argument; however, in the case that was being discussed the Ethics Guidelines were indirectly made the part of law, so these are to be considered in its association.
I agree that ICAP is also a regulatory body and should step in whenever a violation is surfaced. However, it has developed very effective procedures to surface such violations. These procedures materially coincide internationally accepted systems and procedures. The issue to be considered is of âsignificanceâ and materialityâ and âpublic interestâ. Of course I am talking with reference to corporate set-ups that are obliged to get audited. Why the companies/entities have been segregated into categories like âListedâ, âEconomically Significantâ, âMediumâ and âSmallâ follows the essence of making out procedures that at large ensure how to save the âPublic Interestâ. You know the regulatory requirements are enormous where more âpublic Interestâ is embedded. ICAP is also naturally and logically more inclined to keep strict watch on this area. Thatâs why code of corporate governance was farmed, thatâs why ICAP has developed detailed Audit Practice Manuals complying all the requirements of ISAs, thatâs why Quality Assurance Board is set up, thatâs why a Quality Control Framework has been developed, discussed and being adopted. You will appreciate that âlarge Public Interestâ does not materially get affected with family owned businesses, Sole proprietorships, little partnerships, and small sized entities etc. Although ICAPâs QCR suggests having an enhanced focus on Public Interest entities but it does not preclude other entities from such review as well. However, very petty issues do not affect the essence and purpose of the audit and very small sized entities do not affect national level economy and large public interest.
Major businesses and their auditors cannot and donât escape a check if something is wrong or odd. You may be knowing how detailed checking of financials is also performed by SECP and how much active it is these days on the fronts where public interest lies. However, every one who knows what is âAuditâ understands the risks associated with the audit and its inherent limitations. Even a fraud or similar thing at a client not captured/reported by auditors does not mean that audit was incorrectly performed. Thatâs why in many historical cases worldwide, even upon discovery of big frauds, Auditors were not declared guilty of professional ignorance and misconduct based upon detailed, independent and technical reviews of their audit working papers and the evidences they gathered and the conclusions they made. This is a vast topic and I hope most of people on this forum can understand what I am conveying. Of course where professional misconduct is seen, it is punished. We have cases like Arthur Anderson as example. Similar is the practice in Pakistan.
However, on small sized businesses the problem if lies is on all the fronts; if very small practicing firms (in majority of cases) do any thing wrong to benefit their clients to get bank loans or similar petty things; it happens due to collusion in most of the cases. I personally know very renowned banks accept very critical reporting styles and financials for extending loans. I agree ICAP has to keep a watch on it as well, and in many cases such cases are punished and reprimanded; yet all the stakeholders need to realize their responsibilities as well. Why the people facilitating auditors from their pocket are not punished as well? Why SBP does not take action against banks while they accept low quality audited financials for extending loans that give rise to cases like Bank of Punjab and Haris Steel. Every one has a role here although ICAPâs role can also not be denied.
I agree with your suggestion to Awais that he should have focused on this all process, asked relevant questions (if he was un-clarified) and then have raised the things which he logically have felt to be pointed out as suggestion. All the questions which I asked him in my earlier posts were to transfer his attention to understand that he should go back on facts and learn what is what. He is ignorant of everything and is raising indecent issues that have called for the need of the reply that I know as a side affect has teased the honored and valued readers as well. As far as readers are concerned I feel like apologizing for the inconvenience they felt. But to the fullest of my understanding, had these answers not been given, the questions would have remained un-satisfactorily answered.
Thank you very much for your thought provoking post. I would love to be in touch with you in future.
Regards,
KAMRAN.
Thanks for your reply. Somewhere after reading your first paragraph I am feeling guilt for having done something in recent past on another thread. However, I believe you can understand that it was with purest intention, and I believe, you know I am obliged for your brotherly gesture.
Itâs really nice to see the contents, style and maturity that is reflective from your post. I appreciate people like you who have made achievements in life and are in fact using the education and qualification in the manner it requires from us.
Your friend from U.K. has highlighted a very basic element of our personalities and the society as a whole. I also appreciate that as a nation we have a basic instinct of not having open mind to listen and learn. We have lost tolerance and our behaviour is non-democratic. I have no other opinion on most of the very basic issues pointed out by you. However, with all the due honor and regard I differ couple of thing like IFACâs role and similarity with UNO (since unlike IFAC the UNO is discarded and ineffective avenue), suggesting best education/qualification alternatives to aspirant students with decent merits and demerits etc and on some of those, I have already conveyed you my ideas.
