Auditing Section Research Summaries Space
A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice
Posts
research summary posted May 4, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards, 01.06 Impact of PCAOBTitle:The Global Audit Profession and the International Financial Architecture: Understanding Regulatory Relationships at a Time of Financial CrisisPractical Implications:This paper provides insight into the effect of the global financial crisis on auditors and the relationships between large international accounting firms, regulators, and standard setters. The paper summarizes a variety of reports and policy proposals related to the global financial crisis, including the number of times auditors are mentioned in each of the reports. The paper discusses issues related to bank audits, including discussion of fair value issues and going concern reports.
Citation:Humphrey, C., A. Loft and M. Woods. 2009. The Global Audit Profession and the International Financial Architecture: Understanding Regulatory Relationships at a Time of Financial Crisis. Accounting, Organizations and Society 34 (6-7): 810-825.
Home:
research summary posted January 19, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.02 Documentation SpecificityTitle:The Impact of Audit Evidence Documentation on Jurors’ Negligence Verdicts and Damage Awards.Practical Implications:This study suggests that audit workpaper documentation decisions can significantly influence juror negligence verdicts and damage awards in cases where the auditor faces litigation. This is a particularly important finding for audit firms as this is an aspect of the litigation process that the auditor can directly control prior to facing litigation by considering how jurors might perceive this information when designing documentation procedures.
Citation:Backof, A. G. 2015. The Impact of Audit Evidence Documentation on Jurors’ Negligence Verdicts and Damage Awards. The Accounting Review 90 (6): 2177-2204.
- research summary posted October 3, 2013 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards, 07.0 Internal Control, 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting QualityTitle:The Impact of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 on Audit Fees and Audit QualityPractical Implications:
This study provides an analysis of the effect of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) on internal control audit efficiency. The authors interpret their results as indicating that AS5 improved internal control audit efficiency by reducing audit fees without harming audit quality. The results of this study provide insight into the consequences of PCAOB standard setting, which is of interest to standard setters and businesses subject to their rules.
For more information on this study, please contact Dechun Wang.
Citation:Wang, D. and J. Zhou. 2012. The Impact of PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 5 on Audit Fees and Audit Quality. Accounting Horizons 26 (3): 493-511.
- research summary posted June 22, 2017 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards, 15.04 Audit Firm RotationTitle:The Joint Effects of Multiple Legal System Characteristics on Auditing Standards and Auditing BehaviorPractical Implications:
Whether or not the ISA should be adopted by the United States is a greatly contested topic. This study is helpful for regulators and standard-setting boards in the United States about the potential effects of the adoption of ISA and mandatory audit rotation for the United States. This information is also applicable for other countries when making these decisions as well.
Citation:Simunic, Dan A., M. Ye, and P. Zhang. 2017. “The Joint Effects of Multiple Legal System Characteristics on Auditing Standards and Auditor Behavior”. Contemporary Accounting Research 34.1 (2017): 7.
Home:http://commons.aaahq.org/groups/e5075f0eec/summary
- research summary posted March 10, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards, 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk, 06.05 Assessing Risk of Material MisstatementTitle:The Use of Business Risk Audit Perspectives by Non-Big 4 Audit FirmsPractical Implications:
The first implication is a call for proportionality and flexibility to adopt an audit approach that meets the client-audit firm context. SMP auditors told us that they struggle with achieving proportionality by not performing some audit procedures such as entity-level analytical procedures for smaller clients, because they feel obliged to perform these procedures to comply with documentation requirements of the auditing standards or of regulators and oversight bodies. Such experiences may result in inefficient, ‘‘check-the-box’’ audits in order to satisfy perceived documentation requirements for review purposes.
The second implication is that standard setters should be aware that the type and/or scope of the assurance engagement might also vary by jurisdiction. For example, in a jurisdiction with a close book-tax alignment, the clients’ and users’ expectations about the type and scope of assurance may interact with the prescribed standards in shaping audit practice.
