Understanding that auditors allocate greater resources to fraud brainstorming when engagement risk is significant fosters brainstorming of a superior caliber corresponds to stronger regulatory compliance. Auditors report that engagement teams are holding fraud brainstorming sessions earlier in the audit, document more detailed risk assessments, plan more specific procedures, and retain more documentation. These characteristics contribute to adequately addressing increased PCAOB regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, brainstorming sessions are highly regarded when they occur in a face-to-face fashion and are attended by multiple levels of firm personnel—whether that is “core” or “non-core” professionals. Fraud brainstorming sessions are executed less mechanically (as determined by PCAOB inspectors) by using fewer checklists and increase the amount of time auditors prepare for brainstorming sessions.
Dennis, S. A., and K. M. Johnstone. 2016. A Field Survey of Contemporary Brainstorming Practices. Accounting Horizons 30 (4): 449–472.
The purpose of this study is to further understand current fraud brainstorming practices minding regulatory climate and its impression of brainstorming practices. The authors seek to understand the auditing profession’s existing framework to effectively brainstorm by evaluating audit team characteristics; attendance and communication; structure, timing, effort; and brainstorming quality. Fraud brainstorming environment is considered with respect to client characteristics; particularly, inherent, fraud, and engagement risks, and if the client is publicly traded or privately held. The authors refer to the characteristics as “partitions”. The partitions allow the study to better examine how each characteristic effects the deployment of resources in response to risk levels and trading status.
The study poses further exploration into the implementation of Statement of Auditing Standards No. 99 and its effect on fraud brainstorming practices. Particularly addressing the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s report suggesting auditing professionals were “mechanically” addressing fraud-related auditing standards. SAS 99 sought to blend experienced audit professionals—those with greater client experience—with less-seasoned auditors to brainstorm how a fraud could occur specific to the client. As part of the brainstorming framework, the study seeks to understand if senior-level auditors (partners and managers) and seniors and staff members, along with “non-core” professionals, cultivate meaningful brainstorming sessions.
The authors collected field data from audits conducted between March 2013 and January 2014, per a survey of 77 audit engagements. Information pertaining to the client, audit team, and brainstorming sessions were called upon in the survey. The majority (93 percent) of observations were obtained by two Big 4 firms—7 percent from one non-Big 4 global firm. Each engagement’s partner received instructions for the distribution of the survey to lead managers and lead seniors on the respective engagement while the partner withheld that the survey was for research purposes. A total of 75 managers and 73 seniors participated.
At its core, the theory proposed by the authors assumes that auditors are economic agents who provide a valuable service and can be expected to behave rationally to maximize their profits. Strategic behaviors such as under-auditing, over-auditing, or overbilling would be unobservable by an auditee in many instances. The possibility of such behaviors has important implications for the level of assurance over financial reports and can potentially affect the efficient allocation of capital resources. One of the goals of this study was to analyze how the credence aspect of audits could influence important policy decisions. Regulation may play a powerful role in mitigating the credence nature of auditing, e.g., PCAOB inspections. However, regulation can be a double-edged sword if it increases the incentive or opportunity for auditors to behave strategically. Therefore, auditors can take the theories and models presented in this study to evaluate their firms for potential profit maximizing biases that may negatively impact audit quality and efficiency. Policy makers could also use these theories and models to evaluate how new auditing policies might influence auditors’ incentives and behaviors.
For more information on this study, please contact W. Robert Knechel.
Causholli, M., and W. R. Knechel. 2012. An Examination of the Credence Attributes of an Audit. Accounting Horizons 26(4): 631-656.
The purpose of this study was to expand the understanding of the economics of auditing and audit markets by using the theory of credence goods as the basis for explaining auditors’ incentives. The idea of a credence good or service is that (1) the seller of the good or service is an expert who both recommends and provides a level of service to the buyer; (2) buyers of credence goods or services cannot assess how a service is a delivered and must rely on a seller’s recommendation; and (3) buyers cannot assess how well the service was performed. The authors suggest that the external audit is a credence good which provides auditors with incentives to under-audit, over-audit or overcharge their clients.
The authors take a purely theoretical approach to study the perspective of an audit as a credence good. The authors rely on prior research of credence goods and on the principles of Game Theory to help explain auditors’ incentives to under-audit, over-audit or overcharge clients and predict auditors’ behaviors under certain scenarios. The authors use theoretical decision trees to describe an auditor’s possible strategies for bidding for an audit, and for executing the audit. The authors also describe examples of prior auditing research that present results that support the author’s credence theory.
