Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

Posts

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    A Decade after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Need for Ongoing...
    research summary posted July 21, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB 
    Title:
    A Decade after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Need for Ongoing Vigilance, Monitoring, and Research.
    Practical Implications:

    This paper provides views on many areas within the auditing profession that would benefit from further research and analysis, as well as opportunities for research that could be useful to the PCAOB as it considers current and future regulatory priorities.

    Citation:

    Franzel, J. M. 2014. A Decade after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Need for Ongoing Vigilance, Monitoring, and Research. Accounting Horizons 28 (4): 917-930. 

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    A Former PCAOB Board Member Looks to the Past...and to the...
    research summary posted July 21, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB 
    Title:
    A Former PCAOB Board Member Looks to the Past...and to the Future.
    Practical Implications:

    Bill Gradison believes that an appropriate and effective way to protect the investor would be to share its wealth of data with protections of confidentiality with outside group, especially of those in academia, to foster research that might shed light on the importance of investor protection and how best to protect investors in the future.

    Citation:

    Gradison, B. 2014. A Former PCAOB Board Member Looks to the Past...and to the Future. Accounting Horizons 28 (4): 931-935.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    A Perspective on the PCAOB - Past and Future.
    research summary posted July 21, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.05 Impact of SOX, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB 
    Title:
    A Perspective on the PCAOB - Past and Future.
    Practical Implications:

    The quality of the firm performing the audit is important but must be viewed through the perspective of a specific engagement team and a specific set of circumstances. Information supplied by the PCAOB is one component of the evaluation of the likelihood that an engagement team will perform a quality audit and of specific areas of audit practice where deficiencies have been identified. In the end, however, issues of independence, auditor rotation, industry competence, attention to the work, and all the other important aspects of audit quality must be monitored by the audit committee at the engagement level in the context of the specific engagement.

    Citation:

    Wedemeyer, P. D. 2014. A Perspective on the PCAOBPast and Future. Accounting Horizons 28 (4): 937-947.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Are PCAOB-Identified Audit Deficiencies Associated with a...
    research summary posted November 10, 2014 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.04 Going Concern Decisions 
    Title:
    Are PCAOB-Identified Audit Deficiencies Associated with a Change in Reporting Decisions of Triennially Inspected Audit Firms?
    Practical Implications:

    Our findings seem to support statements made by the PCAOB regarding the usefulness of the inspection process in changing audit firm behavior.

    The change in GC reporting decisions that we find suggests either (1) an increased conservatism following a PCAOB inspection, of the audit firm on important reporting issues, and/or (2) an increased level of competence brought to the reporting decision.

    It is important to note that we find no change in the accuracy of the GC opinions, as measured by the future bankruptcy (or not) for clients that received a GC opinion.

    For more information on this study, please contact Jayanthi Krishnan.

    Citation:

    Gramling, A.A., J. Krishnan and Y. Zhang. 2011. Are PCAOB-Identified Audit Deficiencies Associated with a Change in Reporting Decisions of Triennially Inspected Audit Firms? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 30 (3): 59-79.

  • The Auditing Section
    Auditor Standard Setting and Inspection for U.S. Public...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.05 Impact of SOX, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB 
    Title:
    Auditor Standard Setting and Inspection for U.S. Public Companies:
    Practical Implications:

    The authors hope to generate discussion and reform of accounting and auditing regulation, specifically with respect to the PCAOB, based upon the observations and points below. 

    • The authors believe that the audit “profession lost sight of its core values such as independence, high-quality audits, and responsibility to the public trust.  …in many ways, SOX led to a justified back-to-basics focus within the largest international accounting firms.”
    • Under the Auditing Standards Board (ASB), the United States was the global leader in auditing standard-setting.  There are currently three sets of auditing standards that may govern an audit:  the ASB, the PCAOB and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 
    • Auditors of publicly held companies will continue to audit against audit standards sponsored by several different standard setters in efforts to conduct high quality audits. Audit quality will continue to be a high priority of regulators and the firm’s quality control functions.  Coordinating the various standard setters’ requirements into a single quality control system for firms will be a challenge.
    • In an effort to increase independence of standard-setting from the audit profession, the PCAOB has adopted a non-expert model.  The resulting standards may be costly and of poor quality.
      • PCAOB inspections are not able to conduct risk-based inspections.
      • Inspection reports do not adequately distinguish between trivial and significant findings for the public to understand whether the audit itself is of adequate quality.
      • Inspection reports are issued so late as to be of little value in the subsequent audit.
    • The PCAOB should reconsider its standard-setting and inspection processes.
      • Standard-setting should be better aligned with the process of financial accounting standards.  Specifically, the standards should be set by the profession with oversight by the PCAOB.  The analogy is that FASB sets the accounting standards with oversight by the SEC.  Alternatively, the PCAOB should adopt the IAASB/ASB standards.  Either approach utilizes the expertise not currently resident in the PCAOB and reduces the complexity and number of standards a firm must follow in conducting a quality audit.
      • Although the AICPA peer inspection process has weaknesses, it leverages industry and technical expertise that is currently lacking in the PCAOB process.   The authors recommend a “peer enhanced” federal inspection.  With direction and scope provided by the PCAOB, and inspections by industry expert peers, the inspections would improve at a reduced PCAOB cost.
      • Transparency should be a priority of the PCAOB in standard-setting as well as reporting of inspection findings.  In addition, a resolution process should be implemented so disputes between the inspection team and the firm can be resolved.
    Citation:

    Glover, S.M., D. F. Prawitt, and M. H. Taylor. 2009. Auditor standard setting and inspection for U.S. public companies:  A critical assessment and recommendations for fundamental change.  Accounting Horizons 23 (2): 221-237.

