Final answer:
Accounts payable confirmations are used less than accounts receivable confirmations mainly because other procedures like searching for unrecorded liabilities are effective in auditing A/P. These other methods are often more useful than relying solely on confirmations from suppliers, which can have lower response rates. However, A/P confirmations do address the existence and validity of the payable balances, contrary to the assertion that they do not.
Step-by-step explanation:
Accounts payable (A/P) confirmations are a tool used in the audit process to verify the amount a company owes to its suppliers and creditors. The question presents several reasons why A/P confirmations are generally used less frequently than accounts receivable confirmations. The correct reason, as per accounting and auditing standards, is that other audit procedures such as the search for unrecorded liabilities are generally very effective at verifying the existence and completeness of accounts payable. This means that auditors often rely on other methods like examining subsequent disbursements, reconciling with vendor statements, and analyzing purchase cut-offs to verify A/P balances.
The response rates for A/P confirmations can be lower because suppliers may not have the same incentive to respond as customers do when confirming accounts receivable. However, these lower response rates do not invalidate the use of confirmations altogether. The assertion that A/P confirmations do not address the existence assertion is incorrect, as confirming payable balances with suppliers directly tests the existence and validity of the reported balances. Lastly, A/P confirmations most certainly address specific audit assertions, specifically the completeness, accuracy, and cutoff assertions related to accounts payable.