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
    A Risk Model to Opine on Internal Control.
    research summary posted October 19, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk, 06.02 Fraud Risk Models, 06.05 Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement, 07.0 Internal Control, 07.02 Assessing Material Weaknesses, 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses 
    Title:
    A Risk Model to Opine on Internal Control.
    Practical Implications:

    The auditor needs a different model for audits of internal control. The auditor needs to apply two different models in an integrated audit, the original model for the opinion on the financial statements and a different model for the opinion on internal controls.

    The author believes standard setters should sponsor research on an appropriate risk model for audits of internal control. Even before the research is completed, the standards could be enhanced in the following ways:
    • indicate that the original audit risk model is intended for use only in financial statement audits, not internal control audits;
    • write standards that consistently use risk terminology and are clear as to which risk they are discussing; and
    • provide guidance on the use of models in integrated audits.

    Citation:

    Akresh, A. D. 2010. A Risk Model to Opine on Internal Control. Accounting Horizons 24 (1): 65-78.

    Keywords:
    audit risk model, inherent risk, integrated audit, internal control, opinion, risk of material misstatement, risk of material weakness
    Purpose of the Study:

    The audit risk model has provided a conceptual framework for audits of financial statements for more than 40 years. Despite practical difficulties in implementation and criticisms of its theoretical foundation, the model has been fairly effective in helping auditors analyze risks and use that analysis to determine the nature, timing, and extent of audit procedures in audits of financial statements. In recent years, some auditors have tried to apply the audit risk model to audits of internal control, usually performed as parts of integrated audits. An integrated audit is an engagement where the auditor provides an opinion on the financial statements and an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. It is integrated in the sense that the auditor tries to use some of the same procedures to meet both objectives.

    While the audit risk model was designed for audits of financial statements, it was not designed for audits of internal control. Audits of internal control are audits of processes rather than audits of outputs (financial statements). In addition, opinions on internal control do not rely on analytical procedures or on substantive tests of details. Because of this conceptual difference, the author asserts that audit risk model, as originally formulated, does not work as a coherent conceptual framework for audits of internal control. The need for a different risk model for internal control audits is not currently recognized in the auditing standards or in the auditing literature.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    This article is a commentary.

    Findings:

    For an integrated audit, the auditor would use the two models sequentially. The auditor would use the internal control risk model as a framework to determine the extent of control tests. Then the auditor would use the financial statement audit risk model as a framework to determine the extent of substantive testing.

    Future research could determine a more specific model based on how auditors perform these audits. Some research questions include, for example:

    • What models and approaches are currently used in practice? How does current practice compare with the model proposed and other models?
    • Are models useful in providing a conceptual framework for integrated audits?
    • What are the current practices for the auditor’s evaluation of inherent risk? How do those practices compare with risk models?  
    • How do auditors assess design and implementation of internal controls in light of inherent risk without considering operating effectiveness?
    • What are the current practices for the auditor’s evaluation of design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of the control environment? Are those practices adequate to effectively use in a risk model?
    Category:
    Internal Control, Risk & Risk Management - Including Fraud Risk
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Material Weaknesses, Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement, Fraud Risk Models, Reporting Material Weaknesses
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    A Summary of Research on External Auditor Reliance on the...
    research summary posted February 16, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.05 Impact of SOX, 07.0 Internal Control 
    Title:
    A Summary of Research on External Auditor Reliance on the Internal Audit Function
    Practical Implications:

    Regulators should draft regulations and oversee the profession in such a way that reflects an understanding of the complex environment in which practitioners are making reliance decisions. Standard setters, both domestic and international can learn from the cultural and jurisdictional nuances of different countries, which will facilitate appropriate internal audit reliance as corporations continue to have multi-national presences. Practitioners can benefit from the study by utilizing the review to improve upon their reliance decision frameworks.

    For more information on this study, please contact Chad Stefaniak.

