Understanding that auditors allocate greater resources to fraud brainstorming when engagement risk is significant fosters brainstorming of a superior caliber corresponds to stronger regulatory compliance. Auditors report that engagement teams are holding fraud brainstorming sessions earlier in the audit, document more detailed risk assessments, plan more specific procedures, and retain more documentation. These characteristics contribute to adequately addressing increased PCAOB regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, brainstorming sessions are highly regarded when they occur in a face-to-face fashion and are attended by multiple levels of firm personnel—whether that is “core” or “non-core” professionals. Fraud brainstorming sessions are executed less mechanically (as determined by PCAOB inspectors) by using fewer checklists and increase the amount of time auditors prepare for brainstorming sessions.
Dennis, S. A., and K. M. Johnstone. 2016. A Field Survey of Contemporary Brainstorming Practices. Accounting Horizons 30 (4): 449–472.
These findings demonstrate that, although the profession is calling for more skepticism, the underlying culture may inhibit such behavior if auditors are punished for being skeptical when it turns out there is no misstatement. In relation to consultation prior to skeptical behavior, an internal firm-level training that makes evaluators more aware of outcome bias may be more effective than a subordinate-driven solution if encouraging skeptical behavior.
Brazel, J. F., S. B. Jackson, T. J. Schaefer, and B. W. Stewart. 2016. The Outcome Effect and Professional Skepticism. The Accounting Review 91 (6): 1577 – 1599.
These findings provide insight into the decision-making process of external auditors as they make IAF reliance decisions. In particular, the results show how IAF objectivity interacts with external auditor involvement to have an impact on external auditors’ reliance decisions and how subsequent reliance decisions are affected by negative evidence about the quality of the IAF’s work.
Pike, B. J., L. Chui, K. A. Martin, and R. M. Olvera. 2016. External Auditors’ Involvement in the Internal Audit Function’s Work Plan and Subsequent Reliance Before and After a Negative Audit Discovery. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 35 (4): 159 – 173.
Given that REM often causes significant auditor discomfort, the authors’ paper provides broader REM and auditor comfort-related questions pertaining to the effects of management’s focus on short-term results, the extent to which REM is a problem that can or needs to be fixed, and the possibility that REM is a gateway to more serious forms of accounting manipulation.
Commerford, B. P., D. R. Hermanson, R. W. Houston, and M. F. Peters. 2016. Real Earnings Management: A Threat to Auditor Comfort? Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 35 (4): 39 – 56.
This study is the first to establish IAF characteristics as separate, distinct constructs that act jointly in creating IAF quality; therefore, it contributes to the overall understanding of IAF quality and the determinants of the IAF as an effective internally based financial reporting monitor.
Abbott, L. J., B. Daugherty, S. Parker and G. F. Peters. 2016. Internal Audit Quality and Financial Reporting Quality: The Joint Importance of Independence and Competence. Journal of Accounting Research 54 (1): 3-40.
These results have important implications for audit practice, as the author shows that the specific techniques used by auditors to gather evidence for building knowledge structures are essential to resisting client influence. This paper also shows that in spite of the responsibility of understanding complex business environments and any resulting indicators, evidence finds that even experienced decision makers have difficulty learning in dynamically complex environments. Improving judgment and decision making in these settings requires enhancing auditors’ development of systems-based mental models.
Brewster, B. 2016. The Effect of Client Lies on Auditor Memory Resistance and False memory Acceptance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 35 (3): 33-50.
This paper suggests that the relationship between account subjectivity and usage of internal audit depends on the relative risk of misstatement. This complex relationship has not been shown in academic literature, nor is it highlighted in audit standards. More specifically, at lower levels of risk of misstatement, increases in subjectivity have no influence on the reliance of internal audit. At moderate risk levels the extent of internal audit reliance increases with subjectivity of the account. At high levels of misstatement internal audit reliance decreases with account subjectivity. This study provides insight into the decision criteria for internal audit reliance and highlight where internal audit usage maybe more prevalent, as well as were further audit guidance may be beneficial.
Bhattacharjee, S., M.J. Maletta, K.K. Moreno. 2016. The Role of Account Subjectivity and Risk of Material Misstatement on Auditors’ Internal Audit Reliance Judgments. Accounting Horizons 30 (2): 225-238.
The results of this study are important because the authors believe that the reduction in the use of appropriately rigorous substantive analytical procedures could diminish overall audit quality, and that the utilization of their approach could keep this from occurring.
Glover, S.M., D.F. Prawitt, and M.S. Drake. 2015. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: A Path Forward for Using Substantive Analytical Procedures in Auditing Large P&L Accounts: Commentary and Analysis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 34 (3): 161-179.
This study offers insights into why internal auditing is experiencing a shortage of qualified job candidates and offers a potential solution to the problem. The authors find that external auditors have negative perceptions about internal auditing, and these negative perceptions are associated with a (1) decreased desire to apply for internal auditing positions, (2) lower likelihood of recommending an in-house internal auditing career to high-performing students, and (3) higher likelihood of recommending an in-house internal auditing career to mediocre students. Internal auditors can try solving this problem by improving perceptions about internal auditing via a media campaign that raises awareness about the true internal audit career path.
Bartlett, G.D., J. Kremin, K.K. Saunders, and D.A. Wood. 2016. Attracting Applicants for In-House and Outsourced Internal Audit Positions: Views from External Auditors. Accounting Horizons 30 (1): 143-156.
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.