Minimum Responsibilities of Public Company Audit Committees

2015 ◽  
pp. 156-164
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committees ◽  
Public Company

scholarly journals Gender Diversity of Audit Committees and Audit Fees: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Xiang ◽  
Meng Qin ◽  
Craig A Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Gender Diversity ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Listed Companies ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Chinese Listed Companies ◽  
State Enterprises ◽  
The Relationship

<p>This paper investigates whether women, who serve on the audit committee of the board, can have a significant impact in reducing audit fees paid by China's A-share listed companies during the period 2004 to 2007. We show that audit committees composed of both men and women pay significantly smaller audit fees. The relationship is significantly greater in non-state enterprises than that exhibited by state-owned enterprises and significantly greater in companies deemed to have weak management vis-à-vis strong management. Further analysis shows that the composition of the committee is irrelevant when management is strong, regardless of whether it provides guidance for a state-owned enterprise or a strictly public company. When management is deemed weak, however, gender diversity is associated with smaller fees.</p>

scholarly journals What Drives Auditor Selection?

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. A26-A42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Dreike Almer ◽  
Donna R. Philbrick ◽  
Kathleen Hertz Rupley
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Selection Decision ◽  
Auditor Selection ◽  
View Management

SUMMARY This study provides evidence on the factors that currently impact audit committee members' selection of external auditors. Using a two-stage approach, we survey and interview public company audit committee members (ACMs), and find evidence that management continues to provide input into the decision process even as SOX regulations require audit committees to take responsibility for the auditor selection decision. ACMs view management as an important information source when they assess the proposing audit partner's reputation for accessibility, timeliness, and ability to liaise with the firm's national technical office, as well as the proposing audit firm's technical and industry expertise. Results of this study can help firms be more competitive in the audit bidding process, inform policy makers when considering whether to impose further audit committee regulations, and aid academics in ensuring an up-to-date understanding of the audit committee's role in the auditor selection process.

scholarly journals The PCAOB Audit Quality Indicator Framework Project: Feedback From Stakeholders

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arianna S. Pinello ◽  
Ara G. Volkan ◽  
Justin Franklin ◽  
Michael Levatino ◽  
Kimberlee Tiernan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Tone At The Top ◽  
Reporting Framework ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditor Reporting ◽  
The U.S

Audit Quality Indicators (AQIs), as defined by the Center for Audit Quality, include four different elements:firm leadership and tone at the top; engagement team knowledge, experience, and workload; monitoring; and auditor reporting. AQIs are quantitative and qualitative measures designed to improve audit quality and help audit committees select the best audit firm for their current needs. They are intended to increase the reliability and accuracy of financial reporting. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has issued a concept release proposing twenty-eight potential AQIs for use in the United States. The PCAOB release describes the AQI reporting framework and asks for public opinion on whether or not it should be implemented. This study reviews the comment letters in response to PCAOB Docket 041,Concept Release on Audit Quality Indicators, and the AQI reporting frameworks currently in place in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and other countries. After reviewing the PCAOB’s proposed AQI framework, response letters to Docket 041, and the AQI frameworks used in other countries, this paper provides an opinion on how the PCAOB should proceed with the AQI framework initiative in the U.S. The analysis suggests that AQI reporting should not be mandated in the U.S., but should become a flexible and voluntary framework that provides valuable information, enhances transparency in the audit profession, and establishes a commitment to the improvement of audit quality.

