ROCHESTER -- November 13, 2026 -- Lender requirements, not cost alone, should decide whether a company commissions an audit, a review or a compilation of its financial statements, according to a HelloNation article featuring Tracey Rink, CPA, of Bowers Accountants & Advisors in Rochester, New York.
The three engagements form a ladder of assurance. According to the article, an audit is the highest level a CPA can provide: reasonable assurance that the statements are free from material misstatement, built on internal-control evaluation, transaction testing and confirmation of account balances. The article says no audit can guarantee complete accuracy or catch every instance of fraud.
A review sits one step lower. The CPA applies analytical procedures and questions management, then reports only that nothing has come to their attention indicating material modifications are required. The article describes this as limited assurance.
A compilation sits at the bottom. The CPA organizes figures supplied by management into formal statements without verifying completeness or accuracy, so the result carries no assurance.
That gap has a direct consequence for borrowers. The article says banks may require audited or reviewed statements before approving financing. On that description, a company that buys a compilation would not meet such a requirement. Investors, business partners, grant providers, boards of directors and regulatory agencies often set their own expectations, and the article advises management to confirm them before choosing.
The article names no fee or turnaround comparison among the three engagements, although it says cost should not be the sole criterion.
Rink says management should settle four points in advance: how the statements will be used, who will rely on them, whether outside financing is expected, and how growth could change reporting expectations.