1) An audit engagement team is planning for the upcoming audit of a client who recently underwent a significant restructuring of its debt. The restructuring was necessary as economic conditions hampered the client's ability to make scheduled re-payments of its debt obligations. The restructured debt agreements included new debt covenants. In auditing the debt obligation in the prior year (before the restructuring), the team established materiality specific to the financial statement debt account (account level materiality) at a lower amount than overall financial statement materiality. In planning the audit for the current year, the team plans to use a similar materiality level. While such a conclusion might be appropriate, what judgment trap(s) might the team fall into and which step(s) in the judgment process are most likely affected?

2) A client is determining its accounting treatment for new types of long-term contracts. Consider the differences in outcome for the two scenarios below regarding the approach the client and ?auditor took. How does framing relate to the two different scenarios?

3) For each of the two audit situations below, determine which judgment shortcut or tendency is most prevalent and briefly describe the likely consequences of using the shortcut.

a) A staff auditor is testing accounts payable balances. The auditor observes an unexpected fluctuation in the account balance compared to the prior year. The client happens to be walking by, so the auditor asks the client about the fluctuation. The client provides a plausible and reasonable explanation. In considering other possible causes for the fluctuation, the client's explanation seems to be the most likely, so the staff auditor documents it as evidence supporting the fluctuation. Later, it is determined that other facts encountered during the audit do not support the client's explanation.

b) A client has provided the audit engagement team an estimate of the inventory valuation reserve. The client used a method for calculating the reserve that had been used in prior years. To audit the reserve, the engagement team obtained and reviewed the client's calculation. However, the team noted that the client's calculation did not reflect a significant decline in customer demand for an older product line that was losing popularity relative to the newer products. The engagement team suggested that the client adjust the reserve upward. The client argued that the current reserve amount was adequate but indicated ?that a small increase in the reserve would be acceptable. The engagement team reviewed the client's proposal, and ultimately accepted the inventory account as fairly stated in view of the increase to the reserve. However, within a few months after the financial statements and audit report were issued, it became apparent that the reserve was insufficient as significant inventory write-downs were recorded for obsolete inventory that was discarded at scrap value.

4) For each of the two audit situations below, determine which judgment tendency (or tendencies) is (or are) most prevalent and what the auditor could do to reduce bias.

a) A client contacts the audit partner regarding the likely fee for the upcoming audit. The engagement team is in the early stages of planning interim and final fieldwork including making personnel assignments and estimating required audit hours. In the prior year the total hours for the audit were 900 hours. The engagement partner tells the client's CFO that, because the engagement team is returning and is very familiar with the client, the level of audit effort should be only slightly greater than that of the prior year, even though the client has acquired a new subsidiary and has begun manufacturing a new product line.

b) An audit manager is tasked with approaching the client to discuss the possible need for write-downs on level 2 fair-valued assets. To her surprise, the client has already prepared a detailed schedule examining the assets in question and has modeled fair value using three different valuation approaches. Based on these analyses, the client has proposed a relatively small write-down. The analysis appears to be well thought-out and carefully performed. The audit manager checks the numbers in each valuation model and finds that there are no mathematical errors. The manager concludes that the client's proposed write- down is adequate.