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
    The Effects of Employer and Client Identification on...
    research summary posted September 12, 2013 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors 
    Title:
    The Effects of Employer and Client Identification on Internal and External Auditors' Evaluation of Control Deficiencies
    Practical Implications:

    The Primary implication of this study is that reliance on the work of internal auditors may improve audit quality. AS5 recommends reliance on the work of internal auditors for lower-risk areas because it is presumed to improve efficiency. This paper, however, suggests that quality will be improved as well. Therefore, auditors may want to evaluate policies regarding regarding using the work of internal auditors and do so more heavily in the future.
     

    For more information on this study, please contact C.M. Stefaniak.

    Citation:

    Stefaniak, C., R. Houston, and R. Cornell. 2012. The Effects of Employer and Client Identification on Internal and External Auditors' Evaluations of Internal Control Deficiencies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory. (31)1:39 –56.

    Keywords:
    Auditor judgment, organizational identification, internal auditor, external auditor
    Purpose of the Study:

    Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) encourages external auditors to rely on internal auditors to increase the efficiency of lower-risk internal control evaluations. This study uses experimental data to determine whether internal auditors or external auditors are more lenient and by extension, which auditors perform higher quality audits.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    In the post-Sarbanes Oxley period, the authors conducted an experiment with 40 internal auditors and 48 external auditors. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario, and were asked to evaluate the internal controls of the hypothetical firm.

    Findings:

    The main differences between internal and external auditors are as follows:

    • Internal auditors perceive a greater level employer identification when compared to external auditors
    • Internal auditors are less lenient than external auditors
       
    Category:
    Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent
    Sub-category:
    Reliance on Internal Auditors
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    The Effects of Internal Audit Report Type and Reporting...
    research summary posted October 20, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors, 13.0 Governance, 13.07 Internal auditor role and involvement in controls and reporting 
    Title:
    The Effects of Internal Audit Report Type and Reporting Relationship on Internal Auditors' Risk Judgments.
    Practical Implications:

    This study’s results are important to regulators thinking about requiring issuance of an internal audit report and practitioners planning how to respond to such proposals. The authors suggest that the assurance internal audit report, which leads to more conservative risk assessment when internal auditors mainly report to the audit committee, may prove rather costly and unpopular among internal auditors. Meanwhile, the descriptive internal audit report, which prior research found to be useful to investors, does not make internal auditors more conservative, but it may prove less costly and more popular among internal auditors. Ultimately, these findings suggest that regulators need to discuss any internal audit report proposals with key stakeholders, including internal auditors, before getting too far into the rule making process. 

    Citation:

    Boyle, D. M., F. T. DeZoort, and D. R. Hermanson. 2015. The Effects of Internal Audit Report Type and Reporting Relationship on Internal Auditors' Risk Judgments. Accounting Horizons 29 (3): 695-718.

    Keywords:
    internal audit, descriptive report, assurance report, reporting relationship, accountability
    Purpose of the Study:

    External stakeholders want information to help them better understand corporate governance at the companies they follow. Although disclosure about many elements of corporate governance is currently available, little is known about the internal audit function. Such information asymmetry may be decreased via the issuance of an internal audit report. In fact, a few organizations have voluntary started issuing internal audit reports to external stakeholders. However, nothing is known about whether and how different forms of these reports impact internal auditors’ judgments. These judgments may also be impacted by whether the internal auditors mainly report to management or the audit committee. The purpose of this study is to discover:

    • How do descriptive internal audit reports (i.e., reports describing the “composition, responsibilities, accountability, activities, and resources” of the internal audit function) impact internal auditors’ fraud risk and control risk assessments?
    • How do assurance internal audit reports (i.e., reports containing the internal auditors’ opinion of the organization’s “internal control effectiveness”) impact internal auditors’ fraud risk and control risk assessments?
    • How do different types of reporting structure (e.g., reporting directly to management vs. the audit committee) impact internal auditors’ fraud risk and control risk assessments?

    The authors hope to find answers to these questions in order to provide regulators with insights that can be used when considering potential regulation of the internal audit function.
     

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors collected their evidence prior to August 2013 via a case emailed to highly experienced IIA members working at public and nonpublic companies. In this case, the authors manipulated the presence of a descriptive internal audit report, presence of an assurance internal audit report, and whether the internal auditor reported to management or the audit committee. Participants were asked to make fraud risk and control risk assessments, as well as explain whether and why they support or do not support the issuance of descriptive and assurance internal audit reports.