    Citation:

    Bame-Aldred, C. W., D. M. Brandon, W. F. Messier, Jr., L. E. Rittenberg, and C. M. Stefaniak. 2013. A Summary of Research on External Auditor Reliance on the Internal Audit Function. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 32 (Supplement 1): 251-286

    Keywords:
    external audit; internal audit; reliance on the internal audit function; audit judgments.
    Purpose of the Study:

    The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) requested a synthesis of existing research on the external auditor’s reliance of the internal audit function. Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) allows external auditors to rely on the internal audit function under certain criteria. This paper synthesizes post Sarbanes-Oxley research (2004 – 2012) that examines external auditor reliance of the internal audit function. The research reviewed pertains to:

    1. The influence of environmental factors on internal auditor reliance (i.e., Regulatory Environment and Governance and Client Management Characteristics),
    2. The impact of internal audit specific factors on reliance (i.e., Competence, Objectivity, and Work Quality),
    3. The nature and extent of the external auditor’s reliance, and
    4. The outcome effects of external auditor reliance on the internal auditor (i.e., Audit Efficiency, Fees, Financial Statement Quality, and Litigation).

    The research examined is limited and does not fully address the PCAOB’s inquiries, specifically jurisdictional limitations on internal audit reliance and overall threshold limitations on internal audit reliance. This paper identifies gaps in the research and proposes a series of research questions aimed at closing these gaps.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The review included current and proposed U.S. and international auditing standards, academic literature and selected practitioner research related to the nature of internal audit work, and the external auditor’s reliance on this work. Based on this review, the paper includes a proposed summation model and organizing framework to help capture the various factors in the reliance decision. This organizing framework is used to present the synthesis of the relevant research, identify gaps in the research and propose research questions aimed at closing these gaps. In addition, the relevant papers are summarized for ease of understanding. This summary includes the methodology, the objective of the research project, the sample (if applicable), the results of each study, and a cross-reference to the proposed research questions. 

    Findings:
    • The environment (i.e., the regulatory environment and governance and client characteristics) in which external auditors must make a reliance decision is complex – involving several factors that must be considered simultaneously. The evolving set of global auditing standards further complicates the reliance decision process.
    • Researchers have made some progress in understanding the influence of external auditors’ evaluations of internal auditor quality factors (i.e., competence, objectivity, and work performance); however, very little is known about how, and to what extent, external auditors are evaluating internal audit quality factors.
    • Research notes that the nature and extent of external auditors’ reliance on internal auditors is influenced by account risk, inherent risk, and internal audit sourcing (e.g., outsourced, co-sourced, or in-house). How the external auditors choose task environments (e.g., revenue recognition versus payroll) and the types of tests to rely upon within these task environments is not completely understood.
    • There are several unaddressed issues in the current research. These include:
      • Research examining the influence of continuous monitoring on the reliance decision
      • Research examining the reliance decision for integrated audits of public companies, specifically the audit of internal control over financial reporting.
      • Research examining the evolving nature of the internal audit function.
    Category:
    Internal Control, Standard Setting
    Sub-category:
    Impact of SOX
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    An Analysis of Multiple Consecutive Years of Material...
    research summary posted October 13, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 07.0 Internal Control, 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses, 07.04 Assessing Remediation of Weaknesses 
    Title:
    An Analysis of Multiple Consecutive Years of Material Weaknesses in Internal Control.
    Practical Implications:

    The findings offer three important contributions to the existing literature. First, they indicate that MW reported in multiple consecutive years have a progressively larger and statistically significant negative impact on CE when firms that partially remediate are excluded from the sample. That is, the market notices that some firms are slow to remediate MW, whereas other firms take timely remediation steps to address MW. Second, the study shows that the number and specific types of MW are significant factors in understanding the relation between MW and CE. In fact, even if a firm does not remediate all MW in a given year, the market views favorably a reduction in the number of MW (i.e., partial remediation). Third, given the richness of the dataset, the current study helps to reconcile conflicting results in the prior literature on the effects of MW.

