Internal auditors have a deserved reputation for what I would call “risk paranoia.” They have yet to see a risk they think management should retain. When they report the results of their audits, they point out all the risks if no action is taken to correct the "deficiencies" they have found.

In preparation for a presentation I will be doing at an ERM Conference in Miami next year, I was interviewed this month by the organizers. This is the text of the questions and answers.

Today, my good friend Doug Park shared a link to a report (PDF) by the Lead Director Network. This is a group of directors who gathered to discuss, in this instance, what is meant by a high-performing board, the critical components for enhancing board performance, and how boards may evaluate their own performance.

You might want to follow this survey as it develops. I especially was fascinated by this (interim) result:

The law firm of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman has published some guidance on the topic of Compensation Committee Governance. It makes interesting reading and is something CAEs might want to share within their company.

This survey is of relevance to internal auditors. You can read a more general discussion of it here, but I want to focus in this post on some points I think might be interesting for internal auditors.

A good friend at a large company recently asked me this question. He was looking for skills beyond what is required for any internal audit engagement.

In this post, I want to share my reply and his conclusion to see what we have missed. How would others answer this question?