Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on...
    research summary posted April 13, 2012 by The Auditing Section, last edited May 25, 2012, tagged 09.0 Auditor Judgment, 09.01 Audit Scope and Materiality Judgments, 10.0 Engagement Management, 10.02 Materiality and Scope Decisions 
    870 Views
    Title:
    A Review and Integration of Empirical Research on Materiality: Two Decades Later
    Practical Implications:

    The results of the studies documented in this review suggest that there is a great deal of variability in the approaches taken by firms for establishing materiality. Such differences in materiality methods can affect both the effectiveness and efficiency of audits. For example, if firms differ in how they allocate materiality to financial statement accounts, then the scope of the work could differ across audits with similar characteristics. Auditors also appear to differ in terms of the factors they consider for determining the materiality of internal control weaknesses, suggesting that auditors may need more structured criteria to make materiality judgments about internal control weaknesses. Materiality judgments are influenced by authoritative guidance, suggesting that standard setters and audit firms have the ability to influence auditors’ materiality judgments by providing auditors with specific guidance.

    Citation:

    Messier, Jr., W.F., N. Martinov-Bennie, and A. Eilifsen. 2005. A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 24 (2): 153-187.

    Keywords:
    Materiality, materiality bases, quantitative, qualitative materiality factors
    Purpose of the Study:

    Materiality has been and continues to be a topic of importance for auditors. There has recently been renewed interest in the concept of materiality, motivated by concerns at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Auditing Standards Board and as evidenced by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the issuance of proposed standards on materiality by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. Additionally, new guidance has been issued recently in response to some of the materiality concerns, including Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) No. 99, Statements on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 89, and SAS No. 90.  Due to the continued importance of understanding the concept of materiality, this paper reviews and integrates the empirical research on materiality since 1982. Based on the review of the literature, the authors suggest some implications of this research for audit practice and research.

    Design/Method/ Approach:

    This paper reviews the literature related to materiality that has been published since 1982. The authors divide their discussion of the research into archival studies and experimental studies. Archival studies use audit firm manuals, data from auditor working papers, or published financial statement data and auditor reports to examine materiality decisions. Experimental studies examine materiality judgments and decision-making of financial statement users, auditors and others (e.g., judges/lawyers).

    Findings:

    Archival Studies: The primary findings from archival studies are categorized based on whether they were obtained from auditor-related sources (e.g., auditor working papers) or public sources (e.g., financial statements).  

         Auditor Related Sources (i.e., firm manuals and working papers)

    • There appear to be differences in the way firms establish planning materiality as well as differences in the extent of guidance provided by firms for setting planning materiality and tolerable misstatement.
    • Auditor judgment plays a significant role in setting planning materiality
    • Some version of income continues to be the major factor in determining the materiality of a misstatement (e.g., misstatement as a percent of net revenue). 

         Public Sources (i.e., financial statements, disclosures, and auditors’ reports)

    • Public sources also indicate that income continues to be the most significant factor in auditors’ materiality and disclosure decisions. This is the case regardless of the type of reporting item or disclosure in question.
    • Similarly, the choice to modify the auditor’s report seems consistent with traditional effects of the item on income. 

         Experimental Studies:

    • Experimental studies find that net income continues to be the most important factor in determining the materiality of misstatements, consistent with the findings of archival research. A number of studies find that the second most important materiality factor is the effect of the misstatement on a company’s earnings trend.
    • A number of qualitative factors were found to affect materiality decisions, including the auditors’ perceptions of management
      and management’s integrity, audit committee effectiveness, audit firm culture and whether a misstatement will be recognized in the financial statements or the footnotes.
    • Materiality judgments vary by experience and firm type. Experience appears to lead to greater consensus in materiality judgments and greater scrutiny of materiality judgments relating to discretionary, non-routine transactions.
    Category:
    Auditor Judgment, Engagement Management
    Sub-category:
    Audit Scope & Materiality Judgements, Materiality & Scope Decisions
    Home:
    home button