What Went Wrong in the Audit of Tri-Pack Films Limited?

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-51
Author(s):  
Omair Haroon ◽  
Waqar Ali ◽  
Atifa A. Dar
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Listed Company ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Chartered Accountants ◽  
Year 2013

This case looks into an instance of an audit failure in the context of a Pakistani listed company, Tri-Pack, whose financial statements for the year 2014 showed a material misstatement (which reduced 2013 profits after tax by around 88%). This led to an investigation by the regulator (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan) into the audits across 2012–2013, culminating into a stern warning being issued to the engagement leader (partner) for having failed to exercise an attitude of professional scepticism, failed to perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance around Tri-Pack’s financial statements being free from material misstatement either due to errors or fraud and failed to bring out material facts about the affairs of the company and make a report to the shareholders thereof1. The case hones in on the audit dynamics and defence presented by the audit firm (A.F. Ferguson & Co. Chartered Accountants) for the year 2013, to assess the shortcomings in the conduct of the audit of Tri-Pack’s financial statements for that year’s end. It stimulates the work of an audit quality head who reviewed Tri-Pack’s audit file in order to ascertain whether the objectives of the audit were met and what lessons can be drawn to leverage towards future audit engagements.

scholarly journals Determinants Of Enforcement Action By The Financial Supervisory Service Of Korea From The Perspective Of Audit Firms

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 821 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-Jung Kang ◽  
Ho-Young Lee ◽  
Yong-Sang Woo
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Firm Characteristics ◽  
Client Characteristics ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Specific Factors

<p>In this study, we examine the determinants of enforcement action by the Financial Supervisory Service of Korea from the perspective of audit firms. Enforcement action is an indication of audit failure. Both client- and audit firm-specific factors are involved in its occurrence. Most published studies of enforcement after audit failure focus on client characteristics because details about audit firms from financial statements and information about organizational structure are not publicly available. However, examining the issues surrounding enforcement from the perspective of audit firms may also be valuable in elucidating the potential determinants of audit failure resulting in enforcement action. Utilizing publicly available data from audit firms in South Korea, we identify several audit firm characteristics as determinants of enforcement action. The results of our empirical analysis reveal that the likelihood of audit failure is positively associated with the ratio of accounts receivable to total assets, the ratio of audit fees to total revenue, the ratio of partners to the total number of CPAs, CEO ownership, and age of audit firms. In addition, the likelihood of audit failure is negatively associated with ownership concentration and profitability. These associations are more pronounced in non-affiliated audit firms than affiliated audit firms. Several useful implications for regulators are described for improving audit quality by means of enforcement action.</p>

Clients' Expectations on Audit Judgments: A Note

2004 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkataraman M. Iyer ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Relative Power ◽  
Client Perceptions ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Start Up ◽  
Nonaudit Services ◽  
The Impact

Audited financial statements can be viewed as the product of negotiations between a company's management and its auditor. Relative power of these two parties is a major factor that determines the outcome of the negotiation. This study examines the impact of auditor tenure, importance of a client to an audit partner, nonaudit purchases, and prior audit firm experience of client personnel on client perceptions about their ability to persuade the auditor in the context of an accounting disagreement. We obtained responses to a survey from 124 CPAs in industry who are employed as CEOs, CFOs, controllers, or treasurers. Our results indicate that respondents from companies with short auditor tenures were somewhat more likely to indicate that they could persuade the auditor to accept their (client's) position in case of a disagreement. This finding is consistent with the argument that auditors are susceptible to influence in the early years as they are still in the process of recouping start-up costs, but is not consistent with concerns expressed by legislators and others that long auditor tenures will adversely affect audit quality. Respondents who believed their business was more important for the audit partner were also more likely to believe that they could persuade the auditor. However, the purchase of nonaudit services and prior audit experience were not related to client's perceptions about their ability to persuade the auditor.

The Effects of the Internal Control Opinion and Use of Audit Data Analytics on Perceptions of Audit Quality, Assurance, and Auditor Negligence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dereck Barr-Pulliam ◽  
Helen L Brown-Liburd ◽  
Kerri-Ann Sanderson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Data Analytics ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Entire Population ◽  
Statistical Sampling ◽  
Testing Methods ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Audit Data

Audit data analytics (ADAs) allow auditors to analyze the entire population of transactions which has measurable benefits for audit quality. However, auditors caution that the level of assurance on the financial statements is not incrementally increased. We examine whether the testing methodology and the type of ICFR opinion issued affect jurors' perceptions of auditor negligence. We predict and find that when auditors issue an unqualified ICFR opinion, jurors make higher negligence assessments when auditors employ statistical sampling than when they employ ADAs. Further, when auditors issue an adverse ICFR opinion, jurors attribute less blame to auditors and more blame to the investor for an audit failure. Additionally, jurors perceive the use of ADAs as an indicator of higher audit quality and are less likely to find auditors negligent. However, jurors do not perceive a difference in the level of assurance provided when auditors use ADAs versus sampling testing methods.

scholarly journals Audit Fees and Financial Performance of Deposit Taking Saccos in North RIFT, Kenya

