Legit IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Download

Introduction:

The chief audit executive (CAE) must ensure that audit recommendations are appropriately addressed and that any disagreements with management’s decisions are resolved effectively.

Escalation Process:

If the CAE disagrees with management’s decision to not implement certain action plans, it is important to escalate the issue to the board to ensure that risks are properly managed and that there is accountability.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Discussing with senior management is a preliminary step but may not resolve the issue if there is still disagreement.

Option B: Discussing with key shareholders is not typically within the CAE’s direct line of reporting and may not be appropriate.

Option C: Legal counsel can provide advice, but the final decision on audit matters typically rests with the board.

Option D: The most appropriate step is for the CAE to discuss the matter with the board, as they have the ultimate oversight responsibility and can ensure that management’s decisions align with the organization’s risk management and governance frameworks.

Conclusion:

The CAE should discuss the matter with the board to ensure that management’s decision is aligned with the organization’s risk management strategy and to address any unresolved issues.

Internal Audit Standards and Practice Guides .

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.

According to IIA guidance, the CAE has the ultimate responsibility for the internal audit activity but may delegate tasks such as reviewing, approving, and signing engagement reports to qualified internal audit staff. This delegation helps in managing workload and leveraging expertise within the team. However, the CAE should still periodically review the reports to maintain oversight and ensure quality. References: = IIA Standard 2060 - Reporting to Senior Management and the Board, and Standard 2400 - Communicating Results.

Per Standard 2330 – Documenting Information, workpapers must contain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to provide evidence of work performed and support conclusions. They do not all need to result in findings, fraud conclusions, or client approval. The correct criterion is reasonable evidence of work conducted (Option A).