The authors propose that if an audit is a credence good, the auditee cannot determine any of the levels of audit effort that define the auditor’s decisions. This creates information asymmetry between the auditor and auditee both before and after the audit because the auditee cannot be sure of the true level of assurance that is necessary before the audit, and the auditee cannot be sure of the true level of assurance that is gained as a consequence of the audit. The information asymmetry goes in favor of the auditor, who can act strategically to under-audit and earn greater profits because the auditee has imperfect information about the auditor’s work and the level of assurance gained by the auditor’s efforts.
The authors also propose that there are disciplining mechanisms in the market for audit services that are in place to mitigate an auditor’s incentive to behave strategically such as an auditee’s direct knowledge, audit firm reputation and size, professional regulation, legal liability, and competition between audit firms. However, while these mechanisms may be in place, an auditor facing low penalties or risk of detection may be more likely to consider strategic actions. In environments with weak courts or regulation, auditors have more incentives to act strategically and expect to reap superior profits as a result. Similarly, changes in regulations or other structural changes in the audit market can induce changes in the incentives for auditors to behave strategically. Overall, disciplining mechanisms facilitate the operation of audit markets even though they may not completely resolve the information (credence) problem.
This study has certain limitations that could be tackled in future research: in particular, the sample is based on published articles from 25 journals, therefore neglecting other journals and “grey literature”. However, this inductive typology could be further applied to present a structured framework of auditing research, and to analyze trends and emerging issues in comparative and/or longitudinal studies, research reports, and the like. Future investigations of the way research themes emerge and evolve should certainly contribute to a better understanding of auditing research.
For more information on this study, please contact Cedric Lesage.
Lesage, C. and H. Wechtler. 2011. An Inductive Typology of Auditing Research. Contemporary Accounting Research 29 (2): 487-504.
A global picture of a specific complex domain in social sciences can be provided by typologies. Despite the usefulness and subsequent applications of the typologies proposed in past research, there are four concerns. First, the SK typology is arguably less efficient for structuring auditing research knowledge 30 years later. Second, the studies cited earlier concerned either a single journal, or a single period. Third, previous typologies are concept-driven rather than data-driven classifications. Fourth, they are practice-oriented rather than research-oriented. Taking these main concerns into consideration, the authors implement the study with the purpose to propose an updated, inductive, and comprehensive typology of auditing research.
The study covers 25 main journals over all their years of publication from 1926 to 2005, and uses a computer-based content analysis of the abstracts of 3,143 selected articles. The authors first investigate how the identified keywords have changed since 1926, highlighting three key periods; then they provide a comprehensive typology of 16 major themes in auditing research, with the relative importance, significant keywords and periods, and the main contributory journals presented for each scheme. After that, the authors analyze trends in the popularity of each research theme over time and examine the contribution of individual journals to each theme.
Compared with previous studies, this study’s typology is the first to be data-driven and covers the whole period between 1926 and 2005, comprising 3,143 auditing research articles. As a result, this new typology of auditing research themes provides a more representative picture of actual academic production than existing typologies, which are all based on a predefined practitioner’s structure. As an illustration, the authors have applied it to analyze trends in research themes and the most contributory journals to auditing research.
Prior research suggests that the length of auditor-client relationship affects audit quality, and, therefore, the integrity and information risk associated with a clients’ financial reporting. This study attempts to examine the effects of audit engagement partner tenure and rotation on investors’ perceptions. The results of this study raise important questions for future research. It is not known to what extent investors or analysts are aware of the audit partner’s identity or pay attention to audit partner tenure. If investors or analysts do not consider partner tenure, future research may identify omitted variables that have the same nonlinear relationship with the ex ante cost of capital that we observe for non-Big 4 audit partner tenure.
Azizkhani, M., G. S. Monroe, and G. Shailer. 2013. Audit Partner Tenure and Cost of Equity Capital. Auditing 32 (1).
Recent proposals by the PCAOB suggest that audit firms should be required to identify the name of the engagement partner in the audit report. The proposals suggest that this provides useful information to investors by allowing investors to identify audit partner tenure and rotation. Professional accounting bodies and regulators have long been concerned that long auditor-client relationships impair audit quality. The PCAOB, however, has noted that other commenters do not believe disclosure of partner identity will provide meaningful information to investors. This study investigates the usefulness of disclosing partner identity by exploring whether audit partner tenure and partner rotation are informative to investors, as indicated by the ex ante cost of equity capital.
