An Investigation of Ethical Environments of CPAs: Public Accounting versus Industry

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna D. Bobek ◽  
Derek W. Dalton ◽  
Brian E. Daugherty ◽  
Amy M. Hageman ◽  
Robin R. Radtke
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Decision ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Certified Public Accountants ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Work Settings ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Accounting Firms

ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to investigate certified public accountants' (CPAs) perceptions of their ethical environments. More specifically, we compare the perceptions of CPAs in (1) public accounting firms to those in industry, and (2) perceptions of CPAs at Big 4 public accounting firms to those at non-Big 4 firms. The ethical environment is one component of overall organizational culture and is important for encouraging ethical decision making. Based on responses from 904 CPAs, we find CPAs working at public accounting firms perceive their ethical environments as significantly stronger than CPAs in industry (and other nonpublic accounting work settings). Additionally, within public accounting, CPAs at Big 4 firms perceive their ethical environments as significantly stronger than those working at non-Big 4 accounting firms. Implications for research and practice are discussed. Data Availability: Please contact the authors.

A Contemporary Analysis of Accounting Professionals' Work-Life Balance

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Buchheit ◽  
Derek W. Dalton ◽  
Nancy L. Harp ◽  
Carl W. Hollingsworth
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Support ◽  
Work Life ◽  
Work Life Balance ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Life Balance ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Professionals ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Accounting Firms

SYNOPSIS In recent years, work-life balance surpassed compensation as the most important job satisfaction factor among AICPA members (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants [AICPA] 2004). Despite the continued importance of this issue in the accounting profession (AICPA 2011), prior research has not examined work-life balance perceptions across different segments of the profession. We survey 1,063 practicing CPAs in order to assess the comparative work-life balance perceptions across (1) Big 4 versus smaller public accounting firms, (2) audit versus tax functions, and (3) public accounting versus industry work contexts. Consistent with predictions based on institutional logics theory, we find that work-family conflict and job burnout perceptions (our proxies for work-life balance) are highest in the Big 4. We are the first study to measure both support-for and viability-of traditional alternative work arrangements (AWAs), and we report an important distinction between these two constructs. Specifically, while CPAs across all public accounting firms (i.e., Big 4, national, regional, and local firms) report similar levels of organizational support-for AWAs, Big 4 professionals report significantly lower perceived viability-of AWAs (i.e., the ability to use AWAs and remain effective at one's job) compared to accounting professionals at smaller public accounting firms. Further, we find no differences between audit and tax professionals' perceptions across any of our work-life balance measures. We also document nuanced differences regarding work-life balance perceptions in public accounting versus industry. For example, contrary to conventional wisdom, work-life balance is not uniformly “better” in industry (e.g., burnout is actually lower in smaller public accounting firms compared to industry). Finally, we use open-ended responses from a follow-up survey to provide several recommendations for firms to improve their work-life balance efforts.

Materiality Guidance of the Major Public Accounting Firms

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aasmund Eilifsen ◽  
William F. Messier
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Qualitative Factors ◽  
Research And Education ◽  
High Level ◽  
Implementation Of Standards

SUMMARY This paper examines the materiality guidance for eight of the largest U.S. public accounting firms. Knowledge of how materiality guidance is integrated into a firm's methodology is important for accounting and auditing researchers as well as for practitioners, regulators, and educators. Our results show a high level of consistency across the firms in terms of the quantitative benchmarks (e.g., income before taxes, total assets or revenues, and total equity) used to determine overall materiality, the related percentages applied to those benchmarks, the percentages applied to overall materiality for determining tolerable misstatement, and what constitutes a clearly trivial misstatement. We also find that the firms' guidance for evaluating detected misstatements, including qualitative factors and firm guidance for group audits, is consistent across firms. However, there are differences in how the firms consider the possibility of undetected misstatements when evaluating detected misstatements. The results of this study provide important insights into implementation of standards and valuable information for future research and education. Data Availability: The data used are proprietary to the firms and are not available for distribution.

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter 029: PCAOB Release No. 2011-007, Improving Transparency Through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith L. Jones ◽  
Jagadison K. Aier ◽  
Duane M. Brandon ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
Paul Caster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Period ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Comment ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY In October 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB or Board) issued a release to solicit public comment on amendments to its standards that would improve the transparency of pubic company audits. The objective of the release was to solicit public comments on a proposed standard that would (1) require registered public accounting firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner in the audit report, (2) amend the Board's Annual Report Form to require registered firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner for each audit report already required to be reported on the form, and (3) require disclosure in the audit report of other independent public accounting firms and other persons that took part in the audit. The PCAOB provided for a 91-day exposure period (from October 11, 2011, to January 9, 2012) for interested parties to examine the release and provide comments. The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the PCAOB on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter 029: PCAOB Release No. 2011-007, Improving Transparency Through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits. Data Availability: Information about and access to the release is available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket029/PCAOB_Release_2011-007.pdf

Sitting Requirements and the CPA Exam

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared S. Soileau ◽  
Spencer C. Usrey ◽  
Thomas Z. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Graduate Degree ◽  
Pass Rates ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Cpa Exam ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Educational Requirements

ABSTRACT This study examines the association between jurisdictions' CPA exam educational requirements and exam pass rates, scores, and number of candidates from 2006 to 2013. More specifically, we examine provisional candidacy to sit for the CPA exam. Provisional status allows a candidate to sit for the CPA exam prior to obtaining the required number of hours or graduate degree. Our results indicate that while 150-hour exam jurisdictions outperform 120-hour jurisdictions, provisional jurisdictions outperform both 150- and 120-hour jurisdictions for pass rates and average scores. We also find that the number of candidates sitting for the exam is significantly lower for provisional and 150-hour jurisdictions than for 120-hour jurisdictions. Our study contributes to the literature by considering the potential benefits of sitting in provisional jurisdictions and is likely to be of interest to accounting educators, state boards, and public accounting firms. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources indicated in the text.

An Exploratory Study into the Use of Audit Data Analytics on Audit Engagements

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 75-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aasmund Eilifsen ◽  
Finn Kinserdal ◽  
William F. Messier ◽  
Thomas E. McKee
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Theory ◽  
Professional Practice ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Data Analytics ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
It Systems ◽  
Audit Data ◽  
Public Accounting Firms

SYNOPSIS This study explores the use of audit data analytics (ADA) in current audit practice. First, we interviewed the heads of professional practice of five international public accounting firms in Norway. We find that they differ in strategies on how to implement ADA and the heads report significant uncertainty about the supervisory inspection authorities' response to the use of ADA. Second, we administered a questionnaire to 216 engagement partners and managers about their perceptions of ADA and their actual ADA use on 109 audit engagements. Overall, the attitudes toward ADA usefulness are positive. Analysis of the audit engagements suggests use of ADA is relatively limited and use of more “advanced” ADA is rare. More ADA are used for clients with integrated ERP/IT systems and for newly tendered audit engagements. We also provide details of ADA use on each phase of the audit. We discuss our findings from an institutional theory perspective. Data Availability: The data used in this study are confidential by agreement with the participants.

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Release No. 2013-009, Proposed Rule on Improving the Transparency of Audit: Proposed Amendments to PCAOB Auditing Standards to Provide Disclosure in the Auditor's Report of Certain Participants in the Audit

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. C1-C7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Urton L. Anderson ◽  
Lisa Milici Gaynor ◽  
Karl E. Hackenbrack ◽  
Ling Lei Lisic ◽  
Yi-Jing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY On December 4, 2013 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) solicited public comments on its reproposed amendments to its standards that would improve the transparency of public company audits. The amendments would require (1) disclosure in the auditor's report of the name of the engagement partner, and (2) disclosure in the auditor's report of the names, locations, and extent of participation of other independent public accounting firms that took part in the audit and the locations and extent of participation of other persons not employed by the auditor that took part in the audit. The comment period initially ended on February 3, 2014, but was subsequently extended to March 17, 2014. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on these amendments. Data Availability: The exposure drafts of the proposed and reproposed rules and related information are available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Pages/Docket029.aspx

The post-SOX comparative dynamics of public accounting firm efficiency

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ephraim Clark ◽  
Zhuo Qiao
Keyword(s):  
Market Competition ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Firm Efficiency ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
Comparative Dynamics ◽  
Catching Up ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Accounting Firms

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the differences in the efficiency of public accounting firms across both firms and countries in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley world. It also investigates the issues surrounding the dynamics of their efficiency gaps. Design/methodology/approach This study uses four-stage data envelopment analysis to estimate the efficiency of public accounting firms in the USA, the UK and Canada over the period 2008–2015. The ß- and σ- convergence tests are applied to analyze the dynamics of the efficiency gaps across firms and countries. Findings The results show that market competition in the accounting sector increases efficiency. Gross domestic product growth also increases it while inflation decreases it. The analytical results indicate that the lagging public accounting firms are catching up to the leading public accounting firms within the same country, within the Big 4 group and within the non-Big 4 group. They also show that the non-Big 4 groups are catching up to the Big 4 group and that the countries with less efficient accounting firms are catching up to the country with the more efficient accounting firms. Originality/value This study accounts explicitly for the effect of business environmental factors on public accounting firm efficiency. Furthermore, the research also adds to the literature by investigating the comparative dynamics of the efficiency gaps of public accounting firms.

scholarly journals An Updated Analysis of Enforcement Actions against Engagement Quality Reviewers

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. A1-A12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kraussman ◽  
William F. Messier
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Small Firms ◽  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

SUMMARY Engagement quality review (EQR) is designed to be a quality control mechanism for improving the quality of audit engagements. This paper updates the findings of Messier, Kozloski, and Kochetova-Kozloski (2010) on enforcement actions against engagement quality (EQ) reviewers, especially in light of the December 2009 implementation of the new standard on engagement quality review, Auditing Standard No. 7 (AS7). We identified 16 enforcement actions since 2009 that involve some type of sanction against an EQ reviewer. Only two cases involved a Big 4 firm. Thus, the vast majority of cases involved EQRs from smaller public accounting firms. Six cases occurred prior to the implementation of AS7, nine cases occurred after AS7 took effect, and one case involved violations both prior to and after AS7 implementation. All of the pre-AS7 cases involved sanctions resulting from an inadequate EQR. In contrast, all of the post-AS7 cases involved sanctions resulting from a failure to perform an EQR. Our review of these post-AS7 cases suggests that some small firms were either unable or unwilling to bring in qualified outside reviewers. Our findings provide important implications for practitioners, regulators, and researchers interested in engagement quality review and in improving the overall quality of audit engagements. Data Availability: The cases included in this study are available from public sources.

scholarly journals Audit Firm Perspective on Audit Firm Rotation and Enhancing Independence: Evidence from PCAOB Comment Letters

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. A22-A44
Author(s):  
L. Tyler Williams ◽  
W. Mark Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Overwhelming Majority ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Comment Letters ◽  
Alternative Solutions

SUMMARY This study examines practitioners' perspectives on audit firm rotation and alternative solutions to enhance independence in the audit industry as solicited by the PCAOB's “Concept Release on Audit Firm Rotation and Auditor Independence.” Accordingly, we synthesize the opinions found in comment letters of 15 American public accounting firms—eight of which are annually inspected by the PCAOB and seven of which are inspected tri-annually. Altogether, we find the firms generally offer homogenous rationale for opposition to audit firm rotation. However, most importantly, we note that the overwhelming majority of the alternative solutions offered by the firms to enhance the independence relationship between auditor and client lies with fortifying the audit committee. To that end, while regulators have generally attempted to strengthen independence by introducing regulation at the auditor level, our review indicates that perhaps a shift in regulatory philosophy is warranted—one that suggests progressing regulation at the client level. Data Availability: Publicly available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document