Audit Committee Member Support for Proposed Audit Adjustments: Pre-SOX versus Post-SOX Judgments

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Todd DeZoort ◽  
Dana R. Hermanson ◽  
Richard W. Houston
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
Committee Member ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Reporting Accuracy ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company

This study examines differences in audit committee member judgments before the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“pre-SOX”) versus after the act was passed (“post-SOX”) as well as audit committee member perceptions of the effects of SOX. Based on experimental materials administered to 372 public company audit committee members (131 pre-SOX from DeZoort et al. [2003a] and 241 post-SOX), we find that audit committee support for an auditor-proposed adjustment is significantly higher in the post-SOX period. Additional analyses reveal that the effect of SOX differs between audit committee members who are CPAs versus non-CPAs. Specifically, the greater audit committee member support for the proposed adjustment post-SOX is attributable to members who are CPAs. In general, audit committee members in the post-SOX period feel more responsible for resolving the accounting issue, perceive that audit committee members have greater expertise to evaluate the accounting issue, and also are more concerned with reporting accuracy and a need for conservative financial reporting than those in the pre-SOX period. We also find that post-SOX respondents who support the auditor's proposed adjustment have more favorable views of the benefits of SOX, and they believe more strongly that audit committees in the post-SOX period are more conservative and have more power than they did pre-SOX. We discuss implications and avenues for future research.

What Are the Trends in PCAOB Inspections and the Reported Audit Deficiencies?

2020 ◽  
pp. 0148558X2093494
Author(s):  
Ashna L. Prasad ◽  
John C. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Auditor Judgment ◽  
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Fair Value Measurements

Although the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections commenced in 2003, few studies have analyzed the recurring nature of audit deficiencies both within and across U.S. and non-U.S. firms. This study investigates longitudinal trends in PCAOB Part I audit deficiencies and compares these deficiencies between initial and subsequent inspections. We classify the audit deficiencies contained in the inspection reports into three categories relating to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS), and Internal Controls over Financial Reporting (ICFR). Using 1,551 inspections conducted over the period 2003–2017, we find that 67% of Part I audit deficiencies in the related reports pertain to GAAP and that triennially inspected audit firms have the highest occurrence of these deficiencies. On average, 22% of audit deficiencies relate to GAAS, with the highest incidence of these deficiencies attributable to annually inspected audit firms. Although ICFR has the least audit deficiencies (11%), we find a significant increase from 2009. We find no significant differences in the mean number of GAAP, GAAS, and ICFR audit deficiencies between first- and second-round inspections. However, we find a significant increase in the mean number of ICFR audit deficiencies between the third- to fifth-round inspections. The audit areas of “revenue recognition,”“inventory,” and “fair value measurements” (i.e., those requiring significant auditor judgment) are the most frequent audit deficiencies identified by the PCAOB. This study provides insights into the frequency and nature of audit deficiencies to stakeholders such as investors, auditors, audit committees, and users of financial statements.

scholarly journals Audit Partners' Judgments and Challenges in the Audits of Internal Control over Financial Reporting

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 57-85
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Cohen ◽  
Jennifer R. Joe ◽  
Jay C. Thibodeau ◽  
Gregory M. Trompeter
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
The Public ◽  
National Office ◽  
Evaluation Task ◽  
Public Company

SUMMARY Internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) audits have been the subject of intensive examination by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and researchers but the process through which auditors make ICFR judgments is largely a “black box.” To understand ICFR judgments, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 audit partners. Common themes in our interviews suggest that the subjectivity inherent in the ICFR evaluation task contributes to resistance against ICFR audit findings and cougnterarguments from management. Moreover, auditors perceive that their judgments are being second-guessed by PCAOB inspectors. Auditors believe that managers have difficulty accepting that material weaknesses can exist without a detected error, that management's reflexive reaction is to deny/avoid a material weakness finding, and managers routinely claim that management review controls (MRCs) would have caught the detected control deficiency. Auditors cope with management's defenses by consulting with their national office and leveraging support from strong audit committees. Data Availability: Requests for the data should be accompanied by a description of intended uses.

How Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances Can Impact Audit Quality and Audit Fees

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. P29-P35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth L. Bills ◽  
Lauren M. Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Discretionary Accruals ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Association Network ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditor Selection

SUMMARY This article summarizes “Small Audit Firm Membership in Associations, Networks, and Alliances: Implications for Audit Quality and Audit Fees” (Bills, Cunningham, Myers 2015), which examines the association between small audit firm membership in an association, network, or alliance (collectively referred to as an “association”), audit quality, and audit fees. We find that small audit firm association members provide higher-quality audits and charge higher fees than small audit firms that are not members of an association. When compared to similarly sized clients audited by the Big 4, we find that member firms provide audit quality similar to the Big 4 firms, but member firms charge lower fees than their Big 4 counterparts. We caution that these results may not be generalizable to the largest Big 4 clients for which there is not a similarly sized client audited by our sample of small audit firms. We infer audit quality from Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspections, restatement announcements, and discretionary accruals. Our findings should be of interest to audit committees in charge of auditor selection and to small audit firms interested in the benefits of association membership.

scholarly journals How Many Simultaneous Audit Committee Memberships Are Too Many?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jimmy Carmenate ◽  
Cori O. Crews ◽  
Vineeta D. Sharma ◽  
John R. Sparger
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Equity Capital ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Stock Exchanges ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Cost Of Equity Capital ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Nominating Committees ◽  
Full Time Employment

Recent research by Sharma, Sharma, Tanyi, and Cheng (2020) provides new insight into directors serving on multiple public company audit committees. Specifically, they investigate how an individual audit committee director serving on multiple audit committees is related to companies’ cost of equity capital. Their evidence suggests that serving on multiple audit committees is viewed positively by investors up to a certain point, but beyond that point investors become concerned. This turning point, on average, is 3.5 audit committees for retired directors and 1.5 audit committees for directors in full-time employment. These results have implications for numerous stakeholders including investors, proxy advisors, boards, nominating committees, stock exchanges, and policymakers. They also have implications for future research.

scholarly journals The Effects of Manager-Auditor Affiliation and PCAOB Inspection Reports on Audit Committee Members' Auditor Selection

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. P1-P10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena L. Brown
Keyword(s):  
Audit Committee ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Audit Committees ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Management Measures ◽  
Selection Decisions ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Selection Decision ◽  
Auditor Selection

SUMMARY This article summarizes the “The Effects of Prior Manager-Auditor Affiliation and PCAOB Inspection Reports on Audit Committee Members' Auditor Recommendations” (Abbott, Brown, and Higgs 2016), who investigate the extent to which audit committee members (ACM) of small public companies consider auditors' Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection reports and/or the auditors' prior affiliation with management in their auditor hiring decisions. The authors find participants (the study's proxy for ACM) incorporate the inspection report, as well as the auditor's prior affiliation with management into their selection decision. Specifically, an auditor's prior affiliation with management negatively impacts his/her chances of being selected by the audit committee. To the extent inspection results measure auditors' competence and prior affiliation with management measures auditor independence, the authors find auditor independence influences auditor selection decisions only when an auditor is deemed competent. In this paper, I discuss the implications of Abbott et al.'s (2016) findings for auditors, public companies, audit committees, and regulators/policymakers interested in understanding whether and how major aspects of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are being implemented within corporate governance.

Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan Terhadap Kepuasan Pelanggan di Kantor Perusahaan Umum Badan Urusan Logistik Kota Sampit Kabupaten Kotawaringin Timur

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Masrukin Masrukin ◽  
Hermanto Hermanto
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Service ◽  
Customer Satisfaction ◽  
Service Quality ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Statistical Test ◽  
Quality Factors ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Public Company

Customer satisfaction is influenced by service quality factors, this study aims to find out and analyze how much influence the quality of service on customer satisfaction is felt by customers who use the service of Poor Rice (Raskin) at the Office of Public Companies Logistics Agency (Perum BULOG) in Sampit City Regency East Kotawaringin. The research method used in this study is the method of observation, questionnaire/questionnaire and documentation using a Likert scale and the method of determining the sample used is the error rate of 5% as many as 213 samples. Testing the hypothesis used is a statistical test with the formula "Product moment person". The results showed that there was a very strong correlation between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction of the Office of Public Company of the Logistics Affairs Agency (Perum BULOG) in the District of East Kotawaringin. As much as 0.9968514278 based on the calculation of Pearson Product Moment value.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document