U.S. employers are required by law to verify the employment authorization of all workers they hire on or after November 6, 1986, for employment in the United States, regardless of the workers’ immigration status. This required authorization verification is done via the I-9 Form. Below are some best practices to ensure that your company is in compliance with the I-9 retention requirements:
Maintain your I-9’s separate from your personnel files – While this is not a requirement, it is always a good idea to maintain your I-9s in a separate file for two reasons: Supervisors or managers who have access to personnel files do not have a need for access to I-9 forms. These forms contain national origin, immigration status, marital status and other protected information that should only be accessible to a few individuals in the HR department. Secondly, should your organization ever be subjected to an I-9 audit, it would be much easier to pull an I-9 folder containing all of your I-9s rather than pull all of your personnel files and have to remove the I-9 form from each one.
File active employee I-9 forms alphabetically – These “active” I-9s should be maintained alphabetically by last name so they can be easily audited against a current payroll list. REMEMBER….all current employees should have an active I-9 on file, unless they were hired prior to November 6, 1986.
Create a separate folder for terminated employee I-9 forms – When an employee is terminated, pull his or her I-9 form from the active employees and determine the retention requirement before filing it with the terminated employee forms. Once the retention date is determined, file your terminated employee I-9s chronologically by retention date.
Determine the “Retain Until” date for terminated employee I-9s – All terminated employee I-9 forms must be retained until the later of: 1) three years after their date of hire; or 2) one year after their termination date. Once the retention date is determined, note that on the I-9 form and file it chronologically with the other terminated I-9 forms. Filing chronologically, will allow you to easily pull and shred the terminated employee I-9 forms that have gone beyond their retention date.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Saltmarsh Welcomes New Employees
Bill Moats will be working out of the Pensacola office as a Loan Review Consultant. Bill comes to us with over 25 years of banking experience. The past 12 years have been spent with Regions Bank, working primarily in the Commercial Banking Group. Bill has a Finance Degree from LSU and has been in the Pensacola area since 1994.
Welcome, Bill!
William Borde will be working out of our Tampa office as a Financial Institutions Consultant. William graduated with an Economics Degree from University of Florida. He has been in the banking and mortgage loan business for approximately 13 years. His most recent experience was with Countrywide Home Loans, where he worked as an Operations Account Manager and oversaw production compliance. William is also a designated Certified Bank Auditor.
Welcome William!
Saltmarsh Financial Advisors: Safeguarding Your Investments: Understanding Custody
In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff was arrested amid allegations he operated a $50 billion Ponzi scheme. He pleaded guilty to 11 felony counts on March 12, 2009, and was sentenced on June 29, 2009, to the maximum sentence of 150 years behind bars.
One of the reasons this fraud went on for so long un-detected was that Madoff was both the investment adviser and custodian to his clients. Custody by investment advisers means holding client funds or securities, directly or indirectly, or having the authority to obtain possession of them.
Investors should insist that their adviser establish their account with a third party custodian such as a bank or broker/dealer. Use of a custodian reduces the opportunity for fraud since the investment adviser does not have custody of your assets. Also, custodians send monthly or quarterly statements directly to you. Your investment adviser should also be providing you with performance reports or account statements they generate. This duplicate reporting system makes fraud easier to detect.
More information is on the web at:
http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/custodyinvestor-alert.htm
One of the reasons this fraud went on for so long un-detected was that Madoff was both the investment adviser and custodian to his clients. Custody by investment advisers means holding client funds or securities, directly or indirectly, or having the authority to obtain possession of them.
Investors should insist that their adviser establish their account with a third party custodian such as a bank or broker/dealer. Use of a custodian reduces the opportunity for fraud since the investment adviser does not have custody of your assets. Also, custodians send monthly or quarterly statements directly to you. Your investment adviser should also be providing you with performance reports or account statements they generate. This duplicate reporting system makes fraud easier to detect.
More information is on the web at:
http://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/custodyinvestor-alert.htm
Monday, February 21, 2011
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Issues Report
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), which was charged with examining the financial and economic crisis and explaining its causes, issued its final report last week. The FCIC held 19 days of public hearings and interviewed more than 700 witnesses and reviewed millions of pages of documents.
