Should additional personnel (such as senior managers) be included within the mandatory rotation requirements?
While acknowledging that one of the goals of the partner rotation requirements is to ensure that audit engagement team members do not “grow up” on an engagement, we do not believe that audit quality will be improved by extending the partner rotation requirements beyond the partner level, rather that audit quality may well suffer as a result of extending the demands of rotating personnel on an engagement, particularly in specialized industries or where significant audit and accounting issues may exist. Is the five-year “time out” period necessary or appropriate? Would some shorter time period be sufficient, such as two, three or four years? Should there be different “time out” periods based on a partner’s role in the audit process? While we recognize and support the value of partner rotation, we also believe that audit quality will be higher as a result of consistency of personnel on an engagement. Accordingly, we believe that there are benefits to providing for different “time out” per
Related Questions
- Are there different certification requirements for managers than for technically oriented information assurance or information security personnel?
- Should a consultant designated senior/key personnel be included in Budget Section A of the SF 424 (R&R) budget component?
- Are there any additional mandatory costs that are not included in the adoption fee?