The authors tested the relationship between client-specific ex ante cost of equity capital and audit partner tenure using two models. The client-specific ex ante cost of equity capital was estimated using the price-earnings ratio divided by the short-term earnings growth rate. Auditor tenure was tested using raw, long transform, and quadratic terms. The authors also used two-stage regressions to address the potential for Big 4 selection bias. The sample was selected for all Australian-domiciled companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange during the 1995-2005 time period.
The results of this study are important because they illuminate the impact of new accounting rules on standard setters and companies abiding by these rules (in this case, the specific context was the implementation process related to SOX Section 404). The study suggests that a number of steps are required in order to perfect the guidance. It is important to understand the meaning and intentions behind authoritative literature in order to follow it. The observations suggest that the process for implementing new guidance has room for change, yet has evolved over time to increase effectiveness. The findings are specific to the implementation for assessment and auditing of internal controls for public companies.
For more information on this study, please contact Zoe-Vonna Palmrose (zv.palmrose@marshall.usc.edu).
Palmrose, Z.-V. 2010. Balancing the Costs and Benefits of Auditing and Financial Reporting Regulation Post-SOX, Part I: Perspectives from the Nexus at the SEC. Accounting Horizons 24 (2):313-326.
Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Section 404 adds requirements for disclosures discussing management’s assessment of internal controls. Zoe-Vonna Palmrose served as the Deputy Chief Accountant for Professional Practice in the Office of the Chief Accountant. From August 2006 to July 2008, Palmrose observed the effects of SOX Section 404 on practice. The paper describes her observations related to:
The author collected data through personal experiences from August 2006 through July 2008. She observed and recorded information related to SOX Section 404 during her time as the Deputy Chief Accountant in the Professional Practice Group.
The availability of Big Data will precipitate substantive changes in accounting education, research, and practice. In education, in particular accounting and auditing, the use of Big Data will increase the statistical and IT content in curricula, probably breaking the current set of limitations represented in the CPA exam. Research in the more traditional fields in accounting, such as capital markets research, will benefit from dimensional increases in data availability and will be conditional on improvements of the researcher’s skill sets in areas such as modeling, statistics, and text mining. Practice, in particular internal audit departments, will be the leading facilitator of accounting Big Data usage, while attempting to keep abreast or in sync with the developments in corporate data utilization in fields like marketing, supply chain, and customer services.
Vasarhelyi, M. A., A. Kogan, and B. M. Tuttle. 2015. Big Data in Accounting: An Overview. Accounting Horizons 29 (2): 381-396.
The term Big Data is fairly new but seems to be applied in almost every area of human activity at the moment. It is not defined in the rigorous meaning of the word, and it is usually used under the assumption that the readers understand it at the intuitive level. The reason for this popularity is the exponentially growing amount of information made available by developments in computing and telecommunications technology, particularly the Internet and environmental sensing. This paper sheds light on the meaning of Big Data in the accounting and auditing domains.
This article is a commentary.
This set of commentaries presents a strong challenge to the accounting and auditing profession. Perhaps the greatest risk is the slow pace of adjustment of auditors and accountants to the new realities of Big Data/business analytics, which most accounting firms today would agree is absolutely essential to managing and maintaining competitive advantage. Academics, as educators, certainly must revamp their accounting and auditing curricula to provide the necessary skills for Big Data in the accounting and auditing profession. Researchers, too, have a responsibility to analyze Big Data datasets and to generate results that would better understand the contribution of Big Data for operations and decision making, and how the benefits of Big Data might flow to firm managers, company stakeholders, and the public at large.
Griffin, P. A., and A. M. Wright. 2015. Commentaries on Big Data's Importance for Accounting and Auditing. Accounting Horizons 29 (2): 377-379.
The commentaries in this forum on Big Data confront one of the profession’s most pressing challenges. How should the accounting profession respond to Big Data? Big Data and business analytics now permeate almost all aspects of major companies’ decision making and business strategies. A large U.S. company, for example, might process a billion data elements every day to understand its competitive environment. Moreover, by its very nature, Big Data cannot avoid running head-on into the traditional systems of accounting and auditing that have served the profession so well in the past.