For more information:
http://c0182732.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/fcic_final_report_full.pdf
For more information:
http://c0182732.cdn1.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/fcic_final_report_full.pdf
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Article of Interest: What is the Difference Between Stimulus 2011 vs. 2010 for Wage Earners?
Stimulus 2011 vs. 2010 for wage earners. What is the difference? For 2010, it was the Making Work Pay Credit where each wage earner received a $400 tax credit ($800 for joint filers). For 2011, there is a 2% payroll tax cut on FICA tax up to the taxable maximum $106,800. Most individuals should receive a greater benefit with a maximum $2,136 benefit per wage earner. Increased take-home pay is always a good thing!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
BP Claims Update
02/01/11 - Ken Feinberg of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility has promised that new claim calculation protocols for interim and final claims will be published online this week, and the Facility is now saying that interim and full-review final payments will begin by February 18th. These new protocols should provide further insight into the claims calculation process and hopefully assist claimants in presenting their claims to the GCCF.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Article of Interest: JOA Discusses the Proposed Changes to the GAO's Yellow Book
Proposed Changes to GAO's Yellow Book Promote Harmonization of Auditing Standards
Revisions incorporate more formal conceptual framework for independence issues.
By James R. Dalkin, CPA
December 2010
In August, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued proposed standards revising Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), commonly known as the “Yellow Book.” The update revises the July 2007 Yellow Book and is expected to be effective for audits beginning after Dec. 15, 2011, with the exception of the financial chapter, which will have an effective date to coincide with the AICPA’s Auditing Standards Board (ASB) Clarity Project. This article highlights the significant changes in the proposed standards.
The Yellow Book was first published in 1972 and has been updated and revised over the years. Two primary factors are driving the current Yellow Book update:
Continued modernization and harmonization of auditing standards by various standard-setting bodies, including technical updates to reflect standards that have already been revised.
Revisions to address issues and frequently asked questions from the GAO’s Yellow Book technical assistance line.
Another important consideration in updating the Yellow Book has been the ASB Clarity Project. As the ASB more closely aligns U.S. auditing standards with those issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, the GAO reviews the standards and assesses their potential impact on GAGAS.
The proposed standards include other changes to further clarify and harmonize the standards. For instance, emphasis has been placed on removing duplication with ASB requirements and clarifying what represents an additive standard for GAGAS. Another example will be the elimination of the AICPA definitions for material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. These definitions will now be incorporated by reference. In addition, to provide a format consistent with the ASB Clarity Project, the footnote format has been refined to include only a direct reference to another standard.
CHAPTER REORGANIZATION
Readers will quickly notice a reorganization of the Yellow Book. Ethical principles, formerly in chapter two, have now been incorporated into chapter one on the foundational concepts of GAGAS. Chapter two now emphasizes the application of GAGAS. Also, financial audit chapters four and five have been merged into a single chapter.
INDEPENDENCE REVISIONS
Substantial changes have been incorporated into chapter three covering independence. The 2007 revision emphasized overarching principles of independence such as auditors not auditing their own work or taking the role of management. The principles were augmented by a question-and-answer guide that featured specific facts and circumstances. The guide had limitations in its applicability and usefulness due to its specificity.
The Yellow Book Advisory Council and staff concluded that a more formalized conceptual framework could provide a uniform structure for analyzing the many independence issues that can arise, each with its own facts and circumstances.
Under the new framework, the auditor identifies threats to independence and then assesses the significance of the threats. If identified threats are deemed significant to the engagement, the auditor then determines whether safeguards could be put in place to mitigate the threats to an acceptable level. The framework also provides guidance on the significance of certain specific threats and whether those threats can be mitigated.
This threat assessment and application of safeguards requires professional judgment. If the auditor concludes that there are no safeguards sufficient to reduce a threat to an acceptable level, then the threat would result in an impairment to independence, and the auditor should respond accordingly. The auditor is required to document any independence issue that requires significant discussion or analysis.
THREATS AND SAFEGUARDS
The proposed standards identify categories of threats that occur through:
Self-review. An auditor reviews his/ her own work.
