scholarly journals Risk Disclosure Preceding Negative Outcomes: The Effects of Reporting Critical Audit Matters on Judgments of Auditor Liability

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. P1-P10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey Brasel ◽  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Jonathan H. Grenier ◽  
Andrew Reffett
Keyword(s):  
Negative Outcomes ◽  
Risk Disclosure ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Reports

SUMMARY The PCAOB and the IAASB recently proposed several significant changes to the audit reporting model, including requiring auditors to disclose critical audit matters (CAMs) in their audit reports. While investors appear to support such additional disclosures, some audit practitioners, academics, and attorneys contend that requiring auditors to disclose CAMs will make it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to successfully sue auditors when audits fail to detect material misstatements. A recent study, “Risk Disclosure Preceding Negative Outcomes: The Effects of Reporting Critical Audit Matters on Judgments of Auditor Liability” (Brasel, Doxey, Grenier, and Reffett 2016), reports results of an experiment that inform this issue. Contrary to the above concerns, results of the study indicate that disclosing CAMs, either related or unrelated to an undetected material misstatement, likely will not increase, and could decrease (depending on the type of misstatement), the probability of jurors holding auditors liable when audits fail to detect material misstatements. Further, results indicate that explicitly stating in the audit report that there were no CAMs, an option allowed within the PCAOB's proposal, would increase negligence verdicts against audit firms. The following article summarizes the study's motivation, method, results, and implications for both audit reporting and risk disclosure in general.

Examining the Current Legal Environment Facing the Public Accounting Profession: Recommendations for a Consistent U.S. Policy

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Reinstein ◽  
Carl J. Pacini ◽  
Brian Patrick Green
Keyword(s):  
Global Economy ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Reports

We examine the recent history and trends of U.S. auditor liability to third parties to help regulators and legislators develop policies to protect and maintain audit quality while limiting auditor liability exposure. Although the United States has yet developed a formal policy to address auditor liability, some European Union member countries and Australia, in varying degrees, support such limitation. Thus, we also explore current EU and Australian policies as examples of potential recommendations to U.S. policy makers. In light of a litigious environment, U.S. Certified Public Accounting firms generally accept potential clients only after analyzing potential risks, dismiss many risky clients, raise their total or hourly fees, spend more time examining attestation evidence, and perform other procedures to reduce their litigation risk. This risk arises largely from the federal and state legal systems, assuming that auditors can better absorb and control losses from misleading financial statements than can financial statement users. While culpable, this litigious environment led to the demise of two large international Certified Public Accounting firms—Arthur Andersen and Laventhol & Horwath. Is the global economy better off having fewer accounting firms with the capacity to perform international audits? A Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s recent Exposure Draft would require auditors of issuers to expand significantly their audit reports beyond current Pass/Fail standards, which could increase audit firms’ disclosures and resultant liabilities. After examining U.S. federal and state statutes plus court decisions regarding auditor liability, we suggest methods to protect the public while allowing audit firms to thrive in these environments.

Risk Disclosure Preceding Negative Outcomes: The Effects of Reporting Critical Audit Matters on Judgments of Auditor Liability

2016 ◽  
Vol 91 (5) ◽  
pp. 1345-1362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey Brasel ◽  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Jonathan H. Grenier ◽  
Andrew Reffett
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Negative Outcomes ◽  
Risk Disclosure ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
Current Regime ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Audit practitioners, academics, and attorneys have expressed concern that disclosing critical audit matters (CAMs) will increase jurors' auditor liability judgments when auditors fail to detect misstatements. In contrast, this study provides theory and experimental evidence that CAM disclosures, under certain conditions, reduce auditor liability judgments as jurors perceive that undetected fraudulent misstatements were more foreseeable to the plaintiff (i.e., the financial statement user suing the auditor). However, we find that CAM disclosures only reduce auditor liability for undetected misstatements that, absent CAM disclosure, are relatively difficult to foresee. Finally, CAM disclosures that are unrelated to subsequent misstatements neither increase nor reduce auditor liability judgments relative to the current regime (i.e., where CAMs are not disclosed), but reduce liability judgments relative to reporting that there were no CAMs. As such, we find that, relative to stating there were no CAMs, disclosure of any CAM (i.e., related or unrelated) provides litigation protection in cases of undetected fraud. Consequently, the CAM requirement could incentivize auditors to disclose innocuous boilerplate CAMs, thereby diluting the impact of more warranted CAM disclosures. Data Availabliity: Available from authors upon request.

The going-concern opinion and the adverse credit rating: an analysis of their relationship

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Strickett ◽  
David C. Hay ◽  
David Lau
Keyword(s):  
Credit Rating ◽  
Credit Ratings ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Ownership Structures ◽  
Going Concern ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Going Concern Opinion ◽  
Audit Reports

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between going-concern (GC) opinions issued by the Big 4 audit firms and adverse credit ratings from the two largest credit rating agencies (CRAs) – Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Moody’s. This question is relevant because there have been suggestions that auditors and CRAs should become more similar to each other, and because the two largest CRAs have different ownership structures that could affect their ratings. Design/methodology/approach Univariate and multivariate analyses are performed using a sample of firms that filed for bankruptcy between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2013 that also had an audit opinion signed during the 12 months prior to bankruptcy, along with a credit rating issued by either or both S&P and Moody’s. Both influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time. Findings Both audit reports and credit ratings influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time. Originality/value Auditors are more likely to issue GC opinions when there is a downgrade to the credit rating, and CRAs are more likely to downgrade their ratings when there is a GC opinion. The study highlights that CRAs with different ownership structures provide different credit rating outcomes.

How a Shared Auditor Affects Firm-Pair Comparability: Implications of Both Firm and Individual Audit Styles

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-160
Author(s):  
Lili Jiu ◽  
Bin Liu ◽  
Yuanyuan Liu
Keyword(s):  
Accounting Standards ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Professional Judgment ◽  
Audit Process ◽  
Personal Style ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Practical Implications

SUMMARY In this study, we examine the roles of audit firms and individual auditors in improving financial statement comparability. We conduct the study in the Chinese setting, in which the identities of signing auditors are revealed in audit reports and accounting standards are principle based. After controlling for audit firm style, we find that firm pairs with shared signing auditors have incrementally greater comparability. Our results indicate that individual auditors exhibit their own personal style in implementing accounting standards and exercising professional judgment in the audit process. Overall, our study underscores the association between individual auditors and comparability, with practical implications for market participants and policymakers.

Design and Application Research of Audit Risk Control Program

2013 ◽  
Vol 310 ◽  
pp. 718-721
Author(s):  
Li Ya Ma ◽  
Shu Feng Wang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Model ◽  
Risk Control ◽  
Control Program ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Independent Auditing ◽  
And Control

Strict procedures for prevention and control of audit risk is one of the most effective measures, so the research on design of audit risk control standardization program has very great practical application value. Combined with the research needs, the CPA practices respectively utilize means of summarizing method, for example, analysis method and enumeration method. The CPA practice also revealing the audit risk and audit report risk associated with different basis, combining with the traditional audit risk model. The specific content concludes the report of audit risk and then designs including audit reports preparation, audit draft, final review report to track a feedback of visit to the control standard operating requirements, and then puts forward the independent auditing standards. The auditing standards should be added to the proposal of audit report program.

Auditor Tenure Disclosure and Shareholder Ratification Voting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul N. Tanyi ◽  
Dasaratha V Rama ◽  
K Raghunandan
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Public Disclosure ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Shareholder Voting ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
The Impact

The PCAOB mandated, over the objections of the large audit firms and others, that for fiscal years ending on or after December 15, 2017, the audit report shall include information about auditor tenure. In this paper we answer the call for academic research about “the impact and usefulness of the auditor tenure disclosure as it becomes implemented” from Franzel (2017). We use data from 2,718 firms in our analyses. We find that in the case of clients with long (short) auditor tenure, the proportion of shareholder votes not ratifying the auditor increased (decreased) after public disclosure of auditor tenure. Thus, it appears that public disclosure of auditor tenure influenced shareholder voting and sensitized shareholders to longer audit tenures.

The Influence of Earnings Quality for Restatements and Auditor’s Qualified Opinion

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Adriano Antonio Siqueira ◽  
Fernando Caio Galdi
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory Agency ◽  
Earnings Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Independent Auditors

The objective of the present study was to raise the cases of restatements and to evaluate whether these events were associated with the low earnings quality and with the provision of advice with a qualified opinion by audit firms. The results obtained with the analysis indicate that the low earnings quality increases the chances of republishing the financial statements. Additionally, the results indicate that there is no evidence that lower earnings quality increases the chances of issuing a qualified audit report or disapproval of the financial statements by the independent auditors. These results point to a divergence regarding the understanding of earnings quality by the auditors and by the regulatory agency.

Convergent and Divergent Elements in the Reporting of Key Audit Matters at the Level of the Banking Sector from Central and Eastern Europe

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (161) ◽  
pp. 130-144
Author(s):  
Aurelia STEFANESCU ◽  
◽  
Denis-Adrian LEVANTI ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Banking Sector ◽  
National Level ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Important Change ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Firm Level ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Informational Value

The current economic turmoil manifested at international and national level is influencing the banking sector, situation which calls for an innovative approach to the informational value of the independent auditor’s report. In order to reduce the information asymmetry of the audit reports from a stakeholder’s perspective, competent authorities have issued a series of regulations aiming to change the structure and the content of these reports. The most important change relates to the reporting of the key audit matters, which are considered to bring many benefits to stakeholders. In this context, this research aims to identify, analyze and compare the key audit matters reported by the statutory auditors of credit institutions operating in Central and Eastern Europe. The results revealed that the reported key audit matters reflect the particularity of the industry and of the activities carried out by these institutions. Also, the research highlighted a portfolio of convergent and divergent elements in the key audit matters reporting both at the level of the analyzed territories and at audit firm level. The results of the research are useful to stakeholders of the banking industry, professional bodies and regulators from two perspectives: firstly, by generating value added to the informational value of the audit report and secondly, by building an informational symmetry of the audit report in relation to its stakeholders.

scholarly journals Teaching Students About Audit Reports: An Interactive Approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. I14-I25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca G. Fay ◽  
Sarah E. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Thinking Skills ◽  
Critical Thinking Skills ◽  
Classroom Discussion ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Interactive Approach ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Regulatory Proposals ◽  
Existing Structure

SUMMARY This instructional case provides an interactive approach to teach students about various components of the audit report as well as different types of reports. The materials in this case provide instructors with a diverse set of publicly available audit reports that can be used to illustrate several reporting issues in an undergraduate or graduate class. After gaining an appreciation for the existing structure of audit reports, students are asked to apply critical-thinking skills to determine whether the information communicated in these reports is informative to various interest groups. To facilitate classroom discussion on the topic, the case incorporates information from recent regulatory proposals that would significantly change existing audit report disclosures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document