Why group audits often become difficult at the hand-offs

A group audit can appear on track at group level while component work is already moving in the wrong direction. The final reporting date may not have changed, but local submissions, component review, intercompany clearance or consolidation evidence may be consuming the time originally reserved for group review.

The group timetable therefore needs more than one line for each entity. Significant hand-offs should show what is expected, who owns preparation, who currently holds the item, when component review is due and what group-level work depends on clearance. The level of detail should follow significance and risk rather than becoming another database of every audit request.

Information access deserves early attention. A component may use a different system, language, reporting timetable or local auditor. Restrictions on access to management, records or component-auditor work can affect the group approach. Waiting until final clearance to discover those constraints leaves little room to agree an alternative.

Consolidation is itself a workstream. Intercompany differences, reporting-package adjustments, foreign-exchange translation, late local entries and group-level journals can each change what was previously reviewed. The timetable should protect time for consolidation testing and group review after component numbers are substantially stable.

Finance does not direct the component auditor or determine the audit approach. Its role is to make management-owned dependencies visible, coordinate internal submissions and raise emerging access or timing problems. Clear hand-offs give the group auditor and management better information for deciding what needs attention before the reporting date is exposed.

Explore the External Audit Timeline