Latest Comments
Difference Between ABC system versus Traditional based costing system 7
Narinder Singh, Malik Kashif, Ahmed [...]
Bonia Proposes Main Board Transfer, 1-for-2 bonus, Share Split 1
sickexceelM
Accounting Treatment & Work Flow on Write Off Bad Debts and Provision for Doubtful Debts 4
anita, Nandita, ezeokafor amrachi .i. [...]
Economic Value-Added: Pros And Cons of EVA 1
!abcodygz
Economic Value-Added (EVA) Compared To Earnings Per Share Or Return On Assets 2
name, name
A Discussion Of Various Type Of Budgeting: Zero-Based Budgeting (Part 2) 1
Matthews Mooketsane Bantsijang
Narinder Singh, Malik Kashif, Ahmed [...]
Bonia Proposes Main Board Transfer, 1-for-2 bonus, Share Split 1
sickexceelM
Accounting Treatment & Work Flow on Write Off Bad Debts and Provision for Doubtful Debts 4
anita, Nandita, ezeokafor amrachi .i. [...]
Economic Value-Added: Pros And Cons of EVA 1
!abcodygz
Economic Value-Added (EVA) Compared To Earnings Per Share Or Return On Assets 2
name, name
A Discussion Of Various Type Of Budgeting: Zero-Based Budgeting (Part 2) 1
Matthews Mooketsane Bantsijang
Meta
Risk Assessment Table- Sample
Published by slang February 12th, 2007 in Risk ManagementThere are many ways of assessing business risks.
Append below is one sample of a formal way of assessing business risk based on the value and weighing and adding together to get the results. The greater the rating, the higher the overall risk of that activity.
(Source:CIMA’s guideline on Internal Control)
INHERENT RISK
| Factor | Values | Weight | |
| A | Size of Unit: In terms of operational budget, capital employed, volume and value of output |
1=Insignificant 2=Small 3=Medium 4=Large |
0.5 |
| B | Nature of Output: In terms of unit value and convertibility eg transactions |
1=Minimal 2=Low risk 3=Medium risk 4=High risk |
0.5 |
| C | Complexity of Operation | 1- Simple to 4- Extremely complex |
0.5 |
| D | Convertibility of Assets: In terms of liquidity, desirability, portability,etc |
1=Minimal 2=Low risk 3=Medium risk 4=High risk |
0.5 |
| E | Extent of Computerization | 1=Minimal use 2=Moderate use 3=Larger or complex system 4=Total reliance on systems |
0.25 |
| F | Sensitivity to Public and Political Exposure | 1=Not sensitive 2=Some sensitivity 3=Significant 4=High profile |
0.25 |
QUALITY OF CONTROL
| Factor | Values | Weight | |
| G | Adequacy of Control ( as at last review) | 1=Adequate 2=Minor reservations 3=Major reservations 4=No controls ( or not previously reviewed) |
1.0 |
| H | Managerial Effectiveness ( including competency and integrity of managerial and supervisory personnel) |
1-Totally effective; 2-Minor reservations 3=Major reservations 4=Ineffective ( or not previously reviewed) |
0.5 |
| I | Change Factor since last review (including changes to accounting system/procedure; changes in key personnel, high labor turnover, rapid growth pressure on management to meet objectives) |
1-No change 2-Minor change 3-Moderate change 4-Significant change |
0.5 |
| J | Elapsed Time Since Last Review | 1- <1 year 2-1-2 years 3-2-3 years 4- >3 years |
0.5 |
If you found this post useful, keep updated with future posts by subscribing to FMAccounting (for free) through RSS or email.
No Responses to “Risk Assessment Table- Sample”
Please Wait
Leave a Reply