Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    Are Fraud Specialists Relatively More Effective than...
    research summary posted July 22, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 05.0 Audit Team Composition, 05.01 Use of Specialists e.g., financial instruments, actuaries, valuation, 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk, 06.01 Fraud Risk Assessment, 10.0 Engagement Management, 10.01 Budgeting and Audit Time Management 
    Are Fraud Specialists Relatively More Effective than Auditors at Modifying Audit Programs in the Presence of Fraud Risk?
    Practical Implications:

    Although both auditors and fraud specialists added non-standard procedures to the audit program, auditors cut the budgets for some standard procedures, making room in the overall audit budget for non-standard additional procedures. In contrast, fraud specialists added standard procedures, but they were not more effective than those selected by auditors, and also provided less budget room for those procedures. The involvement of fraud specialists in planning an audit engagement where fraud risk is present is likely to lead to additional audit effort and cost, possibly without commensurate benefit. However, considering the potential consequences to the auditor of undiscovered fraud, it may be cost-effective to include additional non-standard procedures in an audit program if they improve the probability of discovering a fraud.


    Boritz, J. E., Kochetova-Kozloski, N., & Robinson, L. 2015. Are Fraud Specialists Relatively More Effective than Auditors at Modifying Audit Programs in the Presence of Fraud Risk? Accounting Review 90 (3): 881-915.

    audit planning, audit procedures, fraud, specialists
    Purpose of the Study:

    Since the passage of Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) 99 and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, policy-makers and regulators have promulgated additional guidance aimed at improving auditors’ performance in assessing and responding to fraud risks of audit clients. Auditors are expected to address fraud risk through the design of their audit methods and programs and by involving specialists. The authors study whether fraud specialists are relatively more effective than auditors in designing an audit program that will address elevated fraud risk. The goal is to examine whether the expertise of fraud specialists can directly contribute to planning the nature and extent of audit procedures, and whether the mix of procedures that such specialists recommend is likely to be more effective and efficient than the procedures proposed by auditors in a setting where ex ante fraud risk is rated at above a low level. By directly examining fraud specialists’ recommendations for an audit plan under conditions of an elevated fraud risk, the authors seek to clarify whether there are benefits in requesting fraud specialists to participate in audit program design.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    Participants completed an audit case based on an actual company that had issued fraudulent financial statements. Thirty-two fraud specialists and sixteen auditors completed the case  On average, the fraud specialists were 41 years old, had 12 years of specialized fraud-related experience, and six years of auditing experience. The auditors were, on average, 36 years old, had 13.25 years of auditing experience, but no specialized fraud experience. The evidence was gathered prior to November 2010.

    • In a situation with elevated fraud risk, fraud specialists did not select more procedures from a standard audit program than financial statement auditors; nor were the selected procedures more effective than those selected by auditors. This suggests that the benefits of involving fraud specialists in audit planning do not lie in their ability to identify more effective standard audit procedures.
    • When the risk of fraud is other than low, the fraud specialists proposed more additional procedures than did auditors, and the specialist-proposed additional procedures were marginally more effective, but significantly less efficient, than the additional procedures proposed by auditors. This suggests that involving fraud specialists in audit planning can carry benefits for engagements where fraud risk is not low by helping to identify a larger set of effective procedures than even very experienced auditors are able to do.
    • Fraud specialists increased time budgets to reflect the additional effort that they proposed via extensive non-standard procedures. However, although they proposed significantly more additional procedures than did auditors, their proposed time budget increases for those procedures were significantly lower than adjustments proposed by the auditors. 
    Audit Team Composition, Engagement Management, Risk & Risk Management - Including Fraud Risk
    Budgeting & Audit Time Management, Fraud Risk Assessment, Use of Specialists (e.g. financial instruments – actuaries - valuation)