This paper complements and extends the limited extant research on inspection risk by clearly defining the construct and providing empirical evidence consistent with its existence and impact on auditors’ planning decisions. The authors contend that while auditors may perceive that PARs do not influence effort or fees, both PARs likely cause auditors, perhaps unconsciously, to increase effort and fees.
C. M. Stefaniak, R. W. Houston, and D. B. Brandon. 2017. Investigating Inspection Risk: An Analysis of PCAOB Inspections and Internal Quality Reviews. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 36 (1): 151 – 168.
By examining the cognitive impact of the different judgment frameworks, this study provides academics, practitioners, and regulators with important insight into why counterfactual reasoning and a structured thought process differentially enhance auditors’ professional skepticism.
Backof, A. G., E. M. Bamber and T. D. Carpenter. Do auditor judgment frameworks help in constraining aggressive reporting? Evidence under more precise and less precise accounting standards. Accounting, Organizations and Society 51: 1-11.
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.
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.
Based on the interviews and problems identified, the authors conjecture that potentially suboptimal auditing methods are being used to evaluate complex estimates which are an important and growing part of the financial statements. This may be negatively impacting audit quality. More specifically, auditors over-rely on management estimates because they lack the knowledge and incentives to behave otherwise. This possibility has direct consequences for auditor professional skepticism because increasing professional skepticism may be less effective unless auditors are also given the requisite knowledge to properly use it. These problems are reinforced by auditing standards and regulators which generally outline/criticize the current auditing methods without suggesting new or better ones.
Griffith, E., J. Hammersley, and K. Kadous. 2015. Audits of Complex Estimates as Verification of Management Numbers: How Institutional Pressures Shape Practice. Contemporary Accounting Research 32 (3): 833-863.
The findings of this study are important for audit firms when considering how audit offices implement the normally positive tone at the top of the firms that seem to favor practices and policies that support an open error management climate (EMC). First, our results suggest that successfully establishing an open EMC is beneficial for an audit firm in most (but not all) situations examined in terms of enhancing the firm’s ability to uncover internally errors that otherwise may remain undetected in audit working papers. Our findings imply, however, that these benefits can only be achieved when an open EMC is not only stated in formal firm policies but is actually implemented and consistently applied at the individual audit office level. Second, our findings imply that increasing auditors’ willingness to report their own conceptual errors (e.g., where an ineffective procedure is employed or incorrectly implemented) is particularly challenging and requires measures to support auditors in overcoming their concerns about presenting a good impression to their firm, given that an open EMC was not sufficient by itself to increase the reporting of conceptual errors. Finally, the generally high willingness to report own errors suggests that a key question is how to enhance the likelihood that auditors will indeed self-detect these errors.
Further our findings suggest that audit regulators and inspectors need to be careful in their attempts to ensure that audit firm’s implement policies that support audit quality. In particular, proposals that would link compensation, discipline and other within firm sanctions for audit quality reducing actions need to be considered carefully in light of the effects that such policies would have on the firm’s error management climate. Careful delineation between repeat offenders being punished versus supporting an open learning environment for initial reporting of errors needs to be carefully considered and communicated or else the error management climate can quickly become a blame climate where errors are not reduced, just hidden better.
For more information on this study, please contact any of the authors.
Gold, A., U. Gronewold, and S. E. Salterio. 2014. Error management in audit firms: Error climate, type, and originator. The Accounting Review 89 (1): 303-330.
The results of this study make several contributions. It is beneficial to researchers interested in furthering our understanding of the effects and effectiveness of IQRs and PCAOB inspections, as well as to practitioners and regulators. While many opportunities for further research exist, results indicating a large portion of partners try to predict the engagements that will be selected for either PAR can serve as a foundation to investigate further the effects of PAR salience on audit planning and reporting decisions.
For more information on this study, please contact Richard W. Houston
Houston, R. W., and C. M. Stefaniak. 2013. Audit Partner Perceptions of Post-Audit Review Mechanisms: An Examination of Internal Quality Reviews and PCAOB Inspections. Accounting Horizons 27 (1).
This study should be of interest to both regulators and audit firms. In the future, standard setters should consider how natural human behavior may result in unintended consequences. By considering psychology, standard setters may be able to write the standards in a way to minimize those potential consequences or at least be aware of the risks.
This study should also be of interest to audit firms because current auditing standards are neutral with respect to whether audit documentation of risk assessments are performed quantitatively or qualitatively. This implies that either option is adequate and treats the potential costs as minor. As risk assessments that are more lenient in nature tend to lead to fewer audit procedures and less substantive evidence, the costs may be more than inconsequential.
For more information on this study, please contact M. David Piercey.
Piercey, M. D. 2011. Documentation Requirements and Quantified versus Qualitative Audit Risk Assessments. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (4):223-248.