.png?sfvrsn=dd675fd5_2)
6a6c7fe2013f4be3b0ecc0a5930da5c9.jpg?sfvrsn=ab5334c8_0)
/business-management-global-connection/istock-1167579720-c.jpg?sfvrsn=ff93f9a5_2)
/audit-assurance/istock-1169206203-c.jpg?sfvrsn=1d6f9b25_6)
/ethics-and-professionalism/istock-1141115724-c.jpg?sfvrsn=4e54d691_2)
/audit-assurance/istock-818732836-c-v3.jpg?sfvrsn=ae44e7b7_0)
.png?sfvrsn=905ee1bd_0)
/legal-secretarial/istock-866706340-c.jpg?sfvrsn=d7f57b8c_2)
Collective investment vehicles and pension funds (collectively referred to as “Investment Schemes”) are inherently complex with significant differences in regulatory landscapes, legal structures and market practices across jurisdictions. Hence, we expressed the view that introducing a new term “Connected Party” to address a limited scenario with respect to the audit of Investment Schemes appears unnecessary or inconsistent with the broader objectives of a global code. We suggested that IESBA leave the design and oversight of rules for Investment Schemes to local regulators instead, and shared jurisdiction-specific requirements that apply to auditors of financial institutions that could be CIVs in the Singapore context.
Read the comment letter here.