Self-interest. An auditor has a vested interest in the audit results.
Bias. An auditor has a preconceived notion regardless of results.
Familiarity over time. An auditor has become too close to the subject of the audit.
Undue influence. Pressures may impair an auditor’s judgment.
Management participation. An auditor takes the role of management.
Structural. A governmental structure may create an appearance of impairment.
Under the proposed standards, if a nonaudit service is not expressly prohibited, the auditor should apply the conceptual framework to conclude whether a potential impairment exists. In some cases, safeguards may mitigate threats to an acceptable level. However, even if properly applied, safeguards may not always be sufficient to reduce some threats. The proposed standards identify safeguards created by the profession as well as those directly related to the work environment. Examples include:
Professional or regulatory monitoring and disciplinary procedures.
External reviews by third parties of reports.
Using different management and engagement teams with separate reporting lines for the provision of nonaudit services to an audited entity.
Additional review requirements for nonaudit services.
Additional oversight by the audited entity’s management over nonaudit services.
PROHIBITIONS WITHIN CERTAIN NONAUDIT SERVICES
While the proposed standards provide a conceptual framework for independence issues, certain specific prohibitions still exist. These prohibitions involve areas that have been problematic in the past and particularly so in a governmental public-sector environment. It is important to note that the entire nonaudit service is not prohibited, just certain services. Within each of the following nonaudit categories, specific services are expressly prohibited:
Internal Audit Services
Establishing internal audit policies or strategic direction of the auditee.
Selecting or implementing internal audit recommendations.
Designing, implementing or maintaining internal control.
Internal Control Monitoring and Assessments
Providing ongoing monitoring procedures.
Information Technology (IT) Services
Designing or developing an information system that would be subject to an audit.
Modifying source code.
Operating or supervising an IT service.
Valuation Services
Providing valuation services that would have a material effect, separately or in the aggregate, on the financial statements or other information that is subject to an audit, and the valuation involves a significant degree of subjectivity.
Financial Statement Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Client Assistance
An area that the profession continues to struggle with involves maintaining independence when the auditor provides the audited entity with assistance in bookkeeping and financial statement preparation. Whether it involves converting cash statements to accrual basis or preparing financial statements, the auditor frequently walks a fine line between independence and impairment. The GAO’s proposed standards are consistent with those of the AICPA in identifying certain activities that create an automatic impairment. These include:
Determining or changing journal entries, account codings, classifications for transactions, or other accounting records without obtaining client approval.
Authorizing or approving transactions.
Preparing source documents.
Changing source documents without client approval.
The proposed standards do not expressly prohibit a practitioner from providing bookkeeping or financial statement preparation other than the activities listed as prohibited in the standards. Before performing bookkeeping and financial services not expressly prohibited, the auditor should evaluate them within the conceptual framework to determine whether an impairment exists.
For bookkeeping and financial statement activities that are not expressly prohibited, management charged with overseeing the nonaudit service should possess suitable skill, knowledge or experience to evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed. If management does not have suitable skill knowledge or experience to evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed, an impairment exists. This requirement currently exists for CPAs under the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 101, Independence (Interpretation 101-3, Performance of Nonattest Services).
AUDITS SUBSEQUENT TO NONAUDIT SERVICES
The proposed standards introduce the concept of a post-impairment period. This period reflects the audit period immediately after the auditor provides an independence- impairing service. Under the proposed standards, auditors who perform independence-impairing nonaudit services may audit in subsequent periods only after sufficient safeguards have been identified to mitigate the threat. One example of a safeguard would be the performance of an audit by an auditor not providing the original nonaudit service. The auditor should also consider issues of independence in appearance that may arise should an audit be performed after an impairing nonaudit service has been provided.
QUESTION-AND-ANSWER GUIDE RETIREMENT
The Answers to Independence Standards Questions (QA Guide) issued in July 2002 will be superseded by the new standards once they are finalized. Under the new independence framework, unless the service is specifically prohibited, the conceptual framework should be applied. Certain specific situations addressed in the original QA Guide such as “de minimis,” nonaudit services, and safe harbors have not been included in the proposed standards and will no longer apply. Instead, under the more principle-based framework, auditors will need to address the threats and safeguards within the conceptual framework.