For more information on this study, please contact Niels van Nieuw Amerongen.
Citation:Van Buuren, J., C. Koch, N. v. Nieuw Amerongen, and A. M. Wright. 2014. The Use of Business Risk Audit Perspectives by Non-Big 4 Audit Firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 33 (3): 105-128
- research summary posted October 19, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality ControlTitle:Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings.Practical Implications:
The study results are important to regulators and audit practitioners as they show the differential audit quality for participating auditors used in issuer audits. The results show that audit quality declines when audit engagements use participating auditors that are not experienced in auditing SEC issuers. This indicates that public disclosure of the principal and participating auditors in the audit report can provide useful information to evaluate audit quality.
Citation:Dee, C.C., A. Lulseged, and T. Zhang. 2015. Who Did the Audit? Audit Quality and Disclosures of Other Audit Participants in PCAOB Filings. The Accounting Review 90 (5): 1939-1967.
- research summary posted July 27, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.02 Changes in Audit StandardsTitle:“Twisting words”? A study of the construction and reconstruction of reliability in financial reporting standard-setting.Practical Implications:
First, the authors present a long-term case study of the development of the idea of reliability in accounting literature and standard-setting which adds to histories of conceptual thinking in financial reporting. Hence, by following the decision-making of the standard setting bodies regarding the qualitative characteristics of their framework, this paper contributes to the scarce empirical literature on actual processes of standard-setting in accounting.
Citation:Erb, C., & Pelger, C. (2015). “Twisting words”? A study of the construction and reconstruction of reliability in financial reporting standard-setting. Accounting, Organizations & Society 40: 13-40.
Filter by Type
Filter by Tag
- All
- 01.0 Standard Setting
- 01.01 Changes in Reporting Formats
- 01.02 Changes in Audit Standards
- 01.03 Impact of New Accounting Pronouncements
- 01.04 Impact of 404
- 01.05 Impact of SOX
- 01.06 Impact of PCAOB
- 01.07 Impact of SEC Actions
- 02.0 Client Acceptance and Continuance
- 02.01 Audit Fee Decisions
- 02.02 Client Risk Assessment
- 02.03 Management Integrity Assessments
- 02.04 Predecessor Auditor Factors
- 02.05 Business Risk Assessment - e.g., industry, IPO, complexity
- 02.06 Resignation Decisions
- 03.0 Auditor Selection and Auditor Changes
- 03.01 Auditor Qualifications
- 03.02 Dismissal Decisions – impact of restatements, disagreements, fees, mergers
- 04.0 Independence and Ethics
- 04.01 Scope of Services
- 04.02 Impact of Fees on Decisions by Auditors & Management
- 04.03 Non-Audit Services
- 04.04 Moral Development and Individual Ethics Decisions
- 04.05 Ethics and Consultation
- 04.06 Reporting Ethics Breaches – Self & Others
- 04.07 Audit Firm Rotation
- 04.08 Impact of SEC Rules Changes/SarbOx
- 04.09 Individual & Team Conduct - e.g., premature signoff, underreporting hours
- 05.0 Audit Team Composition
- 05.01 Use of Specialists e.g., financial instruments, actuaries, valuation
- 05.02 Industry Expertise – Firm and Individual
- 05.03 Partner Rotation
- 05.04 Staff Hiring, Turnover and Morale
- 05.05 Diversity of Skill Sets e.g., Tenure and Experience
- 05.06 Qualifications of Engagement Quality Reviewers
- 05.07 Impact of 150-hour requirement
- 05.08 Impact of Office Size
- 05.09 Group Decision-Making
- 05.10 Impact of Diversity - e.g., gender - on Group Decision Making
- 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk
- 06.01 Fraud Risk Assessment
- 06.02 Fraud Risk Models
- 06.03 Failure Risk Models
