CIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Passing Score

According to the IIA guidance, sufficient information is defined as information that is factual, adequate, and convincing. This means that the information gathered during an audit must be based on verifiable facts, must be enough to form a reasonable conclusion, and must be persuasive enough to support the audit findings and recommendations. Ensuring information meets these criteria is essential for the credibility and reliability of the audit process.

References:

IIA Standard 2310: "Identifying Information"

IIA Practice Advisory 2310-1: "Identifying Information"

by a grantee that received a charitable contribution, the most effective method is to visit the grantee and directly assess whether the project execution aligns with the scope defined in the grant. This method provides firsthand evidence of the grantee’s activities and ensures that the charitable contributions are used as intended.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement objectives. Visiting the grantee allows auditors to observe and verify the actual execution of the project, which provides the most direct and reliable evidence.

Field Visits:

Conducting a site visit enables auditors to see the project in action, interview relevant personnel, and compare actual activities to what was promised in the grant proposal. This method helps ensure that the grantee is fulfilling its obligations and that the organization’s charitable funds are being used effectively.

Direct Evidence:

Direct observation of the grantee’s activities provides the highest level of assurance regarding the validity of the reported activities. This aligns with IIA’s emphasis on obtaining the best available evidence to support audit findings.

Option B (Verifying final report vs. initial budget): This only compares reports, which might not accurately reflect the actual activities conducted by the grantee.

Option C (Reconciling general ledger accounts): This focuses on financial records, which may not provide sufficient detail about the actual activities conducted.

Option D (Interviewing corporate affairs employees): While informative, this method only provides secondhand information and does not directly verify the grantee’s activities.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because visiting the grantee provides the most reliable and direct evidence that the activities are in line with the grant’s defined scope, ensuring the validity of the grantee’s reported activities.

The CAE has a responsibility to communicate significant risks to the board, particularly when the residual risk exceeds the organization's risk appetite. By communicating with the board, the CAE ensures that the highest level of governance is aware of the risk and can make informed decisions about how to address it. Ignoring the risk, assuming responsibility without authority, or only ensuring senior management's acknowledgment without further action would be insufficient and not in line with the CAE’s duties.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Internal Audit’s Role in Risk Management

Given the time constraint and the need for specialized knowledge in financial markets, inviting a guest auditor from one of the organization's affiliates who has the required expertise is the most appropriate solution. This approach leverages existing internal resources with the necessary skills, which can be more efficient and cost-effective than hiring new staff or outsourcing the engagement. Additionally, it facilitates knowledge sharing and can help build internal audit capacity for future engagements.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 1210 - Proficiency