QUALITY CONTROL
The proposed standards have further harmonized quality control with that of the AICPA. Audit organizations and firms that are in compliance with AICPA quality-control requirements would be consistent with the requirements of the proposed standards.
SPECIALISTS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
The basic continuing professional education (CPE) requirements under GAGAS have not changed from the 2007 Yellow Book. However, the proposed standard clarifies continuing education requirements for internal specialists such as actuaries. Auditors who work under GAGAS should complete a minimum of 24 hours of CPE every two years. Internal specialists who apply their specialized knowledge to the audit should complete 24 hours of CPE in their area of specialty. For example, an actuary may satisfy the educational requirement with 24 hours of CPE training in actuarial science. Consistent with the extant standards, external specialists are not required to follow the CPE requirements; however, auditors are required to consider whether external specialists are qualified to serve an engagement.
FINANCIAL AUDIT CHAPTER
The combined financial audit chapter does not contain any new requirements. However, the revision did reduce redundancy and changed certain terminology. Consistent with the ASB Clarity Project, the term “field work” has been replaced with “performance.” The proposed standards will continue to use the term “field work” when discussing attest engagements until the AICPA revises its wording in the AICPA attestation standards.
In addition, requirements already included in the AICPA audit standards have been eliminated from the proposed standards. These include:
Restatements.
Definitions of internal control deficiencies.
Communication of significant matters.
Consideration of fraud and illegal acts.
ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS
The volume of calls to the Yellow Book technical assistance line prompted revisions to the chapter on attestation engagements. One area of confusion has been determining whether an engagement is a form of attest (examination, review, or agreed-upon procedure) or a performance audit. The chapter has been revised to more clearly delineate between the types of engagements. Additional guidance has been incorporated into the chapter to direct the reader to the proper service. In all cases, if the auditor provides attest services, he or she should review and follow all guidance provided by the AICPA on these services. The proposed standards provide supplemental requirements and guidance, while the AICPA audit standards provide the foundational requirements.
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
The performance audit chapter has been updated but has not been substantially changed. One change clarifies fraud reporting requirements within performance audits to specify that reporting is required for occurrences that are significant within the context of the audit objectives.
PRACTITIONER IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSISTANCE
As with any proposed standard, practitioners need to read carefully and understand the nature of the changes before attempting to apply them. The GAO offers technical assistance for questions related to government auditing standards. The AICPA offers guidance through its Governmental Audit Quality Center.
The comment deadline was Nov. 22, 2010. The Yellow Book Advisory Council and GAO are evaluating the comment letters and will make changes to the final draft as appropriate. Government Auditing Standards, 2010 Exposure Draft, can be downloaded at gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm.
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2010/Dec/20102944
Revisions incorporate more formal conceptual framework for independence issues.
By James R. Dalkin, CPA
December 2010
In August, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued proposed standards revising Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), commonly known as the “Yellow Book.” The update revises the July 2007 Yellow Book and is expected to be effective for audits beginning after Dec. 15, 2011, with the exception of the financial chapter, which will have an effective date to coincide with the AICPA’s Auditing Standards Board (ASB) Clarity Project. This article highlights the significant changes in the proposed standards.
The Yellow Book was first published in 1972 and has been updated and revised over the years. Two primary factors are driving the current Yellow Book update:
Continued modernization and harmonization of auditing standards by various standard-setting bodies, including technical updates to reflect standards that have already been revised.
Revisions to address issues and frequently asked questions from the GAO’s Yellow Book technical assistance line.
Another important consideration in updating the Yellow Book has been the ASB Clarity Project. As the ASB more closely aligns U.S. auditing standards with those issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, the GAO reviews the standards and assesses their potential impact on GAGAS.
The proposed standards include other changes to further clarify and harmonize the standards. For instance, emphasis has been placed on removing duplication with ASB requirements and clarifying what represents an additive standard for GAGAS. Another example will be the elimination of the AICPA definitions for material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. These definitions will now be incorporated by reference. In addition, to provide a format consistent with the ASB Clarity Project, the footnote format has been refined to include only a direct reference to another standard.
