This paper is intended to prompt auditors to take advantage of easier access to population data in today’s digital business environment. By abandoning sampling auditors can develop much more sophisticated models of behavior that can identify anomalies in ways that were not possible before. Auditors can also be more creative in how they treat data, be it in aggregating it across organizational subunits or in larger and smaller time units. Most innovative of all, auditors and/or managers have the ability to continually update their expectation models by investigating errors and anomalies in real time and correcting them, so that the model is not based on flawed data. We find that such error correction greatly improves the accuracy of analytical procedures. Perhaps the most important finding, however, is that almost all the various expectation models we used gave similarly strong results which implies that what really matters is the size of the data set. Once auditors move away from sampling they will find that population data provides great statistical power when developing analytical procedures that reduces the reliance on finding just the right such procedure.

For more information on this study, please contact Alexander Kogan.

Kogan, A., M. Alles, M. Vasarhelyi and J. Wu. 2014. Design and Evaluation of a Continuous Data Level Auditing System. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. 33 (4): 221-245.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

This experiment provides evidence that training in a systems perspective could help auditors analyze complex relationships between accounting data. This could be used to set appropriate analytics expectations and, more importantly, provide a credible way to determine whether management’s representations are well-grounded or not.  This method also appears to require less mental effort to implement, since it moves the complicated relationship structure out of memory and onto a model.  Given the added complexity of many estimates in today’s companies, systematic methods of processing information like a systems perspective may help to simplify the analysis of the estimates.

For more information on this study, please contact Billy Brewster.
 

Brewster, B. E.  2011.  How a systems perspective improves knowledge acquisition and performance in analytical procedures.  The Accounting Review 86 (3), 915-943.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

Bedard’s (2006) discussion of Vandervelde (2006) reinforces the fact that auditors do incorporate the relationships among accounts in their responses to increases in misstatement risk.  He also suggests that it is important to consider how this pattern maps to auditors’ risk assessments at the financial statement assertion level.  His discussion emphasizes that in response to fee pressure, auditors may shift planned audit hours between accounts (i.e., from low risk areas to high risk areas), rather than increasing overall planned audit hours.  Finally, despite Bedard’s (2006) caveat that this result could be due to auditor self-presentation concerns or a change in the mix of audit procedures that does not result in increased hours, it is important to note that auditors do not appear to reduce planned audit hours in response to fee pressure – and that this could reflect auditors’ cognizance of the heightened importance that investors and the market currently placed on the role of auditing.

Bedard, J. 2006. Discussion of: “The Importance of Account Relations when Responding to Interim Audit Testing Results”. Contemporary Accounting Research. 23(3): 823 – 831.

Analytical procedures are used frequently and increasingly are relied upon as substantive evidence. Based on this study, auditors are insensitive to the impreciseness of the analytical procedure when the results are favorable and may be a cause for over-reliance on weak evidence.  Performing a stronger, more precise analytical procedure caused participants in the favorable outcome situation to become more aware of the weakness of the initial procedure and re-evaluate their evidence strength rating. Further, evidence suggests that having auditors consider the possible weaknesses of an analytical procedure prior to performing the procedure will cause them to rate the strength of the evidence from a weak analytical procedure lower. Overall, this suggests a need to better train auditors in performing and interpreting analytical procedures.

In a discussion of Glover et al.’s paper, McDaniel asks whether the findings may indicate that auditors in the unfavorable outcome (i.e. there is a material difference) are under-relying on the evidence rather than that auditors in the favorable outcome (no material difference) are over-relying on the evidence. Glover et al. respond that the over-relying of the evidence is of concern to regulators and the alternative does not explain all of the results.  McDaniel also notes that the case study was of a company in the financial industry but that the participants were not required to have any financial industry experience. Glover et al. note that the interest income item is the issue which is not specific to the industry or complicated.  McDaniel also notes concerns about a potential “anchoring” effect as the participants performed their analytical procedures based on prior year working paper results.  In response, Glover et al. discuss this feature of an audit. 

Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawitt, and T. J. Wilks. 2005.  Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  197-220.  

McDaniel, L. 2005.  DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  221-228. 

Glover, S. M., D. F. Prawlitt, and T. J. Wilks. 2005. REPLY TO DISCUSSION OF Why Do Auditor’s Over-Rely on Weak Analytical Procedures?  The Role of Outcome and Precision.  Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (Supplement):  229-232.