Behind the Numbers: Insights into Large Audit Firm Sampling Policies

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brant E. Christensen ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Steven M. Glover
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
National Office ◽  
Current Sampling ◽  
Audit Sampling

SYNOPSIS Changes in the audit industry after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including mandatory audits of internal control over financial reporting and PCAOB oversight and inspection of audit work, have potentially changed the nature and extent of audit sampling in the largest accounting firms. However, little academic evidence exists on these firms' current audit sampling policies (Elder, Akresh, Glover, Higgs, and Liljegren 2013). As such, we administer an extensive, open-ended survey to the national office of the Big 4 and two other international accounting firms regarding their firm's audit sampling policies. We find variation among the largest auditing firms' policies in their use of statistical and nonstatistical sampling methods and in inputs used in the sampling applications that could result in different sample sizes. Sampling experts' internal reviews indicate that projecting and resolving identified misstatements is one of the biggest difficulties that audit engagement teams face when using sampling techniques. Finally, we present evidence that some firms have significantly changed their approach to revenue testing due to PCAOB inspections. This evidence provides important insights into current sampling policies and presents opportunities for future research. Data Availability: Please contact the authors.

Insights into Large Audit Firm Sampling Policies

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. P7-P18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brant E. Christensen ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Steven M. Glover
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Sampling Methods ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Current Sampling ◽  
Audit Sampling

SUMMARY Changes in the audit profession after Sarbanes-Oxley, including mandatory audits of internal control over financial reporting and PCAOB oversight and inspection of audit work, have potentially changed the nature and extent of audit sampling in the largest accounting firms. In our study, “Behind the Numbers: Insights into Large Audit Firm Sampling Policies” (Christensen, Elder, and Glover 2015), we administered an extensive, open-ended survey to the national offices of the Big 4 and two other international accounting firms regarding their firm's audit sampling policies. We find variation among the largest firms' policies in their use of different sampling methods and in inputs used in the sampling applications that could result in different sample sizes. We also provide evidence of some of the sampling topics firms find most problematic, as well as changes to firms' policies regarding revenue testing due to PCAOB inspections. Our evidence provides important insights into current sampling policies, which may be helpful to audit firms in evaluating their sampling inputs and overall sampling approaches.

The Impact of Client and Misstatement Characteristics on the Disposition of Proposed Audit Adjustments

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Joe ◽  
Arnold Wright, and ◽  
Sally Wright
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Confidentiality Agreement ◽  
Financial Scandals ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARY We present evidence on the resolution of proposed audit adjustments during a unique time period, immediately following several U.S. financial scandals and surrounding calls for reforms in auditing and financial reporting, which culminated in the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). During this period, auditors and their clients faced increased scrutiny from investors and regulators. In addition, auditors had to contend with changed incentives, a new external regulator (i.e., the PCAOB), and upcoming annual PCAOB inspections. We extend prior studies by considering a broader range of factors potentially impacting the resolution of proposed adjustments, including the effect of client tenure, strength of internal controls, and repeat adjustments. Data on 458 proposed adjustments are obtained from the working papers of a sample of 163 audit engagements conducted during 2002 by a Big 4 firm. We find that 24.2 percent of proposed adjustments were subsequently waived. The results indicate audit adjustments are more likely to be waived for clients with whom the audit firm has had a longer relationship, although the pattern does not reflect favoring such clients. We also find that adjustments are more likely to be waived for repeat adjustments. Data Availability: Due to a confidentiality agreement with the participating audit firm the data are proprietary.

An Analysis of SEC and PCAOB Enforcement Actions against Engagement Quality Reviewers

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Messier ◽  
Thomas M. Kozloski ◽  
Natalia Kochetova-Kozloski
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Audit Process ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

SUMMARY: Engagement quality review is an integral part of the audit process. It is designed to be a quality control mechanism for assessing the quality of an audit engagement. Since the 1990s, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has increased sanctions against partners serving as engagement quality reviewers. Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued an auditing standard on engagement quality review as required by Section 103 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This practice note reports on an analysis of SEC and PCAOB enforcement actions against engagement quality reviewers (EQRs). Our results show the following: We identified 28 cases since 1993 that involve some type of sanction against an EQR. Only eight cases involved the Big 4/5 public accounting firms. All of the 28 cases involved sanctions due to violations of GAAS and 75 percent contained GAAP violations. Twenty-three cases identified GAAS violations related to a lack of due professional care. Further analysis of those cases showed that the EQR demonstrated a lack of professional skepticism in 22 cases, over-relied on management representations in 20 cases, and ignored materiality concerns in five cases. About half of the 28 cases resulted in the EQR being denied the privilege of practicing before the SEC or PCAOB for three or more years. Our findings provide important implications for practitioners and regulators, and areas for future research for those interested in engagement quality review.

