Do Strategic Reasoning and Brainstorming Help Auditors Change Their Standard Audit Procedures in Response to Fraud Risk?

2009 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 811-837 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicky B. Hoffman ◽  
Mark F. Zimbelman
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Strategic Reasoning ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Planning Decisions ◽  
Public Company

ABSTRACT: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board recently reported that its inspections show that auditors fail to effectively modify their standard audit procedures in response to fraud risk. Prior academic research is consistent with this finding. Our study examines the effects of two interventions on auditors' planning decisions in a high-fraud-risk setting: strategic reasoning and brainstorming in groups. Both interventions are predicted to lead auditors to more effectively modify their planned audit procedures. We use a panel of fraud experts to identify effective modifications to the audit plan of a specific fraud case. The experts' recommendations are then used to evaluate the effectiveness of practicing auditors' audit plans with and without the two interventions. We predict and find that each intervention leads to more effective modifications to the standard audit procedures and that the combination of the interventions is not significantly more effective than either intervention used alone.

Does Recent Academic Research Support Changes to Audit Reporting Standards?

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Bédard ◽  
Paul Coram ◽  
Reza Espahbodi ◽  
Theodore J. Mock
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Support ◽  
The Public ◽  
Market Participants ◽  
Information Gap ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Reporting Process

SYNOPSIS The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), and the U.K. Financial Reporting Council (FRC) have proposed or approved standards that significantly change the independent auditor's report. These initiatives require the auditor to make additional disclosures intended to close the information gap; that is, the gap between the information users desire and the information available through the audited financial statements, other corporate disclosures, and the auditor's report. They are also intended to improve the relevancy of the auditor's report. We augment prior academic research by providing standard setters with an updated synthesis of relevant research. More importantly, we provide an assessment of whether the changes are likely to close the information gap, which is important to financial market participants and other stakeholders in the audit reporting process. Also, we identify areas where there seems to be a lack of sufficient research. These results are of interest to all stakeholders in the audit reporting process, as the changes to the auditor's report are fundamental. Additionally, our summaries of research on the auditor's report highlight where there is limited research or inconsistent results, which will help academics identify important opportunities for future research.

Integration of Fraud Risk in the Risk of Material Misstatement and the Effect on Auditors' Planning Decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. A52-A79
Author(s):  
Velina K. Popova
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Risk Environment ◽  
Major Area ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Planning Decisions ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Study Participants ◽  
Audit Program ◽  
Planning Judgments

ABSTRACT Prior research finds that although auditors assess fraud risk accurately, they generally fail to adjust audit procedures appropriately. The most recent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspections in 2016 still identify response to risks of material misstatement (RMM) as a major area of inspection focus and cite it as a recurring audit deficiency. In this study, participants assess RMM and make audit-planning judgments in a high/low fraud risk environment using either a traditional source-based representation of RMM (i.e., based on inherent, control, and fraud risk) or a newer type-based representation of RMM (i.e., based on error and fraud risk). The results indicate that while auditors in both groups show similar sensitivity to risk, the type-based group of auditors are better able modify their audit plans by using more procedures that are new to a standard audit program and assigning more experienced staff to address high fraud risk. Data Availability: Contact the author.

scholarly journals Audit Quality: Insights from the Academic Literature

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 385-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Robert Knechel ◽  
Gopal V. Krishnan ◽  
Mikhail Pevzner ◽  
Lori B. Shefchik ◽  
Uma K. Velury
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Future Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Public Company

SUMMARY This study presents a review of academic research on audit quality. We begin with a review of existing definitions of audit quality and describe general frameworks for establishing audit quality. Next, we summarize research on indicators of audit quality such as inputs, process, and outcomes. Finally, we offer some suggestions for future research. The study should be useful to academics interested in audit quality as well as to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and other regulators.

Auditors’ Use of Brainstorming in the Consideration of Fraud: Reports from the Field

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 1273-1301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Brazel ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
J. Gregory Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
High Quality ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments ◽  
Audit Standards

ABSTRACT: Audit standards require auditors to conduct fraud brainstorming sessions on every audit. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has raised concerns about auditors’ fraud judgments and the quality of their brainstorming sessions. We develop a measure of brainstorming quality to examine how it affects auditors’ fraud decision-making processes. We test our measure using field survey data of auditors’ actual brainstorming sessions for 179 audit engagements. Respondents report considerable variation in the quality of brainstorming in practice. We find some evidence that high-quality brainstorming improves the relations between fraud risk factors and fraud risk assessments. We also determine that brainstorming quality positively moderates the relations between fraud risk assessments and fraud-related testing. Our results suggest that the benefits of brainstorming do not apply uniformly, because low-quality sessions likely incur the costs of such interactions without receiving the attendant benefits. By documenting best practices from high-quality brainstorming sessions, our findings can inform auditors on how to improve their consideration of fraud.

