Auditor Tie Out
Wanted to see if there were any best practices for integrating tie outs into workiva for use as a deliverable to auditors or other reviews, especially in the case of MD&A.
We currently maintain a manual workbook for our tie-out of MD&A figures but are shifting to adding attachments into workiva for our 10K/10Q filings. Is it common for users to save out a single tab before adding as an attachment or something else?
-
"...save out a single tab...." Not sure what this means. Can you explain further?
We have been using WDesk for the comprehensive source for tie out and attachments ever since the functionality has been available and have noted that 100% of the time, we can rely on the integrity of our tie out and attachments going to the auditors as we have prepared in WDesk.For delivery to auditors, we will milestone the document and workbook version as something like "Audit Tie Out Version 1," export all attachments, with markup, as well as a clean version and marked up version of the document with tickmarks showing the name of the attachment file alphanumber such as "MDA.1" for the "MDA.1 - Restructuring support", "MDA.2" for the "MDA.2 - Credit Facility support", etc...
We will provide a final version after we file with the final tie out so they can ensure the last draft we sent didn't change from the actual filed version.
0Thanks for the reply. To clarify, we maintain most of our supporting workbooks outside of Workiva at this time. We would like to start to attach them into the document within the MD&A section to start to digitize out tying process. We intend to attach the supporting workbooks to the key figures throughout.
One of the challenges I'm seeing is we may have very long workbooks with multiple tabs and large datasets which constitute the support for any given figure in our MD&A. When you attach this file and view in the markup viewer, it will include images of the entire workbook and tabs, it is messy to say the least. When we go to download out, the system will include a PDF of the full document with the attachment annotations and the markup viewer, which will include all attachments and all this extra noise and pages. My thought is to trim all supporting attachments to a "single tab" to prevent this.
The ideal state is a PDF download of the MD&A text, with annotations of the attachments per each figure, alongside a snippet of the workbooks with tick and tie showing where each figure comes from.
I would like to see if there's any alternative practices that may differ from this completely or if users perform a similar exercise.
0Ok, I get it.
Yeah, we have some support, say an Excel spreadsheet, with a bunch of tabs. Case in point: Cashflow support.For us, this support has about 20 tabs and runs on and on, but the amounts are supported on the very first tab, which when attached is the first information seen in the markup view of the attachment, then we just put a red box around the numbers that appear in the document and call it done. All the rest of the information is for the auditors to review and they get the whole file when exported as I stated above.
For Excel files we receive from others where the key information in the document is on another tab than the first tab, we just move that tab to the become the first tab and save the file with "Ext Rept" appended to the file name so we have the original, unedited version, but the edited version is what gets attached in WDesk.
For Word docs or PDFs, we might have pages and pages where you cannot just alter the location of the key information. With that, after attaching in WDesk, we'll just put a text box at the top of page 1 of the attachment in markup view and state what page the information is on, then put a red box around that information on that page so when they navigate to it, it is easy to pick out.
If you have the flexibility to edit your support before you upload and you can trim out a bunch of stuff you don't want the auditors to have access to because it is just "noise," then yeah, I would do that first, but honestly, that extra work isn't worth the inefficiency.
All in all, in the worst case, we have told the support providers at times to alter what they provide so we can have an External Reporting version as the original because sometimes we do actual calculations on the information we receive because it is only for external reporting purposes.
0请先登录再写评论。
评论
3 条评论