Pass Using IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Dumps

The most appropriate course of action for the CAE is to evaluate the robustness and feasibility of the management's action plan to address the identified weaknesses. The CAE should monitor the implementation progress, key dates, and deliverables to ensure that corrective actions are on track and will effectively mitigate the risks within the stipulated timeline. References: = IIA Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

According to the International Professional Practices Framework (IPPF), issuing an interim report is appropriate for keeping management informed of audit progress, especially when audit engagements extend over a long period of time, and for communicating any significant changes in the scope of the engagement. Interim reports serve as a means of maintaining transparency with management and ensuring that any adjustments to the audit plan are communicated promptly.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2440: Disseminating Results allows for interim reporting when there is a need to communicate significant findings or changes in scope before the final report is issued. This ensures that management remains informed of critical issues that may impact the audit or the organization.

The Practice Guide on Communicating Interim Results suggests that interim reports are useful for providing updates during long engagements or when there are significant changes in the engagement's scope that management needs to be aware of.

Residual risk is the risk that remains after management has taken steps to mitigate or control the inherent risks. The chief audit executive (CAE) performs residual risk assessment to determine the effectiveness of management’s actions and whether the remaining risk is acceptable.

IIA Standard 2120 – Risk Management:

The standard emphasizes that the CAE should evaluate the residual risks faced by the organization. This involves assessing whether management’s risk responses are adequate and whether any unmitigated risks (residual risks) remain within the organization’s risk tolerance.

Cost-Benefit Analysis:

Conducting a cost-benefit analysis of management’s decision not to implement a recommendation directly relates to assessing residual risk. This analysis helps determine whether the residual risk is acceptable compared to the cost of implementing the recommendation.

IIA Practice Guide on Assessing Residual Risk:

This guide outlines that assessing residual risk involves evaluating the impact of management’s controls and the risks that remain. A cost-benefit analysis is a method to quantify the impact of not addressing a recommendation, thereby evaluating the residual risk.

Option B (Inquiry of corrective action to be completed): This is more about monitoring follow-up actions rather than assessing residual risk.

Option C (Reporting status of every observation): While important, this is related to tracking audit issues, not specifically assessing residual risk.

Option D (Soliciting management’s feedback): While valuable for engagement quality, this does not directly relate to residual risk assessment.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct as it reflects the CAE’s role in assessing residual risk through cost-benefit analysis, in line with IIA standards.

When management decides not to implement a critical recommendation, especially one related to regulatory compliance and potential reputational risk, it is essential for the chief audit executive (CAE) to escalate the issue to senior management. This step ensures that management fully understands the risks involved and can make an informed decision.

IIA Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks:

This standard requires the CAE to communicate to senior management and the board when management has accepted a level of risk that the CAE believes is unacceptable. The CAE must ensure that the decision-makers are aware of the potential consequences.

Importance of Escalation:

By convening a meeting with senior management, the CAE can discuss the risks of non-compliance, including potential regulatory sanctions and reputational damage. This discussion provides an opportunity for senior management to reassess the decision in light of these risks.

IIA Practice Advisory 2600-1:

The advisory suggests that when significant risks are not being addressed by management, the CAE should communicate these concerns to higher levels of the organization. This ensures that the risks are not ignored and that appropriate action can be taken.

Option A (Do nothing): This is not appropriate, as the CAE has a responsibility to escalate significant risks.

Option B (Contact regulatory agency): This is an extreme step and should not be the first course of action. The issue should be discussed internally before involving external regulators.

Option D (Highlight to external auditors): While external auditors might need to be informed, the issue should first be addressed within the organization.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?