    Citation:

    Gordon, L. A., and A. L. Wilford. 2012. An Analysis of Multiple Consecutive Years of Material Weaknesses in Internal Control. Accounting Review 87 (6): 2027-2060.

    Keywords:
    cost of equity, internal control, material weaknesses, monitoring, remediation
    Purpose of the Study:

    The corporate scandals in the United States around the turn of the 21st century (e.g., Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc.) culminated in the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). This Act requires firms to report material weaknesses in internal control (hereafter, MW) related to the reliability of financial reporting to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SOX reporting requirements have given rise to a plethora of research, much of which has focused on the impact of MW on a firm’s cost of equity (hereafter, CE).

    The primary objective of the current study is to reexamine the relation between MW and CE. The authors direct particular emphasis to examining the way non-remediation of MW in multiple consecutive years affects CE, as well as the impact of remediation of MW on CE. They utilize a dataset that contains a large sample of second-year MW non-remediation cases, as well as third-, fourth-, and fifth-year non-remediation cases. Thus, this study differentiates between firms that report MW in only one year and firms that report MW in two or more consecutive years. The current study also considers the number of MW in each year, as well as the specific types of MW. 

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors draw their sample from the Audit Analytics database, which includes all SOX Section 404 auditor assessment reports (24,806) filed with the SEC during the time period of November 2004 (the effective date for accelerated filers reporting under Section 404) through December 2009. The final sample is composed of 16,946 observations, which includes 1,140 observations with MW and 15,806 observations without MW (the control sample).

    Findings:

    The findings provide evidence that MW negatively impact a firm’s CE. The authors also find evidence of the value associated with remediation of MW. Specifically, the current study shows that the market penalty imposed upon a firm’s CE, in the absence of any remediation of MW, increases in relation to the number of consecutive years in which the firm reports MW. However, the results from the current study also show that the market views favorably a reduction in the number of MW reported (i.e., partial remediation). In other words, remediation is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Due to the use of a much larger and richer dataset, the current study helps to reconcile the mixed findings in earlier studies that examine the association between MW and CE.

    Category:
    Internal Control
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Material Weaknesses, Reporting Material Weaknesses
  • The Auditing Section
    An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgments in a Complex...
    research summary posted May 7, 2012 by The Auditing Section, tagged 05.0 Audit Team Composition, 05.01 Use of Specialists e.g., financial instruments, actuaries, valuation, 07.0 Internal Control, 07.01 Scope of Testing 
    Title:
    An Examination of Auditor Planning Judgments in a Complex Accounting Information System Environment
    Practical Implications:

    The results suggest that auditors’ AIS expertise can play a significant role in complex AIS settings and in their ability to compensate for CAS competence deficiencies.  The authors note that it may be prudent for firms to consider the combined capabilities of individuals when assigning auditors and CAS to engagements with complex AIS.

    Citation:

    Brazel, J. F. and C. P. Agoglia. 2007. An examination of auditor planning judgments in a complex accounting information system environment. Contemporary Accounting Research 24 (4): 1059-83.

    Keywords:
    Auditor judgment, risk, risk management, fraud risk
    Purpose of the Study:

    This study examines auditor judgments in a complex accounting information system (AIS) environment. Auditing standards recommend that a computer assurance specialist (CAS) be assigned to assist in the audit of computer-intensive environments. 
    CAS (also known as information systems audit specialists and IT auditors) provide auditors with control-testing evidence relating to their client’s AIS.  Auditors use this information when making control risk assessments and planning substantive audit procedures.  This study examines how the auditors’ own level of AIS expertise and the competence of the CAS affect the assessed control risk and scope of substantive testing.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    Participants included practicing auditors from four international and two national public accounting firms. Participants were audit seniors with an average of 3.7 years of experience.  The experiment was conducted before 2007.  

    Participants were provided a case that included background information for a hypothetical client, relevant authoritative audit guidance, and prior year workpapers.  After reviewing this information, participants assessed and documented inherent risk. Participants then received information about the CAS competence (high or low) and CAS control tests.  Participants were then asked to evaluate the strength of CAS testing, assess control risk, and plan the substantive audit procedures. 

