EU Loyalty After Lisbon: An Expectation Gap to Be Filled?

2014 ◽  
pp. 93-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Casolari
Keyword(s):  
Expectation Gap

The Great Expectation Gap

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 19
Author(s):  
LARRY GREENBAUM
Keyword(s):  
Great Expectation ◽  
Expectation Gap

Auditors' and Investors' Perceptions of the “Expectation Gap”

2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 345-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. McEnroe ◽  
Stanley C. Martens
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Primary User ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
User Group ◽  
Accounting Profession ◽  
The Public ◽  
Government Accounting ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
The Difference

The auditing “expectation gap” refers to the difference between (1) what the public and other financial statement users perceive auditors' responsibilities to be and (2) what auditors believe their responsibilities entail. The notion of this divergence receives much attention in the accounting literature (i.e., Commission on Auditors' Responsibilities 1978; Guy and Sullivan 1988; AICPA 1993; U.S. Government Accounting Office 1996). Although prior empirical studies encompass certain expectations associated with a range of audit services, these papers often involve the opinions of bankers as the primary user group employed in the research (Nair and Rittenberg 1987; Lowe and Pany 1995). In contrast, this study extends the prior research by directly comparing audit partners' and investors' perceptions of auditors' responsibilities involving various dimensions of the attest function. We conducted the study to determine if an expectation gap currently exists and we find that it does; investors have higher expectations for various facets and/or assurances of the audit than do auditors. Our findings serve as evidence that the accounting profession should engage in appropriate measures to reduce this expectation gap.

Long-Term Trends in Audit Fees

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krishnagopal Menon ◽  
David D. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Industry Specialization ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Long Term Effect ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Model Coefficient ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
Wage Increases

The audit fees literature contains little by way of systematic evidence on long-term trends in audit fees. This study analyzes trends in audit fees from 1980 through 1997, adjusting for changes in client size, complexity, and risk. The sample is restricted to clients of Big 6 firms that voluntarily disclosed audit fees in the period 1980–1997. Evidence is found that audit fees increased in the 1980s but stayed flat in the 1990s. Most important, a significant increase is noted in 1988, the year in which the Auditing Standards Board issued the “expectation gap” standards. These results hold even after controlling for wage increases in accounting firms, suggesting an expansion of auditing effort. There is no evidence that auditors obtain any price premium from industry specialization. The 1989 Big 8 mergers appear to have had a short-term, but not long-term, effect on fees. Finally, the magnitude of the audit fee model coefficient for accounts receivable and inventory has declined over the period, presumably due to productivity improvements.

Evidence of the audit expectation gap in Singapore

2001 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 134-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Best ◽  
Sherrena Buckby ◽  
Clarice Tan
Keyword(s):  
Expectation Gap

Mandatory corporate social responsibility in India: reporting reality, issues and way forward

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pawan Taneja ◽  
Ameeta Jain ◽  
Mahesh Joshi ◽  
Monika Kansal
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Mandatory Reporting ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Csr Reporting ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
The Government ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Since 2013, the Indian Companies Act Section 135 has mandated corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting by Indian central public sector enterprises (CPSEs). CSR reporting is regulated by multiple Government of India ministerial agencies, each requiring different formats and often different data. This study aims to understand the impact of these multiple regulatory bodies on CSR reporting by Indian CPSEs; evaluate the expectation gap between regulators and the regulated; and investigate the compliance burden on CPSEs. Design/methodology/approach An interview-based approach was adopted to evaluate the perspectives of both regulators and regulated CPSEs on the impact of the new regulations on CSR reporting quality. The authors use the lens of institutional theory to analyse the findings. Findings Driven by coercive institutional pressures, CPSEs are overburdened with myriad reporting requirements, which significantly negatively impact CPSEs’ financial and human resources and the quality of CSR activity and reports. It is difficult for CPSEs to assess the actual impact of their CSR activities due to overlapping with activities of the government/other institutions. The perceptions of regulators and the regulated are divergent: the regulators expect CPSEs to select more impactful CSR projects to comply with mandatory reporting requirements. Originality/value The findings of this study emphasise the need for meaningful dialogue between regulators and the regulated to reduce the expectation gap and establish a single regulatory authority that will ensure that the letter and spirit of the law are followed in practice and not just according to a tick-box approach.

Contemporary issues in financial reporting, auditing and corporate governance

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noor Afza Amran
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Ethnic Diversity ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Internal Auditors ◽  
Corporate Managers ◽  
Auditor Choice ◽  
External Auditors ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Corporate Social

Contemporary Issues in Financial Reporting, Auditing and Corporate Governance offers theoretical and empirical background on three fundamental areas of accounting, namely financial reporting, auditing and corporate governance.This book is written in a clear and reader-friendly manner to create readers interest in the central issues of discussion. The uniqueness of this book is in its extensive coverage of national and internationally-oriented issues of financial reporting, auditing and corporate governance. This book is ideal for accounting and business related courses at upper undergraduate and post-graduate levels. With its broad coverage, the book should also be of interest to academicians, professionals, corporate managers, regulatory bodies and researchers.The articles written in this book are: Corporate Social Responsibility and Post-Crisis StrategyEmployee Stock Options Popularity of Financial Ratios in the Annual ReportsThe Relationship between Pension Funds and Dividend PayoutDoes Audit Firm Merger Add Value to Its Clients? Co-operation between Internal and External Auditors: From the Perspective of Internal Auditors in Malaysian Local Authorities Auditor Choice: Events and TheoriesThe Global Audit Expectation Gap: Within and between Muslim CountriesOwnership Holdings: Selected Malaysian Family Businesses Ethnic Diversity in Malaysian Initial Public OfferingsCEO Succession in Malaysian PLCs: Does Firm Characteristic Make a Difference?A Framework of Good Governance: Lessons for the Inland Revenue Board Malaysia.

