Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    Discussion of: “The Importance of Account Relations when R...
    research summary posted May 7, 2012 by The Auditing Section, last edited May 25, 2012, tagged 06.0 Risk and Risk Management, Including Fraud Risk, 06.05 Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement, 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.01 Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness 
    412 Views
    Title:
    Discussion of: “The Importance of Account Relations when Responding to Interim Audit Testing Results”
    Practical Implications:

    Bedard’s (2006) discussion of Vandervelde (2006) reinforces the fact that auditors do incorporate the relationships among accounts in their responses to increases in misstatement risk.  He also suggests that it is important to consider how this pattern maps to auditors’ risk assessments at the financial statement assertion level.  His discussion emphasizes that in response to fee pressure, auditors may shift planned audit hours between accounts (i.e., from low risk areas to high risk areas), rather than increasing overall planned audit hours.  Finally, despite Bedard’s (2006) caveat that this result could be due to auditor self-presentation concerns or a change in the mix of audit procedures that does not result in increased hours, it is important to note that auditors do not appear to reduce planned audit hours in response to fee pressure – and that this could reflect auditors’ cognizance of the heightened importance that investors and the market currently placed on the role of auditing.

    Citation:

    Bedard, J. 2006. Discussion of: “The Importance of Account Relations when Responding to Interim Audit Testing Results”. Contemporary Accounting Research. 23(3): 823 – 831.

    Keywords:
    Account relations, audit planning, interim evidence, profit pressure, auditing procedures - nature, timing, and extent
    Purpose of the Study:

    This study is a conference discussion of Vandervelde (2006).  The purpose of the discussion is to critically analyze the motivation, hypotheses, experimental design, results, and implications of Vandervelde (2006).  Please see the summary of Vandervelde (2006) for further details.  

    The discussant first reviews research on risk-based auditing. The discussant believes that Vandervelde (2006) is studying an important aspect of the audit by examining how auditors incorporate relationships between accounts in their audit testing. Regarding Vandervelde’s (2006) predictions, the discussant believes that Vandervelde’s (2006) hypotheses could more accurately reflect the mathematical model’s predictions. The following points illustrate the primary differences between the expectations in Vandervelde (2006) and Bedard (2006).

    • In response to Vandervelde’s (2006) prediction that the increase in planned audit hours as the severity of the problem increases is greater for related vs. unrelated accounts, the discussant observes auditors may compensate for increased hours in higher risk areas of the audit with decreased hours in lower risk areas of the audit, which explains why prior studies find that auditors do not always respond to risk.  
    • Contrary to Vandervelde (2006), the discussant suggests that the increase in planned audit hours for low-relatedness accounts is not mitigated by fee pressure; rather there is a decline in planned audit hours, which is heightened by fee pressure.
    Design/Method/ Approach:

    The discussant reviews and provides suggestions for Vandervelde’s (2006) motivation, hypotheses, experimental design, and results.  The discussant also integrates Vandervelde (2006) in the context of prior research and suggests avenues for future research.

    Findings:
    • The discussant observes that Vandervelde’s (2006) findings suggest that auditors do consider the relationship between accounts, as planned audit hours increase for accounts related to the account where the problem was discovered and do not materially change for nonrelated accounts. 
    • The discussant states that Vandervelde’s (2006) finding that profit pressure does not influence auditors’ response to increases in risk is consistent with the market scrutiny on audit quality spurring audit firms to decrease emphasis on profit pressure.  However the discussant also observes that this finding could have been an artifact of the experimental design of the study, as auditors may have been reluctant to show that they are affected by profit pressure.  Further, this result suggests that auditors may change the mix of audit procedures for an account to address increases in risk, rather than changing the planned hours for that account.   
    • The discussant suggests that it could be informative to examine how auditors react to risks at the assertion level, rather than the account level. He suggests that accounts can be classified as “derived” vs. “generating transactions”, which can assist in mapping to assertions.  In Vandervelde’s (2006) context, the purchases account would be classified as “generating transactions”, while accounts payable and inventory are classified as “derived” (from purchases on account/disbursements and purchases/sales, respectively).  Thus, loss of documents would suggest issues with the completeness assertion for purchases, accounts payable and inventory.  The loss of documents should prompt an auditor to adjust audit procedures related to completeness, but not other assertions.
    Category:
    Risk & Risk Management - Including Fraud Risk, Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent
    Sub-category:
    Assessing Risk of Material Misstatement, Substantive Analytical Review – Effectiveness
    Home:
    home button