CHAPTER REORGANIZATION
Readers will quickly notice a reorganization of the Yellow Book. Ethical principles, formerly in chapter two, have now been incorporated into chapter one on the foundational concepts of GAGAS. Chapter two now emphasizes the application of GAGAS. Also, financial audit chapters four and five have been merged into a single chapter.
INDEPENDENCE REVISIONS
Substantial changes have been incorporated into chapter three covering independence. The 2007 revision emphasized overarching principles of independence such as auditors not auditing their own work or taking the role of management. The principles were augmented by a question-and-answer guide that featured specific facts and circumstances. The guide had limitations in its applicability and usefulness due to its specificity.
The Yellow Book Advisory Council and staff concluded that a more formalized conceptual framework could provide a uniform structure for analyzing the many independence issues that can arise, each with its own facts and circumstances.
Under the new framework, the auditor identifies threats to independence and then assesses the significance of the threats. If identified threats are deemed significant to the engagement, the auditor then determines whether safeguards could be put in place to mitigate the threats to an acceptable level. The framework also provides guidance on the significance of certain specific threats and whether those threats can be mitigated.
This threat assessment and application of safeguards requires professional judgment. If the auditor concludes that there are no safeguards sufficient to reduce a threat to an acceptable level, then the threat would result in an impairment to independence, and the auditor should respond accordingly. The auditor is required to document any independence issue that requires significant discussion or analysis.
THREATS AND SAFEGUARDS
The proposed standards identify categories of threats that occur through:
Self-review. An auditor reviews his/ her own work.
Self-interest. An auditor has a vested interest in the audit results.
Bias. An auditor has a preconceived notion regardless of results.
Familiarity over time. An auditor has become too close to the subject of the audit.
Undue influence. Pressures may impair an auditor’s judgment.
Management participation. An auditor takes the role of management.
Structural. A governmental structure may create an appearance of impairment.
Under the proposed standards, if a nonaudit service is not expressly prohibited, the auditor should apply the conceptual framework to conclude whether a potential impairment exists. In some cases, safeguards may mitigate threats to an acceptable level. However, even if properly applied, safeguards may not always be sufficient to reduce some threats. The proposed standards identify safeguards created by the profession as well as those directly related to the work environment. Examples include:
Professional or regulatory monitoring and disciplinary procedures.
External reviews by third parties of reports.
Using different management and engagement teams with separate reporting lines for the provision of nonaudit services to an audited entity.
Additional review requirements for nonaudit services.
Additional oversight by the audited entity’s management over nonaudit services.
PROHIBITIONS WITHIN CERTAIN NONAUDIT SERVICES
While the proposed standards provide a conceptual framework for independence issues, certain specific prohibitions still exist. These prohibitions involve areas that have been problematic in the past and particularly so in a governmental public-sector environment. It is important to note that the entire nonaudit service is not prohibited, just certain services. Within each of the following nonaudit categories, specific services are expressly prohibited:
Internal Audit Services
Establishing internal audit policies or strategic direction of the auditee.
Selecting or implementing internal audit recommendations.
Designing, implementing or maintaining internal control.
Internal Control Monitoring and Assessments
Providing ongoing monitoring procedures.
Information Technology (IT) Services
Designing or developing an information system that would be subject to an audit.
Modifying source code.
Operating or supervising an IT service.
Valuation Services
Providing valuation services that would have a material effect, separately or in the aggregate, on the financial statements or other information that is subject to an audit, and the valuation involves a significant degree of subjectivity.
Financial Statement Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Client Assistance
An area that the profession continues to struggle with involves maintaining independence when the auditor provides the audited entity with assistance in bookkeeping and financial statement preparation. Whether it involves converting cash statements to accrual basis or preparing financial statements, the auditor frequently walks a fine line between independence and impairment. The GAO’s proposed standards are consistent with those of the AICPA in identifying certain activities that create an automatic impairment. These include:
Determining or changing journal entries, account codings, classifications for transactions, or other accounting records without obtaining client approval.
Authorizing or approving transactions.
Preparing source documents.
Changing source documents without client approval.
The proposed standards do not expressly prohibit a practitioner from providing bookkeeping or financial statement preparation other than the activities listed as prohibited in the standards. Before performing bookkeeping and financial services not expressly prohibited, the auditor should evaluate them within the conceptual framework to determine whether an impairment exists.
For bookkeeping and financial statement activities that are not expressly prohibited, management charged with overseeing the nonaudit service should possess suitable skill, knowledge or experience to evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed. If management does not have suitable skill knowledge or experience to evaluate the adequacy and results of the services performed, an impairment exists. This requirement currently exists for CPAs under the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 101, Independence (Interpretation 101-3, Performance of Nonattest Services).
AUDITS SUBSEQUENT TO NONAUDIT SERVICES
The proposed standards introduce the concept of a post-impairment period. This period reflects the audit period immediately after the auditor provides an independence- impairing service. Under the proposed standards, auditors who perform independence-impairing nonaudit services may audit in subsequent periods only after sufficient safeguards have been identified to mitigate the threat. One example of a safeguard would be the performance of an audit by an auditor not providing the original nonaudit service. The auditor should also consider issues of independence in appearance that may arise should an audit be performed after an impairing nonaudit service has been provided.
QUESTION-AND-ANSWER GUIDE RETIREMENT
The Answers to Independence Standards Questions (QA Guide) issued in July 2002 will be superseded by the new standards once they are finalized. Under the new independence framework, unless the service is specifically prohibited, the conceptual framework should be applied. Certain specific situations addressed in the original QA Guide such as “de minimis,” nonaudit services, and safe harbors have not been included in the proposed standards and will no longer apply. Instead, under the more principle-based framework, auditors will need to address the threats and safeguards within the conceptual framework.
QUALITY CONTROL
The proposed standards have further harmonized quality control with that of the AICPA. Audit organizations and firms that are in compliance with AICPA quality-control requirements would be consistent with the requirements of the proposed standards.
SPECIALISTS AND CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
The basic continuing professional education (CPE) requirements under GAGAS have not changed from the 2007 Yellow Book. However, the proposed standard clarifies continuing education requirements for internal specialists such as actuaries. Auditors who work under GAGAS should complete a minimum of 24 hours of CPE every two years. Internal specialists who apply their specialized knowledge to the audit should complete 24 hours of CPE in their area of specialty. For example, an actuary may satisfy the educational requirement with 24 hours of CPE training in actuarial science. Consistent with the extant standards, external specialists are not required to follow the CPE requirements; however, auditors are required to consider whether external specialists are qualified to serve an engagement.
FINANCIAL AUDIT CHAPTER
The combined financial audit chapter does not contain any new requirements. However, the revision did reduce redundancy and changed certain terminology. Consistent with the ASB Clarity Project, the term “field work” has been replaced with “performance.” The proposed standards will continue to use the term “field work” when discussing attest engagements until the AICPA revises its wording in the AICPA attestation standards.
In addition, requirements already included in the AICPA audit standards have been eliminated from the proposed standards. These include:
Restatements.
Definitions of internal control deficiencies.
Communication of significant matters.
Consideration of fraud and illegal acts.
ATTESTATION ENGAGEMENTS
The volume of calls to the Yellow Book technical assistance line prompted revisions to the chapter on attestation engagements. One area of confusion has been determining whether an engagement is a form of attest (examination, review, or agreed-upon procedure) or a performance audit. The chapter has been revised to more clearly delineate between the types of engagements. Additional guidance has been incorporated into the chapter to direct the reader to the proper service. In all cases, if the auditor provides attest services, he or she should review and follow all guidance provided by the AICPA on these services. The proposed standards provide supplemental requirements and guidance, while the AICPA audit standards provide the foundational requirements.
PERFORMANCE AUDITS
The performance audit chapter has been updated but has not been substantially changed. One change clarifies fraud reporting requirements within performance audits to specify that reporting is required for occurrences that are significant within the context of the audit objectives.