scholarly journals The Determinants of Audit Expectation Gap: An Empirical Study from Kingdom of Bahrain

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayed Ali Ahmed Alawi ◽  
Rami Mohammad Abu Wadi ◽  
Gagan Kukreja
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
The Public ◽  
Financial Reporting Standards ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
National Bank

The research aims at identifying the determinants of audit expectation gap between the auditors and the users of financial statements in the Kingdom of Bahrain. This issue is noticed in many frauds or errors or illegal matters by the general public after every scam whether Enron and WorldCom from United States or Satyam and Punjab National Bank from India or Tesco and BHS from United Kingdom or Mobily from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As per International Standards on Auditing (ISAs), auditors are not responsible to detect each and every fraud or error or illegal act as it is the responsibility of management. However, auditors are expected to assess the possibility of an error or fraud to occur and assess risks of material misstatement due to error or fraud and they are supposed to express their independent and objective opinion on financial statements whether financial statements are prepared in accordance to suitable criteria (International Financial Reporting Standards in the case of Bahrain).This quantitative research and its descriptive design aims empirically to analyze determinants that may impact the audit expectation gap in the Kingdom of Bahrain. The study used a detailed questionnaire as a measuring instrument across the sample group to measure 4 determinants that are expected to have a significant impact on the level of the audit expectation gap. Those determinants are the efforts of auditors, the skills of auditors, the knowledge of the public about the audit profession and the users’ needs from auditors. The research inferred that identified factors found to have a significant impact on the level of audit expectation gap. It is recommended that audit firms should provide training to the audit staff that how to utilize the required efforts in conducting an audit engagement and go extra miles to fill the gap. Furthermore, the auditors should keep themselves updated about the latest frauds and the best audit practices. 

The expectation differences among stakeholders in the financial valuation fitness of auditors

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Anthony DiGabriele
Keyword(s):  
Response Bias ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Fair Value ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Financial Valuation ◽  
University Curriculum ◽  
Expectation Gap ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Accounting Practitioners ◽  
Market Expectations

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate if there is an expectation gap among accounting academics, accounting practitioners, and users of financial statements in the financial valuation fitness of auditors. Complex reporting standards and current market expectations have the potential to create differences between what third-party users consider to be the responsibilities of the auditor and what auditors believe to be their responsibilities in auditing fair value estimates. Design/methodology/approach – This study surveys the perceptions of accounting academics, accounting practitioners, and users of financial statements and the degree to which an expectation gap exists in the financial valuation fitness of auditors. Survey respondents chose from a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Findings – This paper proposes two hypotheses. The results for all nine survey items have provided significant evidence that there is a difference in the expectation of the financial valuation fitness of auditors between users of financial statements and accounting practitioners (H1). Additionally, the findings for all survey items present support there is a significant difference in the expectation of the financial valuation fitness of auditors between accounting academics and users of financial statements (H2). Research limitations/implications – A limitation of the current study, as an inherent attribute with survey research, is non-response bias. The only way to evaluate this was to test late responses to earlier results. There were no significant results in these analyses. According to Fink (2003), if there are no significant differences in this indicator the likelihood of non-response bias is extremely low. Hence, this limitation did not have serious implications on the current study. Practical implications – The implications of this study affect the accounting academic community as they prepare students in response to the evolving market expectations (Pan and Perera, 2012). Previous research has pointed toward the sluggish reaction for change in the accounting curriculum relative to external demands (Harvey, 2004; Pan and Perera, 2012). The results of this study also have resonating effects for accounting practitioners. The marketplace expects accountants to be “knowledge professionals” (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). Regulators continue to ask auditors to find more fraud and understand financial valuation (Pan and Perera, 2012). Social implications – Contemporary accounting practice is moving beyond the scope of quantitative recording of historical financial information. Ignoring integral market transformations could result in lower quality audits with corresponding increased litigation against auditors for negligence (Pearson, 2011). Originality/value – This study is important for several reasons. First, users of financial statements have expressed the necessity for auditors to acquire financial valuation skills (Christensen et al. (2012). Therefore, the evidence obtained from users of financial statements in this research will be critical guidance to reconcile expectations. Second, accounting educators have not provided a significant response to teaching fair value concepts in the university curriculum (Carlino, 2012; Hanson, 2013). This research presents a clarion call to accounting educators to align university curriculum toward market expectations (Christensen et al., 2012). Third, the practitioner community has also been criticized for audit deficiencies in fair value. It is critical to understand if additional training in financial valuation is necessary to improve the fair value judgments of practitioners and meet stakeholder’s expectations. Accordingly, the study provides a contribution to practice. Finally, this paper answers the call by Christensen et al. (2012) for future research on the topic of fair value: to “mirror the categories of recommendations of regulators and standard setters.”

Expectation Gap and Corporate Fraud: Is Public Opinion Reconcilable with Auditors’ Duties?

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey R. Cohen ◽  
Yuan Ding ◽  
Cédric Lesage ◽  
Hervé Stolowy
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Corporate Fraud ◽  
Expectation Gap
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document