Partner-led audit should mean that the engagement partner takes responsibility for the direction, supervision and review of the audit, with appropriate involvement in significant judgements and communication. It does not mean the partner performs every procedure or becomes the finance team’s day-to-day contact for every request.
For a finance director or board, the useful question is how that responsibility will operate on your engagement. A clear plan is more informative than a promise of personal service.
Look at the team as well as the partner
A capable audit team combines different levels of experience. Work can be delegated appropriately while the partner remains responsible for the engagement. Ask who will coordinate fieldwork, who reviews it and how a question reaches the person with the right technical knowledge.
The size or category of firm does not establish those arrangements. A specialist firm, a mid-tier firm and a Big Four firm should each be able to explain their proposed team, available resources and supervision. Ask how changes in personnel would be managed and how specialist support would be obtained where needed.
Agree where partner involvement matters
Partner time is particularly useful when the audit strategy is set, significant risks or accounting judgements are considered, difficult matters need resolution and findings are communicated. The level and timing of involvement should reflect the engagement’s circumstances.
- Planning: understanding the business, significant changes and reporting deadlines.
- Judgements: addressing matters such as revenue, estimates, group reporting or going concern at the appropriate stage.
- Escalation: resolving significant disagreements, evidence gaps and timetable concerns.
- Completion: reviewing significant conclusions and communicating matters requiring board attention.
A planned review point is not a promise that every issue can be settled in advance. New evidence may require further work. Ask how changes will be explained and their implications discussed.
What should communication look like?
Agree a named day-to-day contact and a route for significant matters. A shared request list should distinguish information received from evidence reviewed and cleared. Progress discussions should identify the items affecting completion, who owns them and what remains unresolved.
For example, management may have supplied an impairment model, but assumptions about customer demand may still need supporting evidence. A useful update explains that gap and the next step. Repeating that the model is “outstanding” would obscure what has already been provided.
Management also has responsibilities: reconciled schedules, explanations of significant judgements and timely responses. If information will be late or a balance changes, tell the audit team promptly and provide a controlled update.
Challenge is part of the service
A constructive relationship can include difficult questions and disagreement. Assess whether the question is relevant, explained and handled at the right level. Do not equate a comfortable conversation with a better audit or expect partner access to secure a preferred accounting conclusion.
Some follow-up questions arise from contradictory evidence, review or new developments. Others reveal avoidable duplication. Discuss the reason before judging the process, and agree improvements where coordination has fallen short.
Keep audit and advisory responsibilities clear
A statutory audit provides reasonable assurance on the financial statements. It may identify control deficiencies or reporting issues, but it is not a comprehensive operational review, a growth plan or a guarantee of future viability.
If management needs help with pricing, forecasts, succession or strategic choices, define that need separately. The answer may be a project with another adviser while retaining the existing auditor. Services proposed alongside an audit require an assessment of the applicable independence requirements, with management retaining its decisions and responsibilities.
Questions to ask before appointment
- Who will lead the engagement day to day, and what relevant experience does the proposed team bring?
- When will the partner be involved, and which matters require their attention?
- How are work and significant judgements reviewed?
- What capacity and specialist support are available for our timetable?
- How do we escalate an unresolved matter, and how will progress be communicated?
- What must our team provide, and what could change the scope or fee?
Use these questions with the incumbent as well as prospective firms. If the issue is unclear communication or expectations, a revised engagement plan may resolve it. If capability or delivery remains unsuitable, compare alternatives on the same brief.
Accendo’s approach
We discuss the reporting requirements, proposed team responsibilities, partner involvement and preparation expected from your organisation before agreeing an engagement. Suitability depends on the scope, capacity and independence assessment.
Use the audit-firm comparison checklist or discuss your audit requirements.