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 15-27
Author(s):  
Dorris Serem ◽  
Dr. Rashid Fwamba ◽  
Dr. Alala Benedict
Keyword(s):  
Financial Performance ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Positive Influence ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Firm Experience ◽  
The Impact

The collapse of Deposit-Taking SACCOS and financial institutions in Kenya has caught the attention of the public and supervisory agencies to query the quality of audit. SACCO Societies Regulatory Authority on its inspection report indicated that SACCOs have been implicated in maladministration, scams and fraudulent dealings that led to their eventual collapse. SASRA also revoked licenses and rejected audited financial statements of some Deposit Taking SACCOs between 2013 to 2017.These financial scandals have been traced to poor audit quality. The study aimed to test the impact of audit quality on financial performance of Deposit-Taking SACCOs in North Rift Region, Kenya. The study sought to establish the influence of audit fees on financial performance; determine the influence of audit firm tenure on financial performance; establish the influence of auditor independence on financial performance and to determine the influence of audit firm experience on financial performance of Deposit-Taking SACCOs in North Rift Region, Kenya. This study was based on Agency theory, Role theory and the Concept of audit expectation gap, and Stakeholders’ theory. This research adopted descriptive cross-sectional research design. The target population for the study was 266 staff of all the 16 registered Deposit-Taking SACCOs in North Rift Region, Kenya. The sample size was 48 respondents comprising of chief executive officers, finance officers and internal auditors of the Deposit-Taking SACCOs selected using purposive sampling method. Primary and secondary data was used. Questionnaires collected primary data while audited annual financial statements of SACCOs provided secondary data. Inferential and descriptive statistics was used in analyzing data through SPSS version 25. It emerged that audit fees, audit firm tenure and audit firm experience have a significant positive influence on financial performance of Deposit-Taking SACCOs in North Rift Region, Kenya. Auditor independence had an insignificant positive influence on financial performance of Deposit-Taking SACCOs in North Rift Region, Kenya. The study concluded that audit quality has a positive noteworthy impact on financial performance of Deposit-Taking SACCOs in Kenya. The study recommends that regulatory authorities should formulate strict rules on audit fee charges and oversee the implementation of the same. Also, SASRA should ensure DT-SACCOs implement auditor rotation in compliance with auditing regulations and standards. DT-SACCOs to consider auditor’s professional competence and experience before initiating any audit engagement. Finally, DT-SACCOs and auditors should reinforce the professional code of ethics in regard to auditor independence in terms of familiarity between auditor and the client that may lead audit work into jeopardy.

Materiality Uncertainty and Earnings Misstatement

2003 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 819-846 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn R. Patterson ◽  
Reed Smith
Keyword(s):  
Information System ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Expected Cost ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
System Error ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Audit Evidence ◽  
Average Probability ◽  
Definition Of

The concept of materiality provides a basis for auditors to ignore small misstatements, but the definition of “small” in this context is ambiguous. The issue of “materiality-standard-setting” has been raised recently by Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. We examine how materiality uncertainty affects the auditor's evaluation of audit evidence and a manager's choice of earnings overstatement in a strategic auditing model where earnings misstatements also include unintentional system error. We find that when the expected cost of accepting financial statements that are materially misstated, which we refer to as an audit failure, is relatively large, an increase in materiality uncertainty results in a more conservative auditor evaluation of the audit evidence and a decrease in the amount of intentional overstatement. Alternatively, if the auditor's expected cost of extending audit procedures is relatively high, then an increase in materiality uncertainty results in a less conservative auditor evaluation of the audit evidence and an increase in the manager's earnings overstatement. The auditor also becomes increasingly conservative as the report increases when the information system is sufficiently noisy. Finally, when the expected cost of audit failure is large, the equilibrium audit risk can increase or decrease in materiality uncertainty despite the corresponding increase in auditor conservatism and decrease in intentional overstatement. Audit risk is the average probability of audit failure across all possible evidence outcomes.

Mandatory Audit Partner Rotations and Audit Quality in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-184
Author(s):  
Huan Kuang ◽  
Huimin Li ◽  
Matthew G. Sherwood ◽  
Robert L. Whited
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
The United States ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Mandatory Rotation ◽  
Audit Partner Rotation ◽  
Important Evidence

SUMMARY This study uses a sample of mandatory partner rotation events hand collected from SEC filings to investigate the relation between mandatory audit partner rotation and audit quality in the United States. Across a variety of control groups and audit quality proxies, we do not find evidence consistent with rotation materially improving audit quality (i.e., “fresh look”). Although somewhat limited, the only statistically significant evidence we document suggests that audited financial statements may be more likely to contain a material misstatement (i.e., subsequently be restated) following a mandatory audit partner rotation, particularly when the audit firm tenure is short. We also provide evidence from client disclosures that mandatory rotation rules trigger auditor-client realignment. Together, our results provide important evidence on the merits of mandatory partner rotation rules in the United States. JEL Classifications: M40; M41; M42. Data Availability: Data are publicly available from sources identified in the article.