    Findings:
    • Auditors with high AIS expertise and those assigned low competence CAS tended to assess control risk as higher than their counterparts.
    • Auditors assigned low competence CAS assessed control risk as higher regardless of their own AIS expertise.    
    •  When the competence of the CAS is deficient, auditors with higher AIS expertise compared to auditors with lower AIS expertise are more likely to identify and react to potential AIS-specific risks.
    Category:
    Audit Team Composition, Internal Control
    Sub-category:
    Use of Specialists (e.g. financial instruments – actuaries - valuation), Scope of Testing
    Home:
    home button
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    An Experimental Examination of Factors That Influence...
    research summary posted September 17, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 07.0 Internal Control, 07.02 Assessing Material Weaknesses, 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses, 09.0 Auditor Judgment 
    Title:
    An Experimental Examination of Factors That Influence Auditor Assessments of a Deficiency in Internal Control over Financial Reporting.
    Practical Implications:

    The results should be of interest to auditing standard setters who provide guidance on the evaluation of control deficiencies as part of an integrated audit. Further, regulators inspecting public company audits may want to further review settings where control deficiencies were not evaluated as material weaknesses and assess whether the presence/absence of a financial statement misstatement was appropriately considered. The findings provide a more complete understanding of how the factors that auditors encounter during the audit engagement influence their judgment about whether identified deficiencies in ICFR are such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company’s financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis (i.e., material weakness).

    Citation:

    Gramling, A. A., E. F. O'Donnell, and S. D. Vandervelde. 2013. An Experimental Examination of Factors That Influence Auditor Assessments of a Deficiency in Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Accounting Horizons 27 (2): 249-269.

    Keywords:
    audit judgments, control deficiency, internal control over financial reporting, material weakness, operating effectiveness
    Purpose of the Study:

    Beginning in 2004, public company auditors who opine on client financial statements also express an opinion about whether the client’s internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) is effective at year-end. In forming the ICFR opinion, auditors evaluate the severity of each identified control deficiency to determine whether the deficiency is a material weakness. When auditors conclude there is a reasonable possibility that ICFR will fail to prevent or detect a material financial misstatement (i.e., a material weakness exists), they issue an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of ICFR. This study examines how different types of audit evidence accumulated during the audit influence auditor judgment of ICFR operating effectiveness and about whether an identified control deficiency is a material weakness in ICFR.

    The study is motivated by a recognition that many stakeholders, including financial statement users, company management, audit committee members, regulators, researchers, and other auditors, would benefit from an enhanced understanding of the factors an auditor considers when evaluating the effectiveness of ICFR and concluding whether identified control deficiencies represent material weaknesses.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors analyze responses from the submitted case materials of 138 participants, which include 44 partners, 47 senior managers, and 47 managers. On average, the participants had worked on 4.0 integrated audit engagements and had issued 1.1 adverse opinions on ICFR. For the integrated audit engagements on which the participants had worked, they reported an average of 4.1 potential material weaknesses that were ultimately deemed to be significant deficiencies. The evidence was gathered prior to June 2013.

    Findings:

    Based on experimental results from audit managers and partners, the authors provide evidence regarding whether the following factors are significant determinants of assessed operating effectiveness of an identified control deficiency: (1) whether the client has a material weakness unrelated to the deficiency being assessed (i.e., unrelated material weakness), and (2) whether there is a known misstatement associated with the identified control deficiency (i.e., failure of the specific control to prevent a misstatement). Further, they examine whether these two factors influence the likelihood of assessing a control deficiency as a material weakness. The authors find that the presence of either an unrelated material weakness or a known misstatement influences the assessed operating effectiveness of an internal control, in addition to the likelihood of a material weakness assessment. The presence of either an unrelated material weakness or a known misstatement warrants a decreased operating effectiveness assessment and an increased likelihood of a material weakness assessment. The combination of the two factors together does not further influence those assessments.