- 06.04 Management Integrity
- 06.05 Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement
- 06.06 Earnings Management
- 06.07 SAS No. 99 Brainstorming – process
- 06.08 SAS No. 99 Brainstorming – effectiveness
- 06.09 Litigation Risk
- 06.10 Impact of office size
- 07.0 Internal Control
- 07.01 Scope of Testing
- 07.02 Assessing Material Weaknesses
- 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses
- 07.04 Assessing Remediation of Weaknesses
- 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality
- 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent
- 08.01 Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness
- 08.02 Sample Selection – use of statistical sampling
- 08.03 Conclusions Based on Samples
- 08.04 Auditors’ Professional Skepticism
- 08.05 Evaluating Accruals/Detection of Abnormal Accruals
- 08.06 Earnings Management – Detection and Response
- 08.07 Interim Testing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent
- 08.08 Projecting Interim Testing Conclusions Year End
- 08.09 Impact of Technology on Audit Procedures
- 08.10 Confirmation – Process and Evaluation of Responses
- 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors
- 09.0 Auditor Judgment
- 09.01 Audit Scope and Materiality Judgments
- 09.02 Documentation Specificity
- 09.03 Adequacy of Evidence
- 09.04 Going Concern Decisions
- 09.05 Failure Risk Models
- 09.06 Adequacy of Disclosure
- 09.07 GAAP Departures
- 09.08 Evaluation of Errors – Statistical and Non-statistical
- 09.09 Impact of Consultation on Judgments
- 09.10 Prior Dispositions/Biases/Auditor state of mind
- 09.11 Auditor judgment in the workpaper review process
- 09.12 Impact of potential post-audit review - e.g., PCAOB, internal firm inspections
- 09.13 Recognition vs. Disclosure
- 10.0 Engagement Management
- 10.01 Budgeting and Audit Time Management
- 10.02 Materiality and Scope Decisions
- 10.03 Interaction among Team Members
- 10.04 Interactions with Client Management
- 10.05 Interactions with Audit Committee Members
- 10.06 Audit Fees and Fee Negotiations
- 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control
- 11.01 Supervision and Review – Effectiveness
- 11.02 Engagement Quality Review – Processes and Effectiveness
- 11.03 Management/Staff Interaction
- 11.04 Industry Experience
- 11.05 Training and General Experience
- 11.06 Working Paper Review – Conduct, Biases and Predispositions
- 11.07 Attempts to Measure Audit Quality
- 11.08 Proxies for Audit Quality
- 11.09 Evaluation of Evidence
- 11.10 Impact of Quality Reviewers
- 11.11 Impact of Firm and External Inspection Programs
- 11.12 Impact of National Office on Auditor Decisions
- 11.13 Partner incentive schemes
- 12.0 Accountants’ Reports and Reporting
- 12.01 Going Concern Decisions
- 12.02 Quarterly Reviews
- 12.03 Restatements
- 12.04 Investigations
- 12.05 Changes in Reporting Formats
- 12.06 Consequences of Adverse 404 Opinions
- 12.07 Attestation Services
- 13.0 Governance
- 13.01 Board/Audit Committee Composition
- 13.02 Board/Financial Experts
- 13.03 Board/Audit Committee Tenure
- 13.04 Board/Audit Committee Compensation
- 13.05 Board/Audit Committee Oversight
- 13.06 Board/Audit Committee Processes
- 13.07 Internal auditor role and involvement in controls and reporting
- 14.0 Corporate Matters
- 14.01 Earnings Management
- 14.02 Corporate Whistle Blowers
- 14.03 Interim Reporting
- 14.04 MD and A Language/Signaling
- 14.05 Earnings Targets and Management Behavior
- 14.06 CFO Tenure and Experience
- 14.07 Executive Compensation
- 14.08 Press Release Language and Signaling
- 14.09 CEO Tenure and Experience
- 14.10 CEO Compensation
- 14.11 Audit Committee Effectiveness
- 15.0 International Matters
- 15.01 Audit Partner Identification by Name
- 15.02 IFRS Changes – Impacts
- 15.03 Audit Partner Rotation
- 15.04 Audit Firm Rotation
- 15.05 Sustainability Services