SOX 404, Auditor Effort, and the Prevention of Financial Report Misstatements

2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuping Zhao ◽  
Jean C. Bedard ◽  
Rani Hoitash
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Lower Incidence ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Financial Report ◽  
Auditor Tenure ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jel Classifications

SUMMARY Prior research shows that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Section 404(b) integrated audit is associated with a lower incidence of misstatements. We predict that under 404(b), the auditor's ability to detect misstatements increases relative to other internal control regimes when greater resources are exerted during the engagement. Supporting this prediction, we find that the benefits of 404(b) versus other regimes (including SOX 404(a)) in reducing misstatements increase with incremental audit effort (proxied by abnormal audit fees). We find no benefit of 404(b) in misstatement reduction when abnormal audit effort is low. This implies that the value of 404(b) testing is not uniform, but rather is greater when sufficient resources are available to thoroughly understand client controls. In contrast, we find no benefit of abnormal audit effort under other regulatory regimes. We further examine the conditions under which knowledge gained from auditor internal control testing is more valuable. We find that the benefits of increased audit effort under 404(b) do not vary across internal control regimes under AS2 versus AS5, and are more pronounced for engagements with shorter auditor tenure, non-Big 4 auditors, and industry-specialist auditors. JEL Classifications: M49. Data Availability: Data used in this study are available from public sources.

Non-CPAs and Office Audit Quality

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 169-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew G. Sherwood ◽  
Albert L. Nagy ◽  
Aleksandra B. Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Human Resources ◽  
Growth Regulators ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
External Audit ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Jel Classifications

SYNOPSIS During the time surrounding the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Big 4 firms either spun-off or downsized their consulting practices. However, in recent years, consulting service lines of the large accounting firms have seen a dramatic resurgence and growth. Regulators have taken notice of, and expressed concern over, this renewed focus on consulting. The accounting firms claim that such services enhance audit quality, mainly due to the prominent role of non-accounting specialists in today's external audit function. This study examines whether the availability of non-CPAs in U.S. Big 4 firm offices is associated with audit quality. We find that greater access to non-CPAs in the office is associated with higher audit quality and conclude that office audit quality is not just a function of audit-specific human resources but also the availability of non-CPAs to support audit engagement teams. JEL Classifications: M41; M42. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources identified in the study.

Auditors' Internal Control over Financial Reporting Decisions: Analysis, Synthesis, and Research Directions

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 131-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen K. Asare ◽  
Brian C. Fitzgerald ◽  
Lynford E. Graham ◽  
Jennifer R. Joe ◽  
Eric M. Negangard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Road Map ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Environmental Attributes ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Reporting Decisions ◽  
Five Phases

SUMMARY We synthesize the literature on auditors' evaluation of, and reporting on, internal control over financial reporting (ICOFR), as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The purpose of the synthesis is (1) to provide information on how and how well auditors perform the task, which serves as feedback to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board on implementation issues and problems related to auditors' application of the professional standards on ICOFR; and (2) to identify gaps in the current literature and fruitful areas of future research. Consistent with Auditing Standard No. 5, we delineate five phases of the ICOFR audit: (1) planning; (2) scoping; (3) testing; (4) evaluation; and (5) reporting. We structure our synthesis using a framework that classifies the determinants of performance in each phase into five broad areas: (a) the auditor's attributes, (b) the client's attributes, (c) the interaction between the auditor and the client, (d) task attributes, and (e) environmental attributes. Key contributions include providing an ICOFR tasks taxonomy, proposing a model of the determinants of performance for each task, evaluating auditors' performance of the tasks in our taxonomy, highlighting findings and gaps of importance to regulators, and providing a road map for future research.