    Findings:
    • Compared to their non-reporting peers, internal auditors who provide descriptive internal audit reports do not make more conservative fraud risk or control risk assessments.
    • Compared to their non-reporting peers, internal auditors providing assurance internal audit reports make (do not make) more conservative fraud (control) risk assessments.
    • Internal auditors providing assurance internal audit reports do not make more conservative fraud risk or controls risk assessments than peers providing descriptive internal audit reports.
    • Internal auditors reporting mainly to the audit committee make more conservative fraud risk or control risk assessments than peers reporting mainly to management.
    • Internal auditors providing assurance internal audit reports who report mainly to management (the audit committee) have the least (most) conservative control risk assessments. 
    • Of internal auditors not providing assurance internal audit reports, those reporting mainly to management or mainly to the audit committee make equally conservative control risk assessments.
    • Both public and nonpublic internal auditors show moderate support for descriptive internal audit reports, with support from nonpublic internal auditors marginally higher than from public internal auditors. Participants believe that while descriptive internal audit reports may enhance the prestige of the internal audit function and enhance corporate governance, they not be relevant to external stakeholders and may interfere with internal audits’ true role.
    • Compared to support for descriptive internal audit reports, support for assurance internal audit reports is lower. Participants believe that although assurance internal audit reports may enhance corporate governance, they may open internal audit to scapegoating, interfere with internal audits’ true role, lead to replication of external auditors’ work, and take away the flexibility that lets internal audit focus on important areas that the external auditors consider out of scope.
    • Internal auditors expect descriptive (assurance) internal audit reports to cost about 17.5% (59.3%) of an internal audit department’s current budget.
    Category:
    Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent, Governance
    Sub-category:
    Internal auditor role and involvement in controls and reporting, Reliance on Internal Auditors
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    The Effects of Using the Internal Audit Function as a...
    research summary posted July 27, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors 
    Title:
    The Effects of Using the Internal Audit Function as a Management Training Ground or as a Consulting Services Provider in Enhancing the Recruitment of Internal Auditors.
    Practical Implications:

    The results suggest that the profession of internal auditing faces a challenge in attracting talent, since college-graduate job applicants with some work experience are deterred from applying to positions labeled as internal audit. These individuals believe that other professionals have negative perceptions of the internal audit profession. Furthermore, the only condition that improved the likelihood that experienced job candidates would apply for an internal audit position is when the job candidates expected to spend little time in internal auditing before moving into positions outside of the IAF and the position performed primarily consulting tasks a deviation from the traditional internal audit role of performing primarily assurance services. If the IAF cannot attract a sufficient number of high-quality applicants, then its ability to serve as an effective cornerstone of high-quality corporate governance will likely be compromised.

    Citation:

    Burton, F. G., Starliper, M. W., Summers, S. L., & Wood, D. A. 2015. The Effects of Using the Internal Audit Function as a Management Training Ground or as a Consulting Services Provider in Enhancing the Recruitment of Internal Auditors. Accounting Horizons 29 (1): 115-140.

    Keywords:
    assurance services, consulting services, hiring decisions, internal audit, management training ground, recruiting
    Purpose of the Study:

    A critical component of high-quality corporate governance is having a high-quality internal audit function (IAF). The purpose of this research is first, to empirically examine the degree to which student job applicants are dissuaded from working in internal auditing positions, and second, to investigate how different job structure factors, namely using the IAF as a management training ground and/or using the IAF to perform consulting versus assurance work, affect the desirability of internal audit positions. Understanding how the type of work the IAF performs impacts job applicants is important for developing a respected and desirable profession.

    In addition to the type of work internal audit performs, a significant number of companies use the IAF as a management training ground (MTG)rotating employees, either new or experienced, into the IAF for a short stint before placing them into management positions outside the IAF. Although popular in practice, prior research shows this staffing model is associated with significant negative outcomes such as higher external audit fees, greater risk of misstated financial statements, and larger internal audit. Given these significant negative consequences, it is important to understand if positive factors exist to explain why so many companies use these rotational staffing arrangements. In this study, the authors specifically examine whether increased interest in internal audit positions is one of these positive factors of using the IAF as a MTG.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors conduct two experiments to test their hypotheses. All participants in the experiments were senior students or graduate accounting students. Experiment 1 was fully completed by 100 students, and Experiment 2 was fully completed by 169 students. Professors from six different universities emailed their students to encourage participation in the experiment. The sampled universities included both public and private institution across the United States. The evidence was collected prior to January 2014. 

    Findings:

    Responses show that participants are less likely to apply to job positions labeled as “internal audit” as opposed to those that have an “accounting” label. Additional analyses reveal that these results are driven by participants with business experience (regardless of the type and amount of experience). Twenty percent (Experiment 1) and 33 percent (Experiment 2) fewer participants with business experience would apply for a job described as internal auditing than a job described as accounting. For participants with no business experience, there was no difference in willingness to apply for the job based on the internal audit or accounting job labels.