scholarly journals Auditing Subsequent Events: Perspectives from the Field

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. A10-A24 ◽  
Author(s):  
David N. Herda ◽  
James J. Lavelle
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Research Questions

SUMMARY: A research synthesis team formed by the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association recently authored a paper (Chung et al. 2013) addressing the audit of subsequent events (SEs). The audit of SEs is a difficult audit area, as approximately one-third of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's inspection reports and numerous Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement releases identify deficiencies in this area (Chung et al. 2013). Chung et al. (2013) developed a model and proposed a series of research questions encouraging future academic research in this area. In this paper, we address several of these questions by surveying 76 practicing auditors. We summarize the auditors' responses and present recommendations that may be useful in improving audits of SEs.

A Summary of Research and Enforcement Release Evidence on Confirmation Use and Effectiveness

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Caster ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Diane J. Janvrin
Keyword(s):  
Specific Problem ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Directional Bias ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Audit Evidence ◽  
Research Questions

SUMMARY: Confirmations are extensively used and are often perceived by practitioners to be one of the most persuasive forms of audit evidence. Yet academic research has found limitations that restrict confirmation effectiveness for many management assertions. In addition, a number of problems with false and forged confirmations are identified in Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Releases (AAERs). The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) have put confirmation evidence on their respective agendas. Academic research indicates that receivable confirmations can be effective evidence for the existence assertion. Low response rates, as well as respondent errors and directional bias in detecting errors, are key barriers to confirmation effectiveness. Our review of AAERs identified failure to authenticate responses, collusion between auditee management and customers, and concealed side agreements and special terms as specific problem areas. We also identify a number of research questions for future research.

The Auditor's Reporting Model: A Literature Overview and Research Synthesis

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan K. Church ◽  
Shawn M. Davis ◽  
Susan A. McCracken
Keyword(s):  
Future Study ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Advisory Group ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Literature Overview ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Key Questions

This article examines academic research to contribute to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) project on the auditor's reporting model. We develop a framework to organize our discussion of the literature in light of key questions raised at two Standing Advisory Group (SAG) meetings. We trace the historical development of the auditor's report and then delve into relevant research that focuses on the auditor's reporting decision and the content of the auditor's report. Throughout the article, we offer recommendations for future study. Last, we provide a brief recap and summarize the key findings.

Professional Skepticism: The Effects of a Partner's Influence and the Level of Fraud Indicators on Auditors' Fraud Judgments and Actions

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
Jane L. Reimers
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Professional Skepticism ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Academic Researchers ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments ◽  
Selection Of

ABSTRACT: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), in its recent auditor inspections, cited a lack of professional skepticism and selection of appropriate audit procedures as serious problems for auditors, and suggested that the tone set by audit partners is critical for auditors' fraud investigations. We investigate selected components of Nelson's (2009) model of professional skepticism: the effects of the partner's emphasis on professional skepticism and the effect of the level of fraud indicators on auditors' identification of fraud risk factors, auditors' fraud risk assessments, and their selection of audit procedures. Thus, we provide an initial test of predictions of the links established in his model, and our results suggest a possible extension to his model. This study provides evidence that a partner's emphasis on professional skepticism is critical for both effective and efficient identification of relevant fraud risk factors and choice of relevant audit procedures. These results should be informative to both standard setters and academic researchers because they highlight the costs and benefits of an audit partner's attitude toward professional skepticism on the evaluation of fraud.

The Impact of CEO and CFO Equity Incentives on Audit Scope and Perceived Risks as Revealed Through Audit Fees

2014 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yezen H. Kannan ◽  
Terrance R. Skantz ◽  
Julia L. Higgs
Keyword(s):  
Executive Compensation ◽  
Positive Association ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Share Price ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Equity Incentives ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARY: In 2013, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) proposed an amendment to Auditing Standard No. 12 (PCAOB 2010) that would require auditors to consider executive compensation in audit planning because of potential fraud risk associated with equity incentives. We use the association between audit fees and CEO and CFO equity incentives to infer whether auditors increase audit scope and perceive greater risk as equity incentives increase. Equity incