These results provide new insight into conflicting results in contemporaneous studies that investigate the relationship between CAMS and auditor liability. The results will also be informative to the PCAOB and SEC because they highlight a potential unintended consequence of the proposed audit reporting model and reinforce the importance of the two oversight bodies considering the relationship between their regulatory actions.
Gimbar, C., B. Hansen and M. E. Ozlanski. 2016. The Effects of Critical Audit Matter Paragraphs and Accounting Standard Precision on Auditor Liability. The Accounting Review 91 (6): 1629 – 1646.
The results of this study are important for both regulators and auditors alike. Despite auditor concerns that a requirement to disclose CAMs would increase litigation risk, the results of this study indicate that they may actually reduce, or at the very least, have no effect on litigation risk. This is the case even when the subsequently identified misstatement is not related to the risks documented in the CAM. Furthermore, standard setters should take comfort in these findings as they weigh the potential benefits of adopting a CAM disclosure requirement because the results indicate that the implementation of CAMS would not increase the risk of litigation to auditors.
Brasel, K., M. M. Doxey, J. H. Grenier, and A. Reffett. 2016. Risk Disclosure Preceding Negative Outcomes: The Effect of Reporting Critical Audit Matters on Judgments of Auditor Liability. The Accounting Review 91 (5): 1345-1362.
Though modest improvements have been made in recent years, confusion still exists as to the content and meaning of the auditor’s report (e.g., users are confused as to the auditor’s responsibilities, the audit process, and the level of assurance provided). The authors suggest that the communicative value of the auditor’s report can be enhanced by including additional disclosures.
Church, B. K., S. M. Davis, and S. A. McCracken. 2008. The Auditor's Reporting Model: A Literature Overview and Research Synthesis. Accounting Horizons 22 (1): 69-90.
This study provides further support for the importance of office-specific characteristics on audit and financial reporting outcomes and provides evidence of the benefit of office-specific industry expertise. The study should be of interest to financial reporters and audit firms interested in reducing audit report lag times and to regulators and investors interested in increasing the timeliness of financial reporting information.
Whitworth, J. D., and T. A. Lambert. 2014. Office-Level Characteristics of the Big 4 and Audit Report Timeliness. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 33 (3): 129-152.
This study provides a number of contributions to auditing research. It is the first study to consider the efficacy of modifying the audit report to mitigate negative attributions of auditor performance. This mitigation technique responds to recent calls for changes in the audit report to improve communications to users. Further, examining the efficacy of this technique addresses the validity of claims that the use of an auditor judgment framework will enhance investor confidence. Finally, this study investigates investor assessments of the quality of auditor judgments. This focus is important given the significant role that investor confidence in the audit process plays for the effective and efficient functioning of the capital markets.
Wright, A. M., & Wright, S. 2014. Modification of the Audit Report: Mitigating Investor Attribution by Disclosing the Auditor's Judgment Process. Behavioral Research In Accounting 26 (2): 35-50.
The results of this study are important in realizing the investor’s perception of audit quality as it relates to SAB No. 108 disclosures. Investors respond negatively to the quantification of prior period misstatement disclosures. The investor also distinguishes between misstatements that are waived by previous auditors and misstatements waived in the current year. Investors react negatively to misstatements that are disclosed in the current year. The investors also react to the importance of the client as it relates to the misstatements that are waived. Investors understand and react to the correlation between client importance, waived misstatements, and client retention. The results are important to understand that investors react to disclosures made under SAB No. 108.
Omer, T. C., M. K. Shelley, and A. M. Thompson. 2012. Investors' Response to Revelations of Prior Uncorrected Misstatements. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 31 (4):167-192.
Since the reasons for auditor changes are rarely publicly revealed, the authors acknowledge that this study only shows an association, and not a causal relationship, between restatement announcements and subsequent auditor changes. While the authors attempt to control for all known determinants of auditor changes in the empirical testing, it is possible that the results are biased due to omitted variables.
For more information on this study, please contact Vivek Mande.
Mande, V. and M. Son. 2013. Do Financial Restatements Lead to Auditor Changes? Auditing: A Journal of Practical & Theory 32 (2): 119-145.
The increasing use of uncertain fair value measurements and other estimates in financial statements place an increasingly difficult burden on auditors, who are required to provide a high level of positive assurance that financial statements—including those containing items subject to enormous inherent estimation uncertainty such as those described above—are fairly stated in all material respects. The authors state that auditors are doing their best within the requirements imposed by standard setters and regulators, but also suggest that it is time for those who set and regulate standards to consider ways to more clearly convey where extreme estimation uncertainty exists within financial statements, and to reconsider auditors’ ability to provide positive, high level audit assurance on these inherently uncertain estimates.
For more information on this study, please contact Steven M. Glover.
Christensen, B. E., S. M. Glover, and D. A. Wood. 2012. Extreme Estimation Uncertainty in Fair Value Estimates: Implications for Audit Assurance. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 31 (1):127-146.
This study exploits variation in U.S. accounting standards to study the effect of rules-based standards on litigation. It provides evidence of an association between rules-based accounting standards and a lower incidence of securities class action litigation. This evidence informs the debate about switching from a more rules-based U.S. GAAP to a more principles based IFRS.
For more information on this study, please contact John McInnis.
Donelson, D., J. McInnis, and R. Mergenthaler. 2012. Rules-Based Accounting Standards and Litigation. The Accounting Review 87 (4): 1247-1279.
The audit reporting model has been an item on the recent PCAOB agendas. The findings of this study show there are still large gaps that exist between the intended communication of the audit report as stipulated in auditing standards and the perceptions by users, preparers, and auditors. This study provides evidence to be used in the current debate about updating the current auditor’s report to provide more meaningful information.
Gray, G.L., J.L. Turner, P.J. Coram, and T.J. Mock. 2011. Perceptions and misperceptions regarding the unqualified auditor’s report by financial statement preparers, users, and auditors. Accounting Horizons 25 (4): 659-684.