SEGMENT 1:

D. Keith Wilson, Deputy Chief Auditor
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board

 - Overview of the Risk Assessment Standards
 - Enhancements to Auditors' Risk Assessments and Responses
 - Highlights of Individual Standards

SEGMENT 2:

Jan Herringer, Director
BDO USA LLP

 - Consideration of Fraud within the Risk Standards
 - Integration of Auditing Standard No. 5 Considerations
 - Multi-location Audit Guidance

SEGMENT 3:

Jeffrey F. Robertson , Special Counsel ,
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

 - Enforcement Risks
    - What are the risks of inconsistent interpretation and application of new standards?
    - How will documentation requirements of new audit standards be used by regulators?
       Roadmap for second-guessing regulators? More than just a checklist?
 - Materiality standard
    - Significance of adopting legal standard?
    - Comparison with SAB 99

SEGMENT 4:

Phil D. Wedemeyer , Partner, National Professional Standards Group
Grant Thornton LLP

  - The ultimate effect of these standards, like all others, will depend on the approach taken
    by PCAOB inspections,in particular, the level and type of documentation required to demonstrate
    the application of an audit process that complies with PCAOB standards.
 - Practitioners should consider how to deal with the inter-relationship between risk
    assessment standards and PCAOB standards regarding procedures to address
    identified risks (e.g., the proposed standard on audit confirmations). That is-
           - Risk assessments should be developed and documented in a manner that, if possible,
             appropriately satisfies “requirements to consider” or that overcome presumptively mandatory
             procedures contained in other standards
           - Audit methodologies should be reviewed to see that they maximize use of the results of risk
             assessment in demonstrating compliance with standards related to addressing identified
             audit risks
 - AS 10 imposes a requirement to assess engagement supervisory risk and to tailor the
    supervisory process to address those risks ( Para. 6, AS10- Appendix 3). Although this is not
    a newnotion, it may involve additional documentation and revision of methodology
    to demonstrate compliance
 - AS 11 implies a notion that qualitative factors should be considered in planning materiality. This is
    not a new notion but has not been formally applied in the past.
           - The application of the broad definition of materiality contained in AS11 (Para. 2) will require
              substantial development since it attempts to applyan ex post concept to an a priori judgment.
              Accounting framework will give some of the answer and is acknowledged in the standard.
                    - In the past, planning materiality has been determined by reference to a specific
                      single quantitative benchmark. The concept of “quantitative and qualitative”
                      considerations implies that this approach must be supplemented.
                    - The example in Para. 7 of AS11 implies that qualitative factors might reduce the TM
                      for a specific account or assertion. What about an increase? How will this work
                      in practice?
                    - What about the break-even income situation in determining total materiality?
                    - What about the minimum level of precision inherent in audit procedures?
           - The notion of different TM for different accounts/assertions will require development.
           - Effect of prior error rates on development Tolerable Misstatement AS 11- Para.9. Many
             firms do not modify TM for higher expected error rates.
  - AS 12 may require evaluating methodologies to see that they provide a basis for compliance
    with Para. 11-
           - Para. 11 lists procedures that should be considered for performance in
             understanding the company-
                    - public information, earnings calls and transcripts, trading activity in the stock
                    - understanding of compensation arrangements.
           - As a result, there needs to be thought around how to use this information in risk Assessment.
             In particular, all companies have incentive plans that tie comp to performance. Are there
             practical approaches to spotting those that are higher risk?

SEGMENT 5:

Richard H. Gesseck, CPA, Partner
J.H. COHN LLP

  - Responding to the risk of material misstatement (AS 13)
  - Evaluating results (AS 14)
  - Obtaining appropriate evidence (AS 15)