    Category:
    Auditor Judgment, Internal Control
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Material Weaknesses, Reporting Material Weaknesses
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    An Intertemporal Analysis of Audit Fees and Section 404...
    research summary posted November 17, 2014 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 07.0 Internal Control, 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality, 12.0 Accountants’ Reports and Reporting, 12.06 Consequences of Adverse 404 Opinions 
    Title:
    An Intertemporal Analysis of Audit Fees and Section 404 Material Weaknesses
    Practical Implications:

    The findings suggest that audit fees respond to audit risk changes in the post-SOX environment, however this response is not immediate. These findings have important practical implications for audit regulators and for practicing auditors. These findings imply that audit firms are slow to reduce audit fees in the wake of remediation, which may be due to the documentation requirements imposed by PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2 (“AS 2”). Notably, the PCAOB issued Auditing Standard No. 5 (“AS 5”) to supersede AS 2 in 2007 in an effort to improve implementation of the internal control requirements. In particular, AS 5 provided refinements to AS 2 meant to make the audit more scalable to a particular client and their corresponding risks. The findings presented in this study could be used as a baseline for evaluating whether AS 5 increased the responsiveness between audit fees and the underlying client risks. Audit practitioners must balance engagement risk management with public perceptions in order to maintain their reputations in the market for audit services. The findings presented here imply that audit fees are the most persistent in the presence of more severe material internal control weaknesses, consistent with predictions extending from the audit risk model.

    For more information on this study, please contact Matthew Hoag.

    Citation:

    Hoag, M. L. and C. W. Hollingsworth. 2011. An intertemporal analysis of audit fees and section 404 material weaknesses. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 30 (2): 173-200

    Keywords:
    SOX Section 404, internal control opinion, remediation of a material weakness, audit fees
    Purpose of the Study:

    In 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) was passed, which dramatically changed the financial reporting landscape following a wave of high-profile corporate frauds. Section 404 of SOX was perhaps the most significant reform, requiring that company management report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting (404a), and requiring that the company’s external auditor complete a comprehensive evaluation of the internal controls and render an opinion on their effectiveness (404b). The mandated evaluation(s) of internal controls come at a significant cost to filers, as the initial evidence evaluated post-SOX pointed to a significant increase in audit fees for those companies subject to the provisions of SOX 404. These findings fueled criticism of Section 404 by opponents who argue the costs imposed an overwhelming burden on companies.

    This study investigates the impact of Section 404 on audit fees beyond the initial years of implementation. Specifically, it entails a longitudinal empirical examination of audit fees post-SOX within the theoretical context of the audit risk model. Audit fees should reflect both audit risk and audit effort. Using information provided through the newly mandated internal control opinions, this study tests how audit fees respond following either (1) the remediation of or (2) the failure to remediate internal control weaknesses by a company. The findings presented in this study should be of interest to audit industry regulators, academics performing audit fee research post-SOX, and to audit practitioners.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The sample is comprised from the population of accelerated filers subject to the provisions of SOX Section 404 spanning 2004 through 2007. The final sample consists of more than 13,500 company-year observations obtained from the Audit Analytics and Compustat databases with non-missing data necessary to perform the hypotheses tests. These tests employ OLS regression using a traditional audit fee model commonly used in audit pricing research and the test variables for varying types of Section 404 internal control opinions.

    Findings:
    • Using a levels model, audit fees are found to be consistently and significantly higher both in the presence of a material weakness in internal control and for companies that remediate a previous material weakness.
    • In a changes model, the findings suggest that audit fees decline significantly in each of the first two years after the remediation of a material weakness. Thus, the remediation of a material weakness leads to lower audit fees, but the corresponding decline does not occur immediately.
    • Three years after remediating a material weakness in internal control, a company still pays a 19 percent audit fee premium as compared to a company that never reported a material weakness. However, this premium does not differ significantly from the premium paid by these same companies in the year prior to the implementation of SOX 404, suggesting that auditors recognized these companies entailed heightened audit risk even prior to performing the internal control evaluation.
    Category:
    Accountants' Reporting, Internal Control
    Sub-category:
    Consequences of Adverse 404 Opinions, Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Audit Fees after Remediation of Internal Control Weaknesses
    research summary posted June 22, 2013 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 07.0 Internal Control, 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses, 07.04 Assessing Remediation of Weaknesses, 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality, 12.0 Accountants’ Reports and Reporting, 12.06 Consequences of Adverse 404 Opinions 
    Title:
    Audit Fees after Remediation of Internal Control Weaknesses
    Practical Implications:

    The results of this study are important for companies and regulators that are trying to understand the true costs for firms with an adverse report on internal control. It further informs the continuing debate regarding Section 404 of SOX and provides some evidence that these premiums can be as high as 30 (20) percent in the first(second) year after remediation when compared to firms that only have clean Section 404 reports. Lastly, this provides opportunities for future research investigating how long it takes audit fees to return the level of companies that only receive clean opinions and whether or not this premium relates to additional audit work or a risk premium.

    Citation:

    Munsif, V., K. Raghunandan, D. V. Rama, and M. Singhvi. 2011. Audit Fees after Remediation of Internal Control Weaknesses.  Accounting Horizons 25 (1):  87-105. 

    Keywords:
    internal controls; audit fees; material weakness; remediation
    Purpose of the Study:

    Firms that receive an adverse report on internal control under Section 404 of SOX typically experience significant costs, such as a higher cost of capital. Additionally, these companies reporting material weaknesses also tend pay higher audit fees which is consistent with the belief that ineffective internal controls leads to a higher propensity for misstatements. Conversely, it is logical to expect that these higher fees will return to normalized levels if the weakness is remediated; however, recent evidence in regards to control problems disclosed pursuant to Section 302 of SOX has been contrary to this belief. This study attempts to provide clarification to these findings and investigates whether audit fees return to previous levels after the remediation of material weaknesses disclosed under Section 404 of SOX. It is important to recognize that in contrast to prior research which examines fees in the year of (or year prior to) remediation, this study examines the audit fees in the years following the remediation  in order to determine if the higher fees that the company pays in year of disclosure remain at a premium even two or three years after remediation.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors use data on SEC registrants and collect information on audit fees and Section 404 disclosures for the first four years of internal control reporting (2004-2007). The authors exclude financial sector companies, as well as, foreign firms and compare audit fees over the four year period of analysis for SEC registrants with fiscal year-ends from November 15 through May 31 of the following calendar year. The authors examine audit fees in years subsequent to the remediation of internal control weaknesses in order to determine whether auditors continue to view firms that had ever received an adverse Section 404 opinion as being “tainted,” such that even after remediating the problem, firms continue to pay an audit fee premium.

    Findings:

    The authors find that remediating firms have lower audit fees when compared to firms that continue to report material weaknesses in internal control. However, the remediating firms continue to pay, in the year of remediation as well as one and two years subsequent to remediation, a significant audit fee premium compared to firms that have clean Section 404 reports in each of the first four years of internal control reporting. The authors also show that general weaknesses have a higher effect on audit fees than only account-specific internal control weaknesses.

    Category:
    Internal Control, Accountants' Reporting
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Material Weaknesses, Reporting Material Weaknesses, Assessing Remediation of Weaknesses, Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality, Consequences of Adverse 404 Opinions
    Home:

    home button

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Audit Partner Evaluation of Compensating Controls: A Focus...
    research summary posted February 16, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 07.0 Internal Control, 07.02 Assessing Material Weaknesses, 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.02 Documentation Specificity 
    Title:
    Audit Partner Evaluation of Compensating Controls: A Focus on Design Effectiveness and Extent of Auditor Testing
    Practical Implications:

    The results of this study are important for audit firms to consider when audit partners are evaluating the level of precision in a compensating control. The evidence indicates that the partner’s knowledge of the existence of a material weakness unrelated to a compensating control being evaluated results in partners preferring a more precise compensating control and requiring more audit testing. Furthermore, this has implications for the efficiency of the audits as control-related decisions are potentially being influenced by inappropriate factors.