    While participants believe internal auditors are highly respected, have excellent compensation and benefits, perform meaningful and satisfying work, have excellent promotion opportunities, and have excellent work-life balance, experienced participants believe that other business professionals have negative stereotypes of internal auditing. Altering internal audit job descriptions to include both consulting activities and management development only moderately increases applicant interest. Almost twice as many experienced participants are likely to apply to work in internal auditing when the IAF both performs consulting work and is used as a MTG, while inexperienced applicants are indifferent toward the manipulations.

    Category:
    Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent
    Sub-category:
    Reliance on Internal Auditors
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    The Impact of Internal Audit Function Quality and...
    research summary posted July 24, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.04 Impact of 404, 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors, 11.0 Audit Quality and Quality Control 
    Title:
    The Impact of Internal Audit Function Quality and Contribution on Audit Delay.
    Practical Implications:

    This research should be of interest to regulators who are concerned with the timeliness of financial reports, practitioners who are responsible for preparing and auditing financial statements, and standard setters who provide auditing guidance. In particular, the findings indicate that firms’ decisions regarding the structure of the IAF and their role in the financial statement audit can significantly affect audit completion times. Reducing audit delay from current levels back to pre- SOX 404 levels could potentially reverse the decline in the reliability of earnings announcements. The results are useful to external auditors in determining whether and how IAF work can be incorporated into the financial statement audit. This study also provides support for recent PCAOB guidance contending that external auditors can improve audit efficiency by making more extensive use of work performed by others.

    Citation:

     Pizzini, M., Lin, S., & Ziegenfuss, D. E. 2015. The Impact of Internal Audit Function Quality and Contribution on Audit Delay. Auditing: A Journal Of Practice & Theory 34 (1): 25-58.

    Keywords:
    audit delay, audit report timeliness, internal audit contribution, internal audit quality
    Purpose of the Study:

    This study investigates the internal audit function’s (IAF’s) role in the financial statement audit by examining whether measures of IAF quality and the IAF’s contribution to the financial statement audit affect audit delay. Audit delay, measured as the number of days between a firm’s fiscal year-end and the audit report date, generally captures the time required to complete fieldwork. Current interest in audit delay stems from recent accelerations in reporting deadlines and the implementation of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which together require preparers and external auditors to do more work in less time. Given the increased attestation requirements created by SOX, it is important to investigate ways in which the IAF can influence audit delay. In this study, the authors argue that the IAF can significantly affect audit completion times by helping management establish and maintain a strong system of internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) and by assisting the external auditor in the financial statement audit. The authors investigate whether IAF quality and the IAF’s contribution to financial statement audits affect audit delay in a sample of 292 firm-year observations drawn from the pre-SOX 404 period. 

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors use firm-level data collected by the IIA through their 2003 and 2004 GAIN surveys. They then collect firm financial data from Compustat and audit fee and restatement data from Audit Analytics. The resulting sample contains 293 firm-year observations from 216 firms with fiscal years ending on or after December 31, 2000 and prior to November 15, 2004.

    Findings:
    • A one standard deviation increase in the comprehensive quality measure corresponds to audit delay reductions of 3.1 to 3.9 days, which are primarily driven by the competence of the internal audit staff and the quality of their fieldwork.
    • Objectivity and investment in the IAF are also associated with reductions in audit delay, but significance levels vary with time period and model specification.
    • Audit delay is significantly shorter (4.1 to 6.6 days) when the IAF contributes to the financial statement audit by independently performing relevant work, but not when the IAF works under the direction of the external auditor.
    • The mean delay is 41.9 days, and earnings are announced an average of 9.8 days prior to the audit report date.
    • High-quality IAFs are more likely to assist the external auditor by independently performing relevant work, while low-quality IAFs are more likely to be used as direct assistants.
    • The authors expect the impact of IAF quality and contribution would be even larger in the current period. The more rigorous attestation requirements of SOX 404 expanded the IAF’s potential to contribute to the financial reporting process and, therefore, should increase the impact of IAF quality and contribution on audit delay.
       
    Category:
    Audit Quality & Quality Control, Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent, Standard Setting
    Sub-category:
    Impact of 404, Reliance on Internal Auditors
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    The Role of Account Subjectivity and Risk of Material...
    research summary posted July 18, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk, 06.05 Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement, 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors 
    Title:
    The Role of Account Subjectivity and Risk of Material Misstatement on Auditors’ Internal Audit Reliance Judgments
    Practical Implications:

    This paper suggests that the relationship between account subjectivity and usage of internal audit depends on the relative risk of misstatement.  This complex relationship has not been shown in academic literature, nor is it highlighted in audit standards.  More specifically, at lower levels of risk of misstatement, increases in subjectivity have no influence on the reliance of internal audit.  At moderate risk levels the extent of internal audit reliance increases with subjectivity of the account.  At high levels of misstatement internal audit reliance decreases with account subjectivity.  This study provides insight into the decision criteria for internal audit reliance and highlight where internal audit usage maybe more prevalent, as well as were further audit guidance may be beneficial.

