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.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

The results of this study should be of interest to audit firms, management, and regulators because high-practice-risk appears to reduce bias in accounting professionals’ judgment and decision-making. The authors’ discussion suggests that similar effects may result from the recent increase in regulatory scrutiny and penalties for aggressive accounting judgments. However, more research is needed in this area. This study also is relevant to companies who must comply with FIN No. 48. Managers certifying the accuracy of the financial statements and their external auditors will want to ensure that tax professionals make unbiased judgments about supportability.

Kadous, K., A.M. Magro, B.C. Spilker.  2008. Do Effects of Client Preference on Accounting Professionals’ Information Search and Subsequent Judgments Persist with High Practice Risk? The Accounting Review 83 (1): 133-156

The study provides evidence that the format of the audit evidence (using the business model evidence versus using the chronological evidence) impacts the level of fraud risk assessment.  This indicates that using the business model provides an advantage in evaluating and assessing the potential risk of fraud.  The advantages of using both forms of evidence may enable auditors to determine the nature, timing and extent of procedures to corroborate management’s explanations for fluctuations beyond the context of fraud.  Therefore, the findings of this study have broader implications, as it can be applied to other audit procedures to ensure that auditors are obtaining sufficient evidence throughout the audit as well as for an assessment of fraud risk.


For more information on this study, please contact William F. Wright.
 

Wright, W.F., and L. Berger. 2011. Fraudulent Management Explanations and the Impact of Alternative Presentations of Client Business Evidence.   Auditing:  A Journal of Practice and Theory 30 (2): 153-171.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org

We find that while research studies provide insights into both the antecedents to skeptical judgments and actions, the majority of research efforts to date have focused on the antecedents to skeptical judgments and on auditor characteristics in particular. In addition, in order to understand how skeptical judgment translates into skeptical action, additional research on skeptical action is needed. Also, given the growth of multicultural audit teams, it is necessary to examine whether an auditor’s culture matters and whether it negatively impacts efforts by multinational accounting firms to deliver the same services throughout the world.

To enhance professional skepticism, auditors should be encouraged to assess strategic and business-related risks, as well as risks of material misstatement in financial statements, in order to develop the expertise necessary to engage in skeptical judgments. Additionally, a demonstrated decrease in skepticism as one moves up through the firm hierarchy, can be addressed through training and education, as well as task specific experience, or expertise. In addition, future research could focus more on how the environment of audit firms can motivate auditors to exhibit more skeptical judgment and action.

For more information on this study, please contact R. Kathy Hurtt.

Hurtt, R.K., H. Brown-Liburd, C. E. Earley, and G. Krishnamoorthy. 2013. Research on Auditor Professional Skepticism: Literature Synthesis and Opportunities for Future Research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 32 (Supplement 1): 45-97.

http://www.auditingresearchsummaries.org