In order to remind my NAFS and in order to inform the readers, let me again mention that I have no claim for any perfection (this carries a vast meaning) and have no claim of having fullest knowledge. I have always accepted wherever I was wrong on any technical issue or wherever I did not know something. I wonder how we can argue on any thing where we are obviously lacking something. Although I keep on doing this regularly, but I thank you for highlighting, with soft spoken words, the moral issues that always are effective to remind such things to our NFAS.
I agree to you that Laws come before ethical standards. There is no argument; however, in the case that was being discussed the Ethics Guidelines were indirectly made the part of law, so these are to be considered in its association.
I agree that ICAP is also a regulatory body and should step in whenever a violation is surfaced. However, it has developed very effective procedures to surface such violations. These procedures materially coincide internationally accepted systems and procedures. The issue to be considered is of âsignificanceâ and materialityâ and âpublic interestâ. Of course I am talking with reference to corporate set-ups that are obliged to get audited. Why the companies/entities have been segregated into categories like âListedâ, âEconomically Significantâ, âMediumâ and âSmallâ follows the essence of making out procedures that at large ensure how to save the âPublic Interestâ. You know the regulatory requirements are enormous where more âpublic Interestâ is embedded. ICAP is also naturally and logically more inclined to keep strict watch on this area. Thatâs why code of corporate governance was farmed, thatâs why ICAP has developed detailed Audit Practice Manuals complying all the requirements of ISAs, thatâs why Quality Assurance Board is set up, thatâs why a Quality Control Framework has been developed, discussed and being adopted. You will appreciate that âlarge Public Interestâ does not materially get affected with family owned businesses, Sole proprietorships, little partnerships, and small sized entities etc. Although ICAPâs QCR suggests having an enhanced focus on Public Interest entities but it does not preclude other entities from such review as well. However, very petty issues do not affect the essence and purpose of the audit and very small sized entities do not affect national level economy and large public interest.
Major businesses and their auditors cannot and donât escape a check if something is wrong or odd. You may be knowing how detailed checking of financials is also performed by SECP and how much active it is these days on the fronts where public interest lies. However, every one who knows what is âAuditâ understands the risks associated with the audit and its inherent limitations. Even a fraud or similar thing at a client not captured/reported by auditors does not mean that audit was incorrectly performed. Thatâs why in many historical cases worldwide, even upon discovery of big frauds, Auditors were not declared guilty of professional ignorance and misconduct based upon detailed, independent and technical reviews of their audit working papers and the evidences they gathered and the conclusions they made. This is a vast topic and I hope most of people on this forum can understand what I am conveying. Of course where professional misconduct is seen, it is punished. We have cases like Arthur Anderson as example. Similar is the practice in Pakistan.
However, on small sized businesses the problem if lies is on all the fronts; if very small practicing firms (in majority of cases) do any thing wrong to benefit their clients to get bank loans or similar petty things; it happens due to collusion in most of the cases. I personally know very renowned banks accept very critical reporting styles and financials for extending loans. I agree ICAP has to keep a watch on it as well, and in many cases such cases are punished and reprimanded; yet all the stakeholders need to realize their responsibilities as well. Why the people facilitating auditors from their pocket are not punished as well? Why SBP does not take action against banks while they accept low quality audited financials for extending loans that give rise to cases like Bank of Punjab and Haris Steel. Every one has a role here although ICAPâs role can also not be denied.
I agree with your suggestion to Awais that he should have focused on this all process, asked relevant questions (if he was un-clarified) and then have raised the things which he logically have felt to be pointed out as suggestion. All the questions which I asked him in my earlier posts were to transfer his attention to understand that he should go back on facts and learn what is what. He is ignorant of everything and is raising indecent issues that have called for the need of the reply that I know as a side affect has teased the honored and valued readers as well. As far as readers are concerned I feel like apologizing for the inconvenience they felt. But to the fullest of my understanding, had these answers not been given, the questions would have remained un-satisfactorily answered.
Thank you very much for your thought provoking post. I would love to be in touch with you in future.
Regards,
KAMRAN.