    Citation:

    Bhattacharjee, S., M.J. Maletta, K.K. Moreno. 2016. The Role of Account Subjectivity and Risk of Material Misstatement on Auditors’ Internal Audit Reliance Judgments. Accounting Horizons 30 (2): 225-238.

    Keywords:
    Internal audit; account subjectivity; material misstatement risk
    Purpose of the Study:

    Reliance on Internal Audit has become an important element of the external audit.  Use of Internal Audit can play a significant role in reducing audit costs without sacrificing audit quality.  However, the extent of usage of Internal Audit has been shown to be influenced by inherent risk, control risk, and the subjectivity of audit tasks.  This paper looks at the interaction between risk assessment and subjectivity to provide insight into the complexities associated with the usage of internal audit.  The authors aim to dive deeper into the analysis of internal audit usage, expanding on the dichotomous “low or high risk” assessment by investigating moderate risk scenarios.  By analyzing these relationships with a field-based questionnaire, the authors present documentation of how real decisions are based on a complex assessment of the role of internal auditors.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors conducted a field-based questionnaire using 68 auditors from a Big 4 firm.  These auditors were located in the U.S., but came from different geographic areas.  They have an average experience of 46 months and represented 15 different industry specializations.  The auditors were asked to choose one public company client and respond to questions regarding demographic information, client characteristics, external audit team characteristics, client misstatement risk, account subjectivity, client internal audit structure, and external audit assessment of internal audit usage.

    Findings:
    • The authors find that auditors’ reliance decisions involve an interaction between material misstatement risk and account area subjectivity. 
    • The authors find that incremental increases in account subjectivity have no effect on extent of internal audit reliance when misstatement risk is assessed at lower levels.  At moderate levels of misstatement risk, however, account subjectivity is positively associated with use of internal auditors.  This suggests that moderate misstatement risk creates opportunities for auditors to benefit from increasing internal audit utilization without offsetting impairments to audit effectiveness.  At higher levels of misstatement risk, incremental increases in account subjectivity have a negative association with external audit usage.
    Category:
    Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent, Risk & Risk Management - Including Fraud Risk
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement, Reliance on Internal Auditors
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Welcome to the day-to-day of internal auditors: How do they...
    research summary posted July 30, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.11 Reliance on Internal Auditors, 13.0 Governance, 13.07 Internal auditor role and involvement in controls and reporting 
    Title:
    Welcome to the day-to-day of internal auditors: How do they cope with conflict?
    Practical Implications:

    This study makes an original contribution to the development of new knowledge on internal auditing. It concludes that internal auditors tend to lack independence and audit committee members often exercise disturbingly weak power (on the internal audit function), as compared to the top managers. This points to the difficulty of applying an idealized conception of independence and purist governance principles to practice. That is, it encourages auditors to consider the appropriateness of internal auditing as a meaningful independent assurance device in operating the corporate governance "mosaic."

    Citation:

    Roussy, M. 2015. Welcome to the day-to-day of internal auditors: How do they cope with conflict? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 34 (2): 237-264.

    Keywords:
    audit committee, conflicts, coping, independence, internal audit
    Purpose of the Study:

    The internal audit function (IAF) was made mandatory in both private and public companies in North America in the early 2000s. This paper proposes a ''micro-level'' analysis of the way in which internal auditors express role conflicts in their day-to-day practice and how they perceive, manage, and resolve them. The study seeks to show that the independence of the internal auditor is often not up to the standards that are expected of the internal audit function (IAF), and therefore unlikely to play an effective governance oversight role compatible with the ideal of the new public management governance reform.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    A field study was conducted involving semi-structured interviews with 42 internal auditors working in 13 public sector organizations. Interviews were conducted between May and October 2010. Each interviewee had 10-15 years of experience in internal auditing, with 20-25 years of professional experience total. Data was interpreted in the light of a theoretical analysis framework designed especially for this study. Organizational and social context was taken into consideration for each interview.

    Findings:

    Overall, the results indicate that internal auditors have a relative lack of independence (as compared with the Institute of Internal Auditors’ standards.) More specifically:

    • While internal auditors are strategic in managing conflicts, they do not consider the cumulative effect that their coping behavior has on their lack of independence.
    • The audit committee does not greatly influence internal auditors’ coping tactics at any stage in the audit process.
    • Auditors use “pragmatic” behavior because they are embedded in a specific organizational and social context that they are ‘‘forced’’ to take into account.
    • The analysis casts doubt on the audit committee’s ability and commitment to consolidate and ensure internal auditor independence.

    Ultimately, the study concludes that internal auditors behave as if the IAF were a means for managerial control, instead of a governance mechanism.

    Category:
    Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent, Governance
    Sub-category:
    Internal auditor role and involvement in controls and reporting, Reliance on Internal Auditors

Filter by Type

Filter by Tag