    Home:
    home button
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Auditing and Financial...
    research summary posted April 1, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 01.07 Impact of SEC Actions, 15.0 International Matters 
    Title:
    Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Auditing and Financial Reporting Regulation Post-SOX, Part II: Perspectives from the Nexus at the SEC
    Practical Implications:

    The study provides helpful insight on auditing and financial reporting public policy issues and initiatives. The report focuses on the roles of the SEC and PCAOB in the setting of standards, convergence of standards, and the formation of a new public oversight regulating body. The author provides her personal perspective on the complications and thought processes behind many of the tasks taken on by the SEC from 2006 - 2008.

    For more information on this study, please contact Zoe-Vonna Palmrose (zv.palmrose@marshall.usc.edu).

    Citation:

    Palmrose, Z.-V. 2010. 2010. Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Auditing and Financial Reporting Regulation Post-SOX, Part II: Perspectives from the Nexus at the SEC. Accounting Horizons 24 (3):487-507.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Client Stock Market Reaction to PCAOB Sanctions Against a...
    research summary posted July 30, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control 
    Title:
    Client Stock Market Reaction to PCAOB Sanctions Against a Big 4 Auditor.
    Practical Implications:

    The authors provide evidence on the PCAOB actions by showing that the PCAOB’s sanctions against Deloitte contain information useful to market participants. When public disclosure of a quality control problem is made by the PCAOB, investors react by discounting their valuation of that audit firm’s clients. Clients value disclosures about control weaknesses found at audit firms.

    Citation:

    Dee, C. C., Lulseged, A., & Zhang, T. 2011. Client Stock Market Reaction to PCAOB Sanctions Against a Big 4 Auditor. Contemporary Accounting Research 28 (1): 263-291.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte...
    research summary posted July 27, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control 
    Title:
    Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte Impose Actual Costs on the Firm or Improve Its Audit Quality?
    Practical Implications:

    The results suggest that the PCAOB censure imposed actual costs on Deloitte by adversely affecting its switching risk and lowering audit fees. However, Deloitte’s audit quality appears to be no different from that of the other Big 4 firms during a three-year period either before or after the censure. Thus, the findings suggest that PCAOB censure can inflict actual harm on a Big 4 auditor by adversely impacting audit committee perceptions of the firm’s audit quality, but without an observable improvement in the firm’s audit outcomes as reflected in the audit quality metrics.

    Citation:

    Boone, J. P., Khurana, I. K., & Raman, K. K. 2015. Did the 2007 PCAOB Disciplinary Order against Deloitte Impose Actual Costs on the Firm or Improve Its Audit Quality? Accounting Review 90 (2): 405-441.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Did the PCAOB’s Restrictions on Auditors’ Tax Services Imp...
    research summary posted September 13, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 04.0 Independence and Ethics, 04.03 Non-Audit Services 
    Title:
    Did the PCAOB’s Restrictions on Auditors’ Tax Services Improve Audit Quality?
    Practical Implications:

     This study serves the purpose of examining the PCAOB’s role as overseer of public company auditing, while separating from previous studies by targeting the PCAOB’s restrictions on auditors’ tax services, which have not been examined in the past. This study also examines whether APTS pose a threat to audit quality but again differentiates itself from previous literature by focusing on only the tax services that the PCAOB chose to ban and by utilizing the difference-in-differences design to address the limitation of the cross-sectional approach utilized by other studies in the past. After reviewing these findings, it is possible that the PCAOB restrictions did not fully accomplish their objective.

    Citation:

     Lennox, C. S. 2016. Did the PCAOB’s Restrictions on Auditors’ Tax Services Improve Audit Quality? The Accounting Review 91 (5): 1493-1512.

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Do Income Tax-Related Deficiencies in Publicly Disclosed...
    research summary posted September 13, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.12 Impact of potential post-audit review - e.g., PCAOB, internal firm inspections 
    Title:
    Do Income Tax-Related Deficiencies in Publicly Disclosed PCAOB Part II Reports Influence Audit Client Financial Reporting of Income Tax Accounts?
    Practical Implications:

     While many studies examine how the Part I inspection report or the PCAOB inspection process as a whole impact the auditor and audit committee decision making, the research on the impact of Part II reports is limited. Furthermore, the PCAOB is publicly issuing Part II inspection reports with greater frequency; thus, an understanding of how the failed remediation of Part II reports influences the audit firm and its clients is of importance to a number of parties.

    Citation:

     Drake, K. D., N. C. Goldman, and S. J. Lusch. 2016. Do Income Tax-Related Deficiencies in Publicly Disclosed PCAOB Part II Reports Influence Audit Client Financial Reporting of Income Tax Accounts? The Accounting Review 91 (5): 1411-1439.

Filter by Type

Filter by Tag