Answers / Audit & Assurance

How would you evaluate the reasonableness of management's going-concern assumptions when they rest on external factors like market trends or regulatory change?

An advanced Audit & Assurance question — expect it in final rounds and case-heavy interviews (IB, PE, Big-4 Transaction Services).

THE SHORT ANSWER

I'd anchor the work in ISA 570. First, obtain management's assessment covering at least 12 months from the reporting date and the cash-flow forecast behind it. Then challenge the external assumptions specifically: corroborate market/demand assumptions against independent data (analyst forecasts, industry reports, order book) rather than management assertion, and assess regulatory assumptions against the actual status of the rule/approval. Stress-test the forecast — flex the key drivers (revenue, margin, refinancing) and check headroom against covenants and liquidity in a downside. Examine the realism and reliability of prior forecasts (retrospective review for optimism bias), confirm committed financing, and obtain written representations. Finally, judge whether a material uncertainty exists and whether disclosure is adequate, which drives the opinion.

WHAT INTERVIEWERS LISTEN FOR

  • ISA 570: ≥12-month assessment + the cash-flow forecast behind it
  • Corroborate external assumptions with independent data, not assertion
  • Stress-test drivers vs covenant/liquidity headroom; retrospective review for bias
  • Confirm committed financing; conclude on material uncertainty + disclosure adequacy

COMMON MISTAKES

  • Accepting management's external assumptions at face value
  • No stress test or downside headroom analysis
  • Not linking the conclusion to disclosure/opinion

Reading isn't the same as answering under pressure.

Interviewers don't hand you the model answer — you deliver yours on a clock. Practice this and 1,000+ questions with AI feedback on every answer.

TRY QUICKFIRE →Or train full Audit & Assurance case simulations →

RELATED QUESTIONS