Factors Influencing the Professional Conduct of Auditors in the Dialogue on Going Concerns: A Study of the Banking Sector

This article is dedicated to exploring the dialogue between shareholders, management, partners, government and auditors regarding the status of banking sector entities as ‘going concerns’. The purpose of this article is to develop and validate an approach to the study of factors influencing auditors’ opinion on going concerns.The authors identify factors which affect auditors’ professional conduct in establishment of an opinion on an entity as a going concern. Articles were retrieved from the Scopus and Web of Science databases and analysed for relevant factors, and a number of research hypotheses are formulated, among which the modification of legislative regulations on bankingand auditing activity is identified as a key factor. The state of auditing activity and the banking sector during 2009-2019 is evaluated. Additionally, in order to identify periods during which a significant influence of a selected factor is expected, a novel analytical method was devised based on the nature of modifications of legislative regulation of bankingand auditing activity and the period of such modification.The following factors are significant influences on auditors’ decisions on the going concern status of credit organisations: evolution of auditing standards, implementation of external audit quality control, development of banking regulation and supervision, and interaction of auditors with financial institutions and regulators. Evidence was also discovered ofconclusions recorded against entities inconsistent with the real conditions of individual banks.The authors have established a basis for an integrated study of the influence of factors on the professional conduct of auditors in providing opinions on the going concern status of audited entities, and have proposed further research prospects as related to establishing and measuring the relationship between audit report types based on bank statements andfactors describing the results of their activities.

Financial Features of Systemically Important Banks Operation in Modern Conditions

The modern banking system is one of the key elements of any national economic system that influences the formation of economic processes. In this regard, it is important to identify the main elements of the banking system that have the greatest impact on the modern economy. The article reveals the financial and distinctive features of modern systemically important credit organizations of the Russian Federation. The authors of the article, based on the structural and dynamic analysis of the credit organizations indicators system, identified the main trends in the banking system development, highlighting the role of systemically important banks in this process. In the course of the analysis, based on the reporting data on the development of the Russian banking system for 2016-2019, the connection between the dynamics of the systemically important credit institutions development and the banking system as a whole was determined. The main conclusions presented in the article can be used in scientific and practical activities in order to strengthen and develop banking regulation and supervision of the largest Russian banks.

Features of Application of Modern Concepts of Bank Regulation and Supervision in Russia

Even in times of crisis, the key to stability of the modern banking system remains largely the concepts of banking regulation and supervision used by supervisors. In the context of globalization and external challenges, the Central Bank of Russia is adapting foreign concepts of regulation and supervision to the realities of the Russian financial system in order to ensure sustainable socio-economic development of the country. That is why the article is devoted to the analysis of the effectiveness of modern concepts of banking regulation and supervision. The article lists and characterizes the most common concepts in the use of banking regulation and supervision, as well as provides an author’s view of modern alternative approaches to the organization of banking regulation and supervision, which can allow the Central Bank of Russia to improve the applied supervisory regime.

History of an Incomplete EMU

The Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) created in 1992 by the Maastricht Treaty was famously incomplete. The decision to create a European single currency was taken without agreeing at the same time on the introduction of traditional accompanying features of some other monetary unions, namely: substantial financial transfers from richer to less developed regions, a credible framework for macroeconomic policy coordination, and European-wide provisions for banking regulation and supervision, to name but a few. The 1992 Maastricht Treaty set out an unfinished, or ‘lopsided union’, with the predominance of monetary union over economic union. The titles of the multiple reports published since 1992, such as the Van Rompuy report of 2012, ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’, the Five Presidents’ Report of 2015, ‘Completing Europe’s Economic and Monetary Union’, and the Commission’s ‘Reflection Paper on the Deepening of the Economic and Monetary Union’ of 2017 highlight this lopsidedness very well.

Austria

This technical note1 includes a targeted review of banking regulation and supervision, with a particular focus on topics related to the supervision of less significant institutions (LSIs). The review was based on the international standards for banking supervision—the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s (BCBS) Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision (BCP)—but did not conduct a compliance assessment. The mission considered the findings and recommendations of the 2018 euro area (EA) FSAP2 and the authorities’ BCP self-assessment, followed-up on recommendations of the 2013 Austria FSAP, and reviewed implementation of BCBS standards and guidance issued in the interim. Although the review was based on implemented legislation and regulation, the mission reviewed proposed draft legislation consolidating financial system supervision in the Financial Market Authority (FMA).

MACROPRUDENTIAL AND MICROPRUDENTIAL POLICY IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF LAW NUMBER 21 OF 2011

The establishment of FSA has brought about the consequences of macroprudential policies which are still under the authority of Bank Indonesia while the microprudential policies have been the Auhtority of FSA. The problem in this study is what the appropriate definition, characteristics and coverage of macroprudential and microprudential supervision regulatory authority are in order to support the economic stability of a country. This type of research was a normative study. The results showed that the definition of macroprudential regulation and supervision policy is the authority given to Bank Indonesia to conduct regulation and supervision of banking institutions out of the institution and health fields, prudential aspect, and bank examination. The characteristics of microprudential and macroprudential banking regulation and supervision can be seen from the policy focus.

Measuring Intellectual Capital of Turkish Banks Listed on Borsa Istanbul Banking Index (BIST XBANK) with the Market Value / Book Value Method and Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) Model

Intellectual capital is a critical concept to realize and reflect the real value of organizations. This study took advantage of Market Value (MV) / Book Value (BV) method and Value Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAIC) model to measure and compare intellectual capital of Turkish banks listed on Borsa Istanbul Banking Index (BIST XBANK). Also, financial indicators such as Return on Assets (ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Leverage, (LEV), Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR) and intellectual capital performance indicators such as MV/BV ratio, Human Capital Efficiency (HCE), Structural Capital Efficiency (SCE), Capital Employed Efficiency (CEE) and VAIC of banks were compared. Research also ran a Pearson Correlations Test to investigate the relationship between these indicators and to test the hypothesis. Data were gathered from Istanbul Stock Exchange - ISE (Borsa Istanbul), Public Disclosure Platform (KAP), Banks Association of Turkey – TBB (Türkiye Bankalar Birliği), Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA), Fortune Turkey, Anadolu Agency and Hurriyet.