scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 042: PCAOB Release No. 2017-005, Proposed Amendments Relating to the Supervision of Audits Involving Other Auditors and Proposed Auditing Standard— Dividing Responsibility for the Audit with Another Accounting Firm

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. C11-C18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean A. Dennis ◽  
Denise Dickins ◽  
Christine E. Earley ◽  
Christine Nolder ◽  
Tammie J. Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY On September 26, 2017, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) solicited public comments on Proposed Amendments Relating to the Supervision of Audits Involving Other Auditors and Proposed Auditing Standard—Dividing the Responsibility for the Audit with Another Accounting Firm. The supplemental request for comment seeks commenters' views on the proposed amendments and standard related to audits involving accounting firms and individuals other than the accounting firm that issues the audit report. The comment period ended on November 15, 2017. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on these amendments. Data Availability: The supplemental request for comment Proposed Amendments Relating to the Supervision of Audits Involving Other Auditors and Proposed Auditing Standard—Dividing Responsibility for the Audit with Another Accounting Firm is available at: https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket042/2017-005-other-auditors-SRC.pdf, and the comment letter sent in by the Auditing Standards Committee is available at: https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket042/020b_AAA.pdf.

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

Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 31: PCAOB Release No. 2010-005, Application of the “Failure to Supervise” Provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Solicitation of Comment on Rulemaking Concepts

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. C11-C15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Brazel ◽  
James Bierstaker ◽  
Paul Caster ◽  
Brad Reed
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Supervision Practices

SUMMARY: Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “Board”) issued a release to address, in two ways, issues relating to the responsibilities of a registered public accounting firm and its supervisory personnel with respect to supervision. First, the release reminds registered firms and associated persons of, and highlights the scope of, Section 105(c)(6) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“the Act”), which authorizes the Board to impose sanctions on registered public accounting firms and their supervisory personnel for failing to supervise reasonably an associated person who has violated certain laws, rules, or standards. Second, the release discusses and seeks comment on conceptual approaches to rulemaking that might complement the application of Section 105(c)(6) and, through increased accountability, lead to improved supervision practices and, consequently, improved audit quality. The PCAOB provided for a 91-day exposure period (from August 5, 2010, to November 3, 2010) for interested parties to examine and provide comments on the conceptual approaches to rulemaking that might complement the application of Section 105(c)(6). The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the PCAOB on the PCAOB Release No. 2010-005, Application of the “Failure to Supervise” Provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Solicitation of Comment on Rulemaking Concepts.

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

scholarly journals The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association is Pleased to Provide Comments on PCAOB Staff Consultation Paper No. 2015-01, The Auditor's Use of the Work of Specialists

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. C18-C37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Joe ◽  
Diane J. Janvrin ◽  
Dereck Barr-Pulliam ◽  
Stephani Mason ◽  
Marshall K. Pitman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Potential Improvement ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Current Practices

SUMMARY On May 28, 2015 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (hereafter, the Board) issued Staff Consultation Paper No. 2015-01 (hereafter, the Staff Consultation Paper) to seek information and input on the potential need to improve standards related to the auditor's use of the work of specialists. The Board requested input from investors, accounting firms, specialists, companies, and others (such as academics) about (1) current practices, (2) the potential need for changes, and (3) possible alternative regulatory approaches, and any associated economic implications, for potential improvement in standards related to oversight and assessing the objectivity of employed and engaged specialists. The comment period ended July 31, 2015. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on selected questions posed in the Staff Consultation Paper. Data Availability: The invitation to comment (through July 31, 2015), with links to the Consultation Paper, is available at: http://www.pcaobus.org/Standards/Pages/SCP_Specialists.aspx

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 37: PCAOB Release No. 2011-006, Concept Release on Auditor Independence and Audit Firm Rotation

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. C15-C27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith L. Jones ◽  
Jagadison K. Aier ◽  
Duane M. Brandon ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
Lisa M. Gaynor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Period ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Comment ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation

SUMMARY In August 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB or Board) issued a concept release to solicit public comment on the potential direction of a proposed standard-setting project on means to enhance auditor independence, objectivity, and professional skepticism. The Concept Release sought comments on and explores in detail the possibility of mandatory audit firm rotation. The PCAOB provided for a 121-day exposure period (from August 16 to December 14, 2011) for interested parties to examine and provide comments on the concept release. The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below (dated December 13, 2011) to the PCAOB on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 37: PCAOB Release No. 2011-006, Concept Release on Auditor Independence and Audit Firm Rotation. Data Availability: Information about and access to the release are available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket037/Release_2011-006.pdf

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Release No. 2015-004, Supplemental Request for Comment: Rules to Require Disclosure of Certain Audit Participants on a New PCAOB Form

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Marshall A. Geiger ◽  
Karl E. Hackenbrack ◽  
Sarah E. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
The Public ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
New Form

SUMMARY On June 30, 2015 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a supplemental request for comment on its 2013 reproposal to require auditors to disclose in the auditor's report the name of the engagement partner and information about certain other participants in the audit. The supplemental request solicited public comments on an alternative to disclosure of this information in the auditor's report, namely that audit firms report (1) the name of the engagement partner, and (2) the names, locations, and extent of participation of other audit participants in a new form (Form AP) to be filed with the PCAOB within 30 days of the date the auditor's report is first included in a document filed with the SEC. The comment period ended on August 31, 2015. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on the alternatives presented in the supplemental request for comment. Data Availability: The exposure drafts of the proposed and reproposed rules, the supplemental request for comment, and related information are available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Pages/Docket029.aspx

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 34: PCAOB Release No. 2011-003, Concept Release on Possible Revisions to PCAOB Standards Related to Reports on Audited Financial Statements.

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. C1-C14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F Brazel ◽  
Paul Caster ◽  
Shawn Davis ◽  
Steven M Glover ◽  
Diane J Janvrin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Auditor Reporting

SUMMARY Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB or Board) issued a concept release to solicit public comment on the potential direction of a proposed standard-setting project on the content and form of reports on audited financial statements. The objective of the concept release was to discuss several alternatives for changing the auditor's reporting model that could increase its transparency and relevance to financial statement users, while not compromising audit quality. To that end, the alternatives included (1) a supplement to the auditor's report, in which the auditor would be required to provide additional information about the audit and the company's financial statements (an “Auditor's Discussion and Analysis”), (2) required and expanded use of emphasis paragraphs in the auditor's report, (3) auditor reporting on information outside the financial statements, and (4) clarification of certain language in the auditor's report. The PCAOB provided for a 102-day exposure period (from June 21 to September 30, 2011) for interested parties to examine and provide comments on the conceptual approaches to rulemaking that might complement the application of Section 105(c)(6). The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the PCAOB on the PCAOB Release No. 2011-003, Concept Release on Possible Revisions to PCAOB Standards Related to Reports on Audited Financial Statements. Data Availability: Information about and access to the release is available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket034/Concept_Release.pdf

A Reexamination of Audit Fees for Initial Audit Engagements in the Post-SOX Period

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Desir ◽  
Jeffrey R. Casterella ◽  
Julia Kokina
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Sample Period ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Client Relationships

SUMMARY: On August 16, 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a concept release seeking comments on ways to enhance auditor independence. The Board notes that higher failure rates in new audit engagements might be linked to unrealistic pricing. The Board's concern is that a new auditor might be more susceptible to management pressure if initial-year audit fees are set artificially low. Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, empirical evidence shows that auditors discounted their initial-year audit fees. This practice, known as lowballing, was expected to decrease significantly after the enactment of SOX. Indeed, findings in Huang, Raghunandan, and Rama (2009) seem to confirm that Big 4 auditors charged a fee premium on new auditor-client relationships in 2006. However, it is not clear if more recent post-SOX initial-year audits are free of lowballing. We investigate whether lowballing exists in new auditor-client relationships in an “extended” post-SOX environment for the years 2007 to 2010. Our results suggest that both Big 4 and non-Big 4 accounting firms discounted their initial-year audit fees during our sample period (2007–2010). These findings should be of interest to the PCAOB as it searches for ways to bolster auditor independence. Data Availability: Available from public sources.

scholarly journals Influencing Factors of Audit Report Lag: Evidence from Indonesia

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 148
Author(s):  
Zaky Machmuddah ◽  
Adhin Fauziah Iriani ◽  
St. Dwiarso Utomo
Keyword(s):  
Financial Services ◽  
Sampling Method ◽  
Stock Exchange ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Reports

This study intends to reveal the influence of firm size, profitability, solvability, and size of the public accounting firm on audit report lag (ARL). The object of this research is mining firms listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) for the 2015-2018 period. Samples were chosen by purposive sampling method, uses secondary data with 96 samples, and applies multiple linear regression for data analysis. The finding of this research indicates that the solvability and size of public accounting firms influence the ARL. However, firms' size and profitability don't influence the ARL. The implication of the finding is issuers should pay attention to factors that affect ARL so that issuers are not subject to sanctions due to delays in the submission of audit reports from Financial Services Authority (OJK).

The Effect of Auditing Standard No. 5 on Audit Report Lags

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Santanu Mitra ◽  
Hakjoon Song ◽  
Joon Sun Yang
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Extended Period ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Audit Process ◽  
Top Down ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Efficiency ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Impact

SYNOPSIS Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) introduced by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in June 2007 requires a top-down risk-based approach in auditing and is expected to improve audit efficiency and make the overall auditing process timelier by reducing audit report lags. We investigate the impact of AS5 on audit report lags over an extended period from 2006 to 2011 and find that audit report lags are lower in the AS5 years (2007–2011) relative to the AS2 years (2006–2007). But this reduction is evident mostly for the firms with clean SOX 404 opinions. The presence of material internal control weaknesses (ICW) significantly increases audit report lags, but AS5 does not have any incremental moderating effect on report lags and the ICW relationship. Tests for the firms with company-level and account-specific ICWs demonstrate identical results. Additional analyses show that the learning curve effect takes place rapidly in the early part of the AS5 period and audits continue to remain efficient in terms of reduced report lags in the latter part of the AS5 period relative to the AS2 period. The year-to-year change analyses for the AS5 period further corroborate this result. Overall, our study demonstrates that the top-down, risk-based approach under AS5 makes the audit process more efficient and timelier by decreasing audit report lags. Data Availability: Data are available from public sources identified in the paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document