Audit quality vs audit speed
- 16 hours ago
- 4 min read
EVERY audit engagement begins with planning but before long, one question almost always arises: “When can we expect the audit report?” It is a simple question yet it reflects one of the profession’s enduring challenges: delivering a timely audit without compromising quality.
Companies often need audited financial statements for SEC filing, loan applications, board meetings, investor requirements, or compliance with various regulatory agencies. Deadlines matter and everyone wants the audit completed as quickly as possible.
As auditors, we understand that we also want to complete engagements on time. But there is one thing we cannot compromise to meet a deadline: audit quality.
In today’s world, almost everything has become faster. We can transfer funds instantly, conduct meetings online and access information with just a few clicks. Naturally, clients expect the same level of speed from professional services, including audits.
However, an external audit is fundamentally different. Is it not simply about checking numbers or completing a regulatory requirement? Under the Philippine Standards in Auditing, an audit is performed to obtain reasonable assurance that financial statements are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. That objective requires careful planning, professional judgment and sufficient appropriate audit evidence — none of which can be rushed.
Over the years, the auditing profession has evolved significantly. Technology has made audits more efficient through data analytics, cloud-based collaboration, electronic confirmations and, more recently, artificial intelligence. These innovations help auditors process information faster and identify unusual transactions more effectively.
But while technology can improve efficiency, it cannot replace professional skepticism.
An unexpected fluctuation in revenue, unusual journal entries posted near year-end, unexplained inventory variances, or inconsistent management explanations still require experienced auditors to ask the right questions and determine whether additional audit procedures are necessary. No software can replace sound professional judgment.
The profession itself has also placed greater emphasis on audit quality. The implementation of the International Standard on Quality Management 1, adopted in the Philippines, requires audit firms to establish a proactive system for managing quality risks throughout the engagement. Rather than relying solely on quality control after the work has been completed, firms are now expected to build quality into every stage of the audit — from client acceptance and engagement planning to supervision, review and final reporting.
This reflects an important reality: quality cannot be inspected into an audit at the end. It has to be embodied throughout the entire process.
The Board of Accountancy’s Quality Assurance Review Program and regulatory inspections likewise continue to remind practitioners that compliance with auditing standards is not optional. Proper documentation, sufficient audit evidence, appropriate supervision and professional skepticism remain essential components of every quality audit.
At the same time, clients also play a significant role in how efficiently an audit progresses.
Many audit delays are not caused by the audit itself but by incomplete schedules, unreconciled accounts, missing supporting documents, or late responses to audit inquiries. Every auditor has experienced waiting for a bank reconciliation, an aging schedule, or a simple confirmation that arrives much later than planned. When financial information is prepared accurately and requested documents are submitted on time, the audit becomes more efficient for everyone.
This is why an audit should never be viewed as the sole responsibility of the auditors. It is a collaborative process between management, those charged with governance, and the engagement team.
There is another reality that deserves attention.
As competition among audit firms becomes more intense, some firms may feel pressure to promise shorter turnaround times to secure engagements. While efficiency is certainly important, unrealistic commitments can place unnecessary pressure on the engagement teams. When speed becomes the primary measure of success, there is always a risk that critical audit procedures receive less attention than they deserve.
Clients certainly appreciate timely service. However, I have found that most clients value something even more — the confidence that their financial statements have been examined thoroughly and professionally. A report issued a few days earlier provides little comfort if significant issues were overlooked because the audit was rushed.
The challenge, therefore, is not choosing between audit quality and audit speed. The real challenge is finding ways to improve efficiency without compromising professional standards.
That means investing in technology, strengthening audit methodologies, continuously training people, planning engagements early and encouraging open communication between auditors and clients. More importantly, it means remembering that every audit opinion carries public trust.
Investors rely on it. Banks use it in evaluating credit decisions. Regulators depend on it in carrying out their oversight functions. Business owners use it to make strategic decisions. Behind every audit report are people who rely on its credibility.
At the end of every engagement, clients may remember whether the audit was delivered on time. But years later, what truly matters is whether the audit was performed with integrity, diligence and in accordance with professional standards.
Because in auditing, speed is appreciated, but quality is what gives an audit report its value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Joy Cancela is a senior partner and head of operations at Paguio, Dumayas & Associates, CPAs (PrimeGlobal Philippines).
Comments