    For more information on this study, please contact Audrey Gramling, Ed O’Donnell, or Scott D. Vandervelde. 

    Citation:

    Gramling, A., E. O’Donnell, and S.D. Vandervelde. 2010. Audit Partner Evaluation of Compensating Controls: A Focus on Design Effectiveness and Extent of Auditor Testing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 29 (2): 175-187.

    Keywords:
    audit partner judgments, compensating controls, halo effects, internal control over financial reporting, material weakness
    Purpose of the Study:

    The assessment of internal control over financial reporting is a mandatory requirement of auditors for large publicly traded companies. The assessment made by the auditors on the severity of any identified control deficiencies has a significant impact on external reporting. To assess the severity of a deficiency, auditors should consider the effect of any compensating controls. However, auditors’ prior knowledge has been a primary influence on their subsequent judgments during the assessment of this severity. Also knowledge of risk factors not directly related to the compensating control influences audit partner judgments’.

    This paper addresses the concern of the influence of this prior knowledge on the evaluation of compensating controls by investigating two factors:

    • Level of precision needed in a compensating control for it to be assessed as effectively designed
    • Extent of evidence needed for auditor testing of the operating effectiveness of the compensating control

                The authors motivate their expectations based on the psychology literature discussing halo effects. Halo effects occur when knowledge that has no diagnostic implications for a specific judgment still influences that judgment. In an audit setting, halo effects can result in auditors interpreting judgment-specific evidence to be consistent with global knowledge about the client, instead of evaluating that evidence based on its diagnostic implications relative to the judgment at hand.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The research evidence was collected in June 2007. The authors use a simulated task to examine whether information about overall risks influences audit partners’ judgments related to a compensating control that has been implemented within a specific client process. Participants have an average experience level of 20.91 years. The minimum number of years of experience is 10 and maximum number of years of experience is 35. Participating audit partners were asked to assume the role of an engagement partner on an integrated audit. 

    Findings:
    • Audit partners who knew of an unrelated material weakness required testing of a greater percentage of the revenue subject to the compensating control than partners who knew there were no other material weaknesses.
    • Differences in inherent risk did not significantly influence any of the dependent variables (assessment of the control design effectiveness, and the extent of evidence necessary for testing the operating effectiveness of that compensating control).
    Category:
    Auditor Judgment, Internal Control
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Material Weaknesses, Documentation Specificity
  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Auditor Attestation under SOX Section 404 and Earnings...
    research summary posted June 2, 2014 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.04 Impact of 404, 01.05 Impact of SOX, 07.0 Internal Control, 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality 
    Title:
    Auditor Attestation under SOX Section 404 and Earnings Informativeness
    Practical Implications:

    Section 404 is one of the most controversial provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Many studies have examined the negative consequences of adverse reports on internal control issued by the auditor. Other studies have looked at the cost of compliance of Section 404 and find that it is burdensome, disproportionately so for small companies. This study focuses on the benefits of internal control audits. Regulators have argued that the benefits of Section 404 are hard to measure because of the difficulty in quantifying the benefits. This study contributes to the debate on the benefits of Section 404 by documenting evidence that although compliance with Section 404’s requirements has been reported to be associated with high costs, the first-time internal control reports seem to have increased earnings informativeness. 

    Citation:

    Chen, L. H., J. Krishnan, H. Sami, and H. Zhou. 2013. Auditor Attestation under SOX Section 404 and Earnings Informativeness. Auditing 32 (1).

