Auditing Section Research Summaries Space

A Database of Auditing Research - Building Bridges with Practice

This is a public Custom Hive  public

research summary

    Auditing Fair Value Measurements: A Synthesis of Relevant...
    research summary posted March 31, 2016 by Jennifer M Mueller-Phillips, tagged 05.0 Audit Team Composition, 05.01 Use of Specialists e.g., financial instruments, actuaries, valuation, 08.0 Auditing Procedures – Nature, Timing and Extent, 08.04 Auditors’ Professional Skepticism 
    Auditing Fair Value Measurements: A Synthesis of Relevant Research.
    Practical Implications:

    The authors believe that when armed with knowledge of how management may intentionally or unintentionally introduce error into their FVMs, auditors will be better able to take steps to adjust for this error. Currently, professional skepticism is the best way to combat this problem. Researchers and policy makers within firms need to grapple with the possibility that existing audit team structure and incentives may not be compatible with audits that require more and more specialized valuation knowledge.


    Martin, R. D., J. S. Rich, and T. J. Wilks. 2006. Auditing Fair Value Measurements: A Synthesis of Relevant Research. Accounting Horizons 20 (3): 287-303.

    Purpose of the Study:

    In order to contribute to the PCAOB project on auditing fair value measurements (FVMs), the authors synthesize and discuss the implications of academic research that should be relevant to auditors, standard-setters, and academics who increasingly deal with the complexities of auditing FVMs. The authors structure their synthesis of prior research along two dimensions:

    1. An emphasis on the auditor’s need to understand how FVMs are prepared, including an awareness of the potential pitfalls and biases inherent in preparing FVMs, and
    2. The audit steps and procedures necessary to verify and attest to FVMs, including an awareness of the potential biases inherent in auditing FVMs.
    Design/Method/ Approach:

    Structuring the synthesis along the aforementioned dimensions, the authors first focus on the generation of FVMs because they believe auditors cannot exercise due care in the audits of FVMs without a thorough understanding of the underlying valuation techniques and inputs used in assessing FVMs. They focus second on research related to verification and attestation procedures for FVMs, even though very little research directly examines the auditing of FVMs.

    • FVMs frequently incorporate forward-looking information reflected in market place exchanges as well as judgments about the applicability of those market inputs to company-specific conditions.
    • Future events and conditions cannot be predicted with certainty, so an element of judgment is always involved.
    • Specialists are often required to audit FVMs.
    • The structures of audits teams may inhibit the utilization of knowledge of such specialists in today’s audit firms. 
    • A number of errors and biases likely affect prepares’ valuation judgments, and auditors should be aware of those.
    • Auditors may rely on internal controls over FVM estimation process.
    • Auditors must be able to identify key assumptions and inputs in the FVM process.
    Audit Team Composition, Auditing Procedures - Nature - Timing and Extent
    Auditors’ Professional Skepticism, Use of Specialists (e.g. financial instruments – actuaries - valuation)