How the CAFR of State of South Carolina and City of Austin Compare and Differ
The development of complete yearly reports is done by state governments and cities in order to outline how funds have been used (GASB, 2017). The paper analyses the comprehensive annual financial report of State of South Carolina and that of city of Austin. The State of South Carolina has three funds; the fiduciary, proprietary and government funds.
The comprehensive annual financial report of state of South Carolina and the city of Austin depicts similarities and differences in their presentation. An analysis of both reports reveals that they are both free for the public to review them. The State of South Carolina was tended to the Governor of State of South Carolina as well as the Members of the Legislative Assembly (State of South Carolina Office of Comptroller General, 2017). The annual report for the City of Austin was distributed in the papers and tended to the office of the Honorable Mayor and the Members of the City Council (Austin Finance Online, 2017).
The other similarity in the publication method of the two reports is the representation of the information. The comprehensive annual financial reports of State of South Carolina and that of city of Austin have are divided into three major sections; the introduction, the financial section and the statistical section. In both reports, the introduction sections have letter of transmittal, achievement certificate and organizational chart. The financial section in both reports offers the actual financial position of the entities, while statistical section offers information in the context of the understanding on what the information in financial statements, disclosures and the supplementary information say about the overall financial health of the entities.
The other similarity in the two reports is that they were published in conscience with benchmarks of the review of the Government Auditing Standards as well as the acknowledgement of the government regulations and laws. Also, the two reports are consistent in the cover of the money related points that are of interest to the two entities, with similarity in the proclamation of the reports in being free from any material misstatement while asserting the presence of inward control over their budgets.
However, in view of the differences, the report of the State of South Carolina was made available to the larger amount office. The degree offered some gander at the false and money related errors in the annual report. The government of South Carolina has an internal examining group, which exercises oversight over the inner control and budgetary answering, taking gander of asset administration at the nearby interior levels. In contrast, in City of Austin, the interior existing review has been uncovered to deal with full obligation and the existing data on final work that depends on the complete report. In addition, the City of Austin interior review to a degree does not offer full coverage of the report due to irregularities and collaborations of the structures under examination.
An asset monetary and bookkeeping element with self-assessed proclamations, records and the budgetary records on the bookkeeping books contracted down to the basic leap forward for the assets investigation. In the City of Austin annual report, they report to the nearby establishments, the neighborhood cash trade foundations, and the complete investigation of all the money related organizations. In contrast, South Carolina displays the complete breakdown to the neighborhood level establishments to guarantee the complete aggregation of the data. The data sourced from the administration and the neighborhood organizations to give out all the cases of monetary consumption. The assets were separated into classifications that are administrative, exclusive, and guardian.
An analysis of the annual financial reports of the City of Austin and that of the State of South Carolina shows that both entities released final audited financial reports. Both financial annual reports were audited by independent auditors, with the auditor’s reports available in the financial sections of the reports. The independent auditors of both annual reports released unqualified reports. The independent external auditors noted that the two annual reports were free from material misstatement and fairly represented the true financial position of the two governments. The external auditors expressed opinion that the financial statements were prepared in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In addition, the two entities have internal controls and audit functions.