This issue presents eight commentaries by expert academics and business professionals, who have studied and thought much about the core issues and challenges. Collectively, these commentaries not only define and frame the important issues for accounting and auditing but, also, they identify many feasible, yet difficult, pathways forward, wherein Big Data and traditional accounting and auditing might meld to better serve firms, stakeholders, and the public. These commentaries also identify controversies within the field that imply hard choices. At minimum, the expectation is that these commentaries will stimulate a healthy discussion on the topic among students, academics, and professionals. In this way, they will also serve a key aim of this journal—to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
This article is a commentary.
In light of cost reductions in data generation, storage, retrieval, and transmission, the inherent compromises within the paper paradigm are of little benefit. Users are entitled to more in-depth, granular values that they can manipulate, drilling down and up for more or less detail where needed. Financial reporting standards that govern presentation and arbitrary aggregation must likewise give way to rules regarding the limits and frequency of data transmission, as well as the quality of those data.
Audit standards must change as well. Error detection and risk quantification are no longer sufficient targets, but must be seen as small components of an audit of broader scope. The deep analysis of tremendous volumes of data and potentially thousands of exception reports necessitates a different paradigm of reporting and assurance. The role of auditing standards, far from being diminished in the face of increasing automation, must shift from governing sampling procedures to embracing the broader, deeper data availability and analysis of the modern era in an effort to create a better, more thorough audit.
Krahel, J. P., and W. R. Titera. 2015. Consequences of Big Data and Formalization on Accounting and Auditing Standards. Accounting Horizons 29 (2): 409-422.
The level, breadth, and quality of externally presented financial information have always represented a compromise between the preparer’s cost and the user’s benefit. While preparer costs vis-a`-vis data collection and transmission have decreased significantly, the compromises made in the paper-based era have persisted, creating a set of anachronistic accounting practices that, in the authors’ view, unfairly handicaps statement users. A similar effect can be observed in auditing practices. While data availability and standardization have increased, audit standards continue to focus on sampling and other practices indicative of a low-information environment. This paper will address the problems that result from such anachronisms, present a set of axes along which accounting and auditing standards must evolve, describe the avenues through which such changes can be accomplished, and discuss the new paradigm from academic and practical perspectives.
This article is a commentary.
This study provides a more in-depth understanding of current audit practices related to auditors’ use of substantive approaches outlined in AS 2502. These results provide several important new insights, including more clearly distinguishing between auditors’ use of pricing services and valuation specialists and factors that drive this decision, as well as provide additional insights regarding differences in the use of valuation specialists for financial and nonfinancial FVMs. Finally, the results shed new light on whether audit challenges differ for financial versus nonfinancial FVMs.
Glover, S. M., M. H. Taylor, and Y. Wu. 2017. Current Practices and Challenges in Auditing Fair Value Measurements and Complex Estimates: Implications for Auditing Standards and the Academy. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 36 (1): 63 – 84.
The subjectivity inherent in estimating future events, coupled with the potential high degree of measurement uncertainty, makes auditing fair value measurements and other complex estimates challenging for auditors. Because of this difficulty, auditors frequently rely on valuation specialists; however, the PCAOB has voiced criticisms as a result of such reliance. To provide a more complete picture of current practices and challenges encountered when auditing complex FVMs, this study has three primary objectives:
The authors employ a field-based survey that provides a channel for practitioners to openly express their opinions and views.
This discussion emphasizes significant caution when interpreting the results of the study. Mainly, it is unclear if results of the study can generalize to the broader public company market in the US. Furthermore, if the results are misinterpreted (i.e., individual auditors are not systematically aggressive but, instead, high quality auditors are systematically assigned the riskiest clients) then regulation requiring audit partner identification could actually have overall negative effects on overall audit quality.
Kinney, W.R. 2015. Discussion of “Does the Identity of Engagement Partners Matter? An Analysis of Audit Partner Reporting Decisions”. Contemporary Accounting Research 32 (4):1479-1488.
The author reviews the paper's content, analyzes its predictive validity, and discusses its multiple implications. He provides constructive suggestions for improvements. Based on predictive validity analysis, the author concludes that engagement partner assignment strategy is an important and acknowledged omitted variable that affects the study's internal validity via both the independent variable (partner's prior performance measure) and the dependent variable (borrower's cost of debt capital). The omission also affects construct validities and, if audit firms are applying a plausible assignment strategy, then interpretation of the study's main results would be reversed. Finally, the lack of a standards intervention noted by the authors and the extreme size and other differences between audits of Swedish private companies and U.S. public companies impair external validity and generalization to the U.S. intervention.
This article is a discussion.
The discussion emphasizes the following points: