scholarly journals Profiling Membership in the PCAOB's Standing Advisory Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. A30-A41
Author(s):  
Kelsey Brasel ◽  
L. Tyler Williams
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Professional Experience ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advisory Boards ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Group Members

SUMMARY The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) appoints an advisory group known as the Standing Advisory Group (SAG) to provide input on the relevance and appropriateness of its standard-setting agenda. Throughout the year, the PCAOB convenes meetings where the SAG opines on the direction of authoritative guidance on behalf of constituent groups. Our descriptive study provides an overview of the SAG's composition and role in standard-setting and succinctly describes the group members' professional experience since its inception in 2004. Specifically, we examine to what extent the PCAOB assembles the advisory group in consideration of the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), which mandates appropriate constituent representation on governmental advisory boards. We find that although the PCAOB is not required to meet the requirements of the FACA, the SAG appears to represent an appropriate level and variety of professional experience consistent with other governmental advisory boards. Data Availability: Publicly available.

The Development of Auditing Standards at the PCAOB and Related Audit Practitioner Input

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Tyler Williams ◽  
W. Mark Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
The Public ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Standard ◽  
Comment Letters ◽  
Feedback Responses

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB; Board) maintains that constituent feedback plays an essential and dynamic role in its audit standard-setting process. We examine a major source of constituent feedback, responses to standard-setting questions, using a sample drawn from the original proposals of fourteen PCAOB auditing standards. We find that after receiving comment letter feedback to the standard-setting questions, the Board revises approximately half of its guidance tied to those questions before it finalizes auditing standards-a finding consistent with the Board's assertion that it carefully considers constituent perspectives as it develops new regulation. We also explore the related comment letters of eight professional auditing firms subject to the PCAOB's annual inspection program and discover varying levels of opposition to and support for the PCAOB's proposed authoritative guidance. We observe PCAOB revision to authoritative guidance highly contested by the firms in more than three-fourths of cases of standard-setting questions and PCAOB non-revision to guidance highly supported by the firms in more than ninety percent of cases.

Hiring Auditors with a Part II Quality Control Report: An Opportunity for Increased Earnings Management or Lower Audit Fees?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-93
Author(s):  
Jared Eutsler ◽  
D. Kip Holderness ◽  
Megan M. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
General Demand ◽  
Systemic Quality

ABSTRACT The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) Part II inspection reports, which disclose systemic quality control issues that auditors fail to remediate, signal poor audit quality for triennially inspected audit firms. Auditors that receive a Part II inspection report typically experience a decrease in clients, which demonstrates a general demand for audit quality. However, some companies hire auditors that receive Part II inspection reports. We examine potential reasons for hiring these audit firms. We find that relative to companies that switch to auditors without Part II reports, companies that switch to auditors with Part II reports have higher discretionary accruals in the first fiscal year after the switch, which indicates lower audit quality and a heightened risk for future fraud. We find no difference in audit fees. Our results suggest that PCAOB Part II inspection reports may signal low-quality auditors to companies that desire low-quality audits. Data Availability: Data are available from the public sources cited in the text.

Response of a Subgroup of the PCAOB's Investor Advisory Group to the PCAOB's Concept Release Concerning Reports on Audited Financial Statements and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. C21-C50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelvin Blake ◽  
Joseph V. Carcello ◽  
Norman J. Harrison ◽  
Michael J. Head ◽  
Barbara E. Roper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Statements ◽  
Capital Allocation ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Risk Areas

SUMMARY Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) released a concept release concerning possible revisions to PCAOB standards related to reports on audited financial statements and related amendments to PCAOB standards. The comment letter below, written by a subgroup of the PCAOB's Investor Advisory Group, was recently submitted to the PCAOB in response to the Board's concept release. The subgroup believes that the four most important changes to the audit report would require the auditor to: (1) discuss the auditor's assessment of the estimates and judgments made by management in preparing the financial statements and how the auditor arrived at that assessment, (2) disclose areas of high financial statement and audit risk and how the auditor addressed these risk areas, (3) discuss unusual transactions, restatements, and other significant changes in the financial statements (including the notes), and (4) discuss the quality, not just the acceptability, of the issuer's accounting practices and policies. They further assert that the disclosure of this information will improve investors' ability to make informed buy/sell decisions, which should result in higher returns to investors and improved capital allocation within society.

scholarly journals The Effect of an Auditor Identity Disclosure Requirement on Audit Quality: An Experimental Examination Incorporating the Incremental Effect of a Signature Requirement

2019 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen D. Blay ◽  
Eric S. Gooden ◽  
Mark J. Mellon ◽  
Douglas E. Stevens
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Social Norm ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Market ◽  
Incremental Effect ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Identity Disclosure ◽  
Disclosure Requirement ◽  
Higher Sensitivity

SUMMARY After considering a proposal to require the engagement partner's signature on the audit report (PCAOB 2009), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board chose instead to only require the disclosure of the engagement partner's name (PCAOB 2015). We make predictions regarding the effects of the two proposed requirements using insights from social norm theory, and test those predictions using an experimental audit market setting found in the literature. We find that both requirements reduce misreporting when compared to a control setting with neither requirement present. We also document that the signature requirement generates an incremental reduction in misreporting when added to the disclosure requirement. Finally, we provide evidence that these effects are driven by participants with higher sensitivity to social norms. This theory and evidence supports the new identity disclosure requirement at the PCAOB and helps explain the existence of signature requirements in many non-U.S. countries. Data Availability: Experimental data are available from the authors upon request.

scholarly journals Comments of the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the Concept Release, Potential Approach to Revisions to PCAOB Quality Control Standards

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. C1-C12
Author(s):  
Veena Looknanan Brown ◽  
Dana R. Hermanson ◽  
Julia L. Higgs ◽  
J. Gregory Jenkins ◽  
Christine Nolder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Quality Management ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Potential Approach ◽  
Roles And Responsibilities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Control Concept ◽  
Release Potential

SUMMARY On December 17, 2019, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the Board or PCAOB) issued a request for comment on its Concept Release, Potential Approach to Revisions to PCAOB Quality Control Standards. The Board is considering revising its Quality Controls (QC) standards to focus firms on improving their QC systems. To reduce the compliance burden, the Board is considering aligning its QC standards with those of the proposed International Standard on Quality Management 1, Quality Management for Firms That Perform Audits or Reviews of Financial Statements, or Other Assurance or Related Services Engagements (proposed ISQM 1). The comment period ended March 16, 2020. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions on three aspects of a QC system presented in the Concept Release: Resources (Questions 31, 32, 34, 36, 37), The Monitoring and Remediation Process (Questions 45, 46, 47), and Roles and Responsibilities of Individuals (Question 52). Data Availability: The Concept Release, Potential Approach to Revisions to PCAOB Quality Control Standards, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket046/2019-003-Quality-Control-Concept-Release.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

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Release No. 2016-003, Proposed Auditing Standard—The Auditor's Report on an Audit of Financial Statements when the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified Opinion and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. C26-C40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Stephen H. Fuller ◽  
Marshall A. Geiger ◽  
Willie E. Gist ◽  
Karl E. Hackenbrack ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Statements ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Specific Information ◽  
Reporting Standard ◽  
The Public ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditor Reporting

SUMMARY On May 11, 2016 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a request for comment on Proposed Auditing Standard—The Auditor's Report on an Audit of Financial Statements when the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified Opinion and Related Amendments to PCAOB Standards, a reproposal of its August 2013 proposed auditor reporting standard. The reproposal retains the pass/fail model of the existing auditor's report while seeking to enhance the form and content of the report. The reproposal solicited public comment on the following significant changes to the existing auditor's report: (1) add a description of “critical audit matters” that provides audit-specific information about especially challenging, subjective, or complex aspects of the audit as they relate to the relevant financial statement accounts and disclosures, (2) add a statement about auditor independence and the phrase “whether due to error or fraud” when describing the auditor's responsibilities to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatements, (3) add a statement related to auditor tenure, and (4) standardize the form of the auditor's report, requiring the opinion be the first section of the auditor's report and requiring section titles to guide the reader. The comment period ended on August 15, 2016. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on the alternatives presented in the request for comment. Data Availability: The concept release, proposed and reproposed rules, and supplemental information are available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Pages/Docket034.aspx

The Auditor's Reporting Model: A Literature Overview and Research Synthesis

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan K. Church ◽  
Shawn M. Davis ◽  
Susan A. McCracken
Keyword(s):  
Future Study ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Literature Overview ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Key Questions

This article examines academic research to contribute to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) project on the auditor's reporting model. We develop a framework to organize our discussion of the literature in light of key questions raised at two Standing Advisory Group (SAG) meetings. We trace the historical development of the auditor's report and then delve into relevant research that focuses on the auditor's reporting decision and the content of the auditor's report. Throughout the article, we offer recommendations for future study. Last, we provide a brief recap and summarize the key findings.

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 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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document