Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    Perspectives on the Public Company Accounting Oversight...
    research summary posted July 21, 2015 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 01.0 Standard Setting, 01.06 Impact of PCAOB 
    80 Views
    Title:
    Perspectives on the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) 2004–2005.
    Practical Implications:

    The author recommends that academics avail themselves of fellowship opportunities with the SEC and PCAOB.

    Citation:

    Bailey Jr., A. D. 2014. Perspectives on the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) 200052005. Accounting Horizons 28 (4): 889-899.

    Keywords:
    auditing standards, PCAOB
    Purpose of the Study:

    The topics covered in this commentary include:

    1. Early staff relations between the PCAOB and SEC in their respective roles of audit standard setter and oversight agency
    2. The PCAOB decision to act as the sole audit standard setter for registered public companies displacing the AICPA in this role;
    3. The PCAOB’s approach to ‘‘revising’’ the interim audit standards through Rule 3101, Certain Terms Used in Auditing and Related Professional Practice Standards;
    4. Audit Standard 3 (AS3), Audit Documentation; and
    5. Audit Standard 2 (AS2), An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction With an Audit of Financial Statements.
    Design/Method/ Approach:

    This commentary reflects the author’s experiences with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) during the academic year 2000/2001 (Academic Fellow) and the two calendar years 20042005 (Deputy Chief Accountant [Professional Practice]).

    Findings:

    The author found that the SEC, and the PCAOB standards group cultures were an interesting cross between a practice domain and an academic domain. While each tends to have a very pragmatic view, they also tend to reach beyond the immediate issues in an effort to craft longer-term viable solutions as compared to what the field practitioner likely sees as an issue in need of an immediate answer today. Unlike in academia, each of these groups is faced with the need for resolutions “today” in the face of too little or non-existent evidence. This is both a problem for them and a liberating aspect of their work. The academic can wait while gathering more evidence, while in the practice domain action will be taken, if not by a standard setter, then by the practitioner in the field. The interaction of practice and the academy will continue to be one of partnership and conflict. The author hopes academia will retain enough independence from the profession to sustain its role as a positive critic of practice.

    Category:
    Standard Setting
    Sub-category:
    Impact of PCAOB