| Project Management and Software Architecture prevent the need for Recovery from Project Bailout successful projects work best with a good CTO Bullough-Latsch with the right project management resources |
Internal control certificationsSOX Section 404: Assessment of internal controlThe most contentious aspect of SOX is Section 404, which requires management and the external auditor to report on the adequacy of the company's internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). This is the most costly aspect of the legislation for companies to implement, as documenting and testing important financial manual and automated controls requires enormous effort. Under Section 404 of the Act, management is required to produce an “internal control report” as part of each annual Exchange Act report. See 15 U.S.C. § 7262. The report must affirm “the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting.” 15 U.S.C. § 7262(a). The report must also “contain an assessment, as of the end of the most recent fiscal year of the Company, of the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer for financial reporting.” To do this, managers are generally adopting an internal control framework such as that described in COSO. Both management and the external auditor are responsible for performing their assessment in the context of a top-down risk assessment, which requires management to base both the scope of its assessment and evidence gathered on risk. In late 2006 a new audit standard was proposed by the PCAOB to help alleviate the significant costs of compliance and better focus the assessment on the most critical risk areas. On July 25, 2007, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) approved Auditing Standard No. 5 [18] (AS5), which superseded Auditing Standard No 2. (AS2), and has the following key requirements for the external auditor: Assess both the design and operating effectiveness of selected internal controls related to significant accounts and relevant assertions, in the context of material misstatement risks; Understand the flow of transactions, including IT aspects, sufficient enough to identify points at which a misstatement could arise; Evaluate company-level (entity-level) controls, which correspond to the components of the COSO framework; Perform a fraud risk assessment; Evaluate controls designed to prevent or detect fraud, including management override of controls; Evaluate controls over the period-end financial reporting process; Scale the assessment based on the size and complexity of the company; Rely on management's work based on factors such as competency, objectivity, and risk; The auditor is allowed to rely on knowledge from prior audits; Evaluate controls over the safeguarding of assets; and Conclude on the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting. The recently released SEC guidance [19] is generally consistent with the PCAOB's guidance above, only intended for management. After the release of this guidance, the SEC required smaller public companies to comply with SOX Section 404, companies with year ends after December 15, 2007. Smaller public companies performing their first management assessment under Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 may find their first year of compliance after December 15, 2007 particularly challenging. SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal controlSOX Section 302: Internal control certificationsUnder Sarbanes-Oxley, two separate certification sections came into effect—one civil and the other criminal. 15 U.S.C. § 7241 (Section 302) (civil provision); 18 U.S.C. § 1350 (Section 906) (criminal provision). Section 302 of the Act mandates a set of internal procedures designed to ensure accurate financial disclosure. The signing officers must certify that they are “responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls” and “have designed such internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the company and its consolidated subsidiaries is made known to such officers by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which the periodic reports are being prepared.” 15 U.S.C. § 7241(a)(4). The officers must “have evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s internal controls as of a date within 90 days prior to the report” and “have presented in the report their conclusions about the effectiveness of their internal controls based on their evaluation as of that date.” Id.. Under both Section 302 and Section 404, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate regulations enforcing these provisions. (See Final Rule: Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and Certification of Disclosure in Exchange Act Periodic Reports, Release No. 33-8238 (June 5,2003), available at http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8238.htm.) External auditors are required to issue an opinion on whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects by management. This is in addition to the financial statement opinion regarding the accuracy of the financial statements. The requirement to issue a third opinion regarding management's assessment was removed in 2007. SOX Section 302: Internal control certifications |
Good Project Management and Software Architecture prevent the need for Recovery from Project Bailout successful projects work best with a good CTO with the right project management resources takes effort Project Management Project Management Internal control certifications |
computer computer COSO COSO COSO Internal Control Framework COSO Internal Control Framework index SOX computing Green computing Green computing Nationwide Nationwide Process flow diagram Process flow diagram Programs Programs Project control systems Project control systems Project Management Project Management Sarbanes-Oxley Sarbanes-Oxley SOX Project Management PM Project Bailout SOX and information technology SOX and information technology SOX Section 302: Internal control certifications SOX Section 302: Internal control certifications SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal control SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal control SOX Section 802 Criminal Penalties SOX Section 802 Criminal Penalties |
SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal controlThe most contentious aspect of SOX is Section 404, which requires management and the external auditor to report on the adequacy of the company's internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). This is the most costly aspect of the legislation for companies to implement, as documenting and testing important financial manual and automated controls requires enormous effort. Under Section 404 of the Act, management is required to produce an “internal control report” as part of each annual Exchange Act report. See 15 U.S.C. § 7262. The report must affirm “the responsibility of management for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting.” 15 U.S.C. § 7262(a). The report must also “contain an assessment, as of the end of the most recent fiscal year of the Company, of the effectiveness of the internal control structure and procedures of the issuer for financial reporting.” To do this, managers are generally adopting an internal control framework such as that described in COSO. Both management and the external auditor are responsible for performing their assessment in the context of a top-down risk assessment, which requires management to base both the scope of its assessment and evidence gathered on risk. In late 2006 a new audit standard was proposed by the PCAOB to help alleviate the significant costs of compliance and better focus the assessment on the most critical risk areas. On July 25, 2007, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) approved Auditing Standard No. 5 [18] (AS5), which superseded Auditing Standard No 2. (AS2), and has the following key requirements for the external auditor: Assess both the design and operating effectiveness of selected internal controls related to significant accounts and relevant assertions, in the context of material misstatement risks; Understand the flow of transactions, including IT aspects, sufficient enough to identify points at which a misstatement could arise; Evaluate company-level (entity-level) controls, which correspond to the components of the COSO framework; Perform a fraud risk assessment; Evaluate controls designed to prevent or detect fraud, including management override of controls; Evaluate controls over the period-end financial reporting process; Scale the assessment based on the size and complexity of the company; Rely on management's work based on factors such as competency, objectivity, and risk; The auditor is allowed to rely on knowledge from prior audits; Evaluate controls over the safeguarding of assets; and Conclude on the adequacy of internal control over financial reporting. The recently released SEC guidance [19] is generally consistent with the PCAOB's guidance above, only intended for management. After the release of this guidance, the SEC required smaller public companies to comply with SOX Section 404, companies with year ends after December 15, 2007. Smaller public companies performing their first management assessment under Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 may find their first year of compliance after December 15, 2007 particularly challenging. SOX Section 404: Assessment of internal controlSOX Section 802 Criminal PenaltiesSection 802(a) of the SOX, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 states: “ Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. SOX Section 802 Criminal PenaltiesGreen computingGreen computing is the study and practice of using computing resources efficiently. Typically, technological systems or computing products that incorporate green computing principles take into account the so-called triple bottom line of economic viability, social responsibility, and environmental impact. This differs somewhat from traditional or standard business practices that focus mainly on the economic viability of a computing solution. These focuses are similar to those of green chemistry; reduction of the use of hazardous materials such as lead at the manufacturing stage, maximized energy efficiency during the product's term of use, and recyclability or biodegradability of both a defunct product and of any factory waste. A typical green computing solution attempts to address some or all of these factors by implementing environmentally friendly products in an efficient system. For example, an IT manager might purchase Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT)-approved hardware combined with a thin client solution. As compared to a traditional desktop PC configuration, such a configuration would probably reduce IT maintenance-related activities, extend the useful life of the hardware, and allow for responsible recycling of the equipment past its useful life. Green computing An open industry standard called Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) provides a standard programming interface that allows an operating system to directly control the power saving aspects of the hardware. This allows the system to automatically turn off components such as monitors and hard drives after set periods of inactivity. In addition, a system may hibernate, in which it turns off nearly all components, including the CPU and the system RAM, greatly reducing the system's electricity usage. To resume from this state, some components, such as the keyboard, network interface card, and USB ports may remain powered, to receive input from the user. ACPI itself is a successor to an earlier Intel-Microsoft standard called Advanced Power Management, which allows a computer's BIOS to control power management functions. In the absence of ACPI or APM support, some external components, such as computer displays, printers, scanners, speakers, and hard drives may be turned off manually when not in use. In this state, though the external periphals may be off, the main system continues to consume electricity. To minimize the impact, the system could run file sharing software or volunteer computing software, donating its resources to a long-term project. Some software programs allow the user to manually adjust the voltages supplied to the CPU, essentially reducing the amount of electricity used by the CPU while it's on and powered. Since many CPUs have "safety-nets" on either side of the spectrum (+/- the voltage parameters of a given CPU), one is able to reduce the amount of volts the processor uses, hence reducing both the amount of heat produced and the amount of electricity consumed. Some CPUs from Intel Corporation and AMD, particularly those intended for use in laptops, have technology to automatically adjust the processor voltages depending on the workload. This technology is called "SpeedStep" with intel processors, "PowerNow!"/"Cool'n'Quiet" with AMD chips, LongHaul with VIA CPUs, and LongRun with Transmeta processors. In 2007, Intel Corporation released a utility called PowerTOP, which measures and reports on a PC's power consumption. This utility is available only for PCs running a Linux operating system. |
|
| retail store silver investments united states attorney general west hollywood western karma wholesale |
used laptop computer used laptop computer used laptop computers used laptop computers used laptops used laptops used notebook computers used notebook computers used notebooks used notebooks used pc used pc wholesale computer wholesale computer used PCs
wholesale electronics wholesale electronics
wholesale liquidation wholesale liquidation Project Managment best liquidation wholesale Bailout |