Determinants of the Persistence of Internal Control Weaknesses

2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie K. Klamm ◽  
Kevin W. Kobelsky ◽  
Marcia Weidenmier Watson
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Management Training ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Senior Management ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Material Weaknesses ◽  
Specific Control

SYNOPSIS This paper analyzes the degree to which material weaknesses (MWs) in internal control reported under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) affect the future reporting of MWs. Particularly, we examine information technology (IT) and non-IT MWs and their breakdown into specific IT-related entity-level, non-IT-related entity-level, and account-level deficiencies. Analysis reveals that most account-level and entity-level deficiencies occur at a significantly higher rate in SOX 404 reports with at least one IT MW than in MW reports with only non-IT MWs. Further, the presence and count of both types of MWs and all three types of deficiencies are associated with increased future MWs, as are lower profitability, non-Big 6 auditor, and firm complexity. Specific control deficiencies related to senior management, training, and IT control environment have the strongest impact on future MWs. These results indicate that effective corporate governance of both the IT and non-IT domains is pivotal in establishing and maintaining strong internal controls over financial reporting. Data Availability:  Data are available from the public sources identified in the paper.

Internal Control Deficiencies in Tax Reporting: A Detailed View

2015 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynford Graham ◽  
Jean C. Bedard
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Financial Misstatement ◽  
Internal Control Deficiencies ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Tax Reporting

SYNOPSIS Prior research, using data from Sarbanes-Oxley Act Sections 302/404 (SOX, U.S. House of Representatives 2002) disclosures, finds that material weaknesses (MWs) in internal controls over financial reporting of taxes are more frequent and consequential than other account-specific MWs. Understanding internal control deficiencies (ICDs) in tax reporting is important but public information is limited, as MWs comprise only control flaws remaining unremediated at year-end and few details on their nature are available from SEC filings. We supplement prior studies by providing a detailed look at all Section 404 control deficiencies in tax reporting in a proprietary sample of engagements in 2004–2005 from several large auditing firms. We find that tax ICDs are less likely to be remediated between discovery and fiscal year-end, more likely to be severe, and more likely to have caused a financial misstatement. Remediation failure for tax ICDs is greater when management missed detecting the problem, and more prevalent for poorly designed controls, controls over the tax provision, and monitoring control activities. Auditors' severity classifications imply that ICDs relating to the tax provision and deferred taxes, and those that failed in operation, have higher potential for producing misstatements. Overall, our results underscore the importance of auditor involvement in internal control reporting in the tax area. Data Availability: Data used for this study were provided under confidentiality agreements, and cannot be shared.

A Reexamination of Audit Fees for Initial Audit Engagements in the Post-SOX Period

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemond Desir ◽  
Jeffrey R. Casterella ◽  
Julia Kokina
Keyword(s):  
Audit Fees ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Sample Period ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Client Relationships

SUMMARY: On August 16, 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a concept release seeking comments on ways to enhance auditor independence. The Board notes that higher failure rates in new audit engagements might be linked to unrealistic pricing. The Board's concern is that a new auditor might be more susceptible to management pressure if initial-year audit fees are set artificially low. Prior to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, empirical evidence shows that auditors discounted their initial-year audit fees. This practice, known as lowballing, was expected to decrease significantly after the enactment of SOX. Indeed, findings in Huang, Raghunandan, and Rama (2009) seem to confirm that Big 4 auditors charged a fee premium on new auditor-client relationships in 2006. However, it is not clear if more recent post-SOX initial-year audits are free of lowballing. We investigate whether lowballing exists in new auditor-client relationships in an “extended” post-SOX environment for the years 2007 to 2010. Our results suggest that both Big 4 and non-Big 4 accounting firms discounted their initial-year audit fees during our sample period (2007–2010). These findings should be of interest to the PCAOB as it searches for ways to bolster auditor independence. Data Availability: Available from public sources.

The Impact of Culture on Internal Control Weaknesses: Evidence from Firms That Cross-List in the U.S.

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 119-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria T. Caban-Garcia ◽  
Carmen B. Ríos Figueroa ◽  
Karin A. Petruska
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Power Distance ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
And Control ◽  
Section 302 ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT This study addresses the impact of culture on the likelihood of U.S. foreign issuers reporting material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting (MWICs). Specifically, we explore whether Hofstede's (1980, 2001) country-level dimensions of power distance, individualism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation explain the likelihood of U.S. foreign issuers reporting internal control deficiencies under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). To assess whether home country guidance on internal control reporting influences U.S. foreign issuers detecting and reporting MWICs, we identify and control for the adoption of internal control guidance in foreign jurisdictions. Our results show that firms from countries with a high power distance and long-term orientation are more likely to report MWICs. In addition, we find that firms from countries that implement internal control guidance are less likely to report MWICs, suggesting that the effectiveness of U.S. foreign issuers' internal control over financial reporting is influenced by their home countries' regulation and oversight. These results are generally robust to a number of additional sensitivity tests. JEL Classifications: M14; M16; M48. Data Availability: Data are from publicly available sources.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document