    Keywords:
    earnings informativeness; internal control; Sarbanes-Oxley; Section 302; Section 404
    Purpose of the Study:

    Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) requires managers to assess, and their auditors to express an opinion on, the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR). This policy is intended to enhance the credibility of firms’ financial statements. Prior research suggests that audit characteristics that enhance the credibility of financial reporting are associated with higher informativeness compared with earnings in the prior year when only financial statement audit reports were available. This study examines the SEC’s and PCAOB’s expectation about the increased quality and reliability of financial reporting resulting from Section 404. By using a difference-in-differences approach, the authors compare the change in earnings informativeness for the test sample used with that for a control sample of non-accelerated filers. 

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors used previous research and policy makers’ expectations to develop the following hypothesis for testing:

     

    H1: Earnings accompanied by the first-time clean SOX404 ICFR reports are more informative that the previous annual earnings that were not accompanied by ICFR.

     

    This hypothesis was tested by comparing earnings informativeness for the annual filings containing the first-time ICFR reports and the annual filings of the previous year. The sample consisted of two types of firms (1) accelerated filers with clean Section 404 reports for the current year and clean Section 302 management reports for the seven preceding quarters, and (2) non-accelerated filers with clean Section 302 management reports throughout the sample period. The sample period included firm year-ends between November 15, 2003 and November 15, 2005. The final sample consisted of 381 firms. 

    Findings:
    • Firms with first-time clean ICFR reports have higher earnings informativeness in SOX years than in the pre-SOX years when they received only financial statement audit reports.
    • The firms that benefited the most are those with higher likelihood of material weaknesses.
    • Firms with both low and high costs of compliance experience an increase in earnings informativeness. 
    Category:
    Internal Control, Standard Setting
    Sub-category:
    Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality, Impact of 404, Impact of SOX
    Home:

    home button

  • Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips
    Auditor Realignments Accompanying Implementation of SOX 404...
    research summary posted June 22, 2013 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.04 Impact of 404, 01.05 Impact of SOX, 07.0 Internal Control, 07.03 Reporting Material Weaknesses, 07.05 Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality 
    Title:
    Auditor Realignments Accompanying Implementation of SOX 404 ICFR Reporting Requirements
    Practical Implications:

    The results of this study are important for showing the impact of SOX requirements on the audit environment.  The evidence suggests that ICFR opinions provide clients with information to assess the effectiveness of auditors.  After adverse internal control opinions, clients dismiss auditors in order to obtain higher quality audits, measured by switches to Big 4 and industry specialist auditors.  However, only industry specialist auditors are associated with remediation of adverse reports. 

    Citation:

    Ettredge, M., J. Heintz, C. Li, and S. Scholz. 2011. Auditor realignments accompanying implementation of SOX 404 ICFR reporting requirements. Accounting Horizons 25 (1): 17-39.

    Keywords:
    auditor realignments; dismissals; internal control; SOX Section 404; remediation
    Purpose of the Study:

    This study was motivated by the increased frequency of client dismissals of auditors since the implementation of SOX in 2002.  The added requirement that auditors opine on the client’s internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) brought concern among financial statement users that clients would seek more compliant auditors decreasing the quality of the audit.  This paper studies the impact of adverse auditors’ opinions on clients’ internal controls to determine whether:

    • Clients dismiss auditors after receiving an adverse SOX 404 ICFR opinion.
    • Clients dismiss auditors to improve financial reporting by obtaining a higher-quality auditor.
    • Dismissals and hiring a new auditor are associated with subsequent improved ICFR opinions.
    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The authors study accelerated filers from November 2004 through December 2007 and obtain data on ICFR opinions, auditor dismissals, and auditor switches.  Higher audit quality is measured as changes to Big 4 and industry specialist auditors. 

    Findings:
    • Companies receiving adverse ICFR opinions are more likely to dismiss their auditor in the subsequent year.
    • Companies that dismiss their auditor after an adverse ICFR opinion are more likely to hire Big 4 and industry specialist auditors.
    • Remediation of adverse reports is only associated with clients that switch to an industry specialist auditor.
    Category:
    Standard Setting, Internal Control
    Sub-category:
    Impact of 404, Impact of SOX, Impact of 404 on Fees and Financial Reporting Quality
    Home:

    home button

Filter by Type

Filter by Tag