PRACTITIONER IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSISTANCE
As with any proposed standard, practitioners need to read carefully and understand the nature of the changes before attempting to apply them. The GAO offers technical assistance for questions related to government auditing standards. The AICPA offers guidance through its Governmental Audit Quality Center.
The comment deadline was Nov. 22, 2010. The Yellow Book Advisory Council and GAO are evaluating the comment letters and will make changes to the final draft as appropriate. Government Auditing Standards, 2010 Exposure Draft, can be downloaded at gao.gov/govaud/ybk01.htm.
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2010/Dec/20102944
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Saltmarsh Welcomes a New Employee
On Monday, Andrea Comeau joined our office as an Administrative Assistant, working for the Banking Department. Andrea was recently “downsized” from Synovus Bank (formally Coastal Bank and Trust). She was with the bank for 21 years and was the Executive Assistant to the Bank President. We are excited to bring her on board.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Industry Article: Florida bank losses top $1B for 2010
Florida’s 218 banking institutions lost a combined $1.023 billion in 2010.
The 46 banks in the Tampa Bay area posted combined losses of $74.3 million last year, a report from Saltmarsh Cleaveland & Gund said.
“Performance levels have shown little improvement since September 2010,” said Lee Bell, shareholder in the Tampa office of the accounting firm.
In 2009, Florida banks lost a combined $2.17 billion, and 58 banks in the Tampa Bay area lost a combined $289.7 million. Several banks have failed since then.
Florida Bank, headquartered in Tampa and with $839.5 million in assets, posted the biggest loss of any Bay area bank with a $42.3 million loss in 2010, more than half the total for the area’s banks.
The most profitable bank was American Momentum Bank, a Tampa bank with $663.9 million in assets. American Momentum had net income of $9.7 million for 2010.
Thirty-nine banks in the state had total risk-based capital ratios of below the 10 percent that’s considered well capitalized by regulators. In the Bay area, those banks included First Commercial Bank of Tampa Bay with a total risk-based capital ratio of 4.27 percent at year’s end; Old Harbor Bank, 4.74 percent; LandMark Bank of Florida, 5.9 percent; First Home Bank, 6 percent; SouthShore Community Bank, 6.06 percent; Cortez Community Bank, 7.52 percent; Bank of Commerce, 8.61 percent; Heritage Bank of Florida, 9.05 percent; and Freedom Bank of America, 9.4 percent.
Banks with the highest levels of nonperforming assets as a percent of assets include Southern Commerce with 27.32 percent; Cortez, 24.43 percent; First Commercial, 16.09 percent; and LandMark, 17 percent.
The 46 banks in the Tampa Bay area posted combined losses of $74.3 million last year, a report from Saltmarsh Cleaveland & Gund said.
“Performance levels have shown little improvement since September 2010,” said Lee Bell, shareholder in the Tampa office of the accounting firm.
In 2009, Florida banks lost a combined $2.17 billion, and 58 banks in the Tampa Bay area lost a combined $289.7 million. Several banks have failed since then.
Florida Bank, headquartered in Tampa and with $839.5 million in assets, posted the biggest loss of any Bay area bank with a $42.3 million loss in 2010, more than half the total for the area’s banks.
The most profitable bank was American Momentum Bank, a Tampa bank with $663.9 million in assets. American Momentum had net income of $9.7 million for 2010.
Thirty-nine banks in the state had total risk-based capital ratios of below the 10 percent that’s considered well capitalized by regulators. In the Bay area, those banks included First Commercial Bank of Tampa Bay with a total risk-based capital ratio of 4.27 percent at year’s end; Old Harbor Bank, 4.74 percent; LandMark Bank of Florida, 5.9 percent; First Home Bank, 6 percent; SouthShore Community Bank, 6.06 percent; Cortez Community Bank, 7.52 percent; Bank of Commerce, 8.61 percent; Heritage Bank of Florida, 9.05 percent; and Freedom Bank of America, 9.4 percent.
Banks with the highest levels of nonperforming assets as a percent of assets include Southern Commerce with 27.32 percent; Cortez, 24.43 percent; First Commercial, 16.09 percent; and LandMark, 17 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)