The Effect of Form AP on Auditor Liability when Engagement Partner Disclosure Shows a History of Restatements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J Mowchan ◽  
Philip M.J. Reckers
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Auditor Liability ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Audit Failure ◽  
Partner Disclosure ◽  
History Of ◽  
Catch 22 ◽  
New Form ◽  
A Current

Engagement partner disclosures required by the new Form AP allow litigants to associate audit engagement partners with both current and past restatements. We investigate how knowledge of a partner's history of restatements, along with audit firm interventions following poor audit quality, impact audit firm liability in litigation stemming from a partner's second, unrelated client restatement. Interestingly, we do not find that a partner's association with a current and past restatement, alone, increases audit firm liability. However, we do find that jurors interpret firm interventions intended to restore audit quality as indicators that the partner contributed to the second audit failure and that audit firm oversight was inadequate. Specifically, we find that both requiring a probationary engagement co-partner after an initial restatement and partner dismissal after a second restatement individually increase juror assessments of audit firm liability. Collectively, our findings represent a Catch-22 of Form AP engagement partner disclosure, whereby audit firm interventions to restore audit quality are expected by regulators, but can increase auditor liability in subsequent litigation settings.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Audit Committee Characteristics, Audit Firm Quality and Companies’ Profitability

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 215
Author(s):  
Laith A Aryan
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Industrial Sector ◽  
Committee Meeting ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
The Relationship

<p>Jordan displayed keen interest in corporate governance in terms of enhancing the quality of financial statements and to restore the investors’ confidence. This study aimed to highlight the role of audit committee and external audit in enhancing companies’ profitability. Since there are contradictions in previous studies results, there is a need to test these relationships in Jordanian context to provide empirical evidence on this issue,especially after the corporate governance application became mandatory since 2009. This study has used industrial sector, which include 91 companies, only 69 companies were included in this study, the other 22 companies were excluded either newly listed or delisted during the study period (2009-2014). Multiple regression were used to analyze the data, the result showed positive relationships between audit committee meeting, audit committee size and companies profitability, while no significant relationship between audit committee composition, audit committee members literacy, audit quality and companies profitability. Such results would be beneficial to companies’ corporate governance committees to play their supervisory role. </p>

Should PCAOB Disciplinary Proceedings Be Made Public? Evidence from Sanctions against a Big 4 Auditor

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. P18-P24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Callaway Dee ◽  
Ayalew Lulseged ◽  
Tianming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Stock Prices ◽  
Stock Price ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Stock Market Reaction ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Price Effects

SUMMARY: In our paper “Client Stock Market Reaction to PCAOB Sanctions against a Big 4 Auditor” (Dee et al. 2011), we examine stock price effects for clients of a Big 4 audit firm when news of sanctions imposed by the PCAOB against the audit firm was made public. These PCAOB penalties were the first against a Big 4 auditor, and they revealed information about quality-control problems at the audit firm that were not publicly known until the sanctions were announced. Our analysis of stock prices suggests that investors in clients of the penalized Big 4 firm reevaluated their perceptions of the quality of the firm's audit work after learning of the sanctions. The negative stock price effects for the firm's clients were consistent with investors inferring that the financial statements were of lower quality. In the paper, we conclude that investors find information about PCAOB sanctions against audit firms to be relevant in assessing audit quality and use that information in setting stock prices for audit firms' clients. This finding has relevance for the debate on the proposed legislation in Congress (H.R. 3503), which would allow the PCAOB to disclose proceedings against auditors before the investigations are concluded. Our results suggest that, although investors may find early disclosure of this information useful, public disclosure of Board disciplinary proceedings before they are completed could unfairly harm an audit firm's reputation if the firm is ultimately vindicated of wrongdoing.

scholarly journals PENGARUH FEE AUDIT, ROTASI KAP, DAN REPUTASI AUDITOR TERHADAP KUALITAS AUDIT DI BURSA EFEK INDONESIA

2012 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Bambang Hartadi
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Fundamental Analysis ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Auditor Rotation ◽  
Audit Fee ◽  
Taking Action

This study aimed to analysis the effect of audit fee, auditor rotation, and reputation of audit firm. Based on literature revie, it was hypothesized that audit fee, auditor rotation, and Reputation of audit firm have significant effect on audit quality. The data was financial statement from manufacturing firmof LQ-45 from 2004-2010 year. The results of statistical tests using multiple linear regression, there are evidences that Fee audit significant effect on audit quality, while the rotation and the reputation of the audit no significant effect on audit quality. There are several reasons why rotation and reputation did not affect audit quality. First possibility, caused by the reluctance of market participants to explore further whether the auditor who issued the opinion on the audited financial statements had actually experienced the rotation or not. Second possibility, market participants also never pay attention to whether the financial statements audited by an auditor who has a certain reputation or not. There are many things that need to consider for future research. Basically the market in Indonesia was largely considered capital gain, so it is less likely to use fundamental analysis (financial report) for consideration by taking action to sell or buy shares. If the market does not consider fundamental analysis exhibited significantly above, the actual market can also be said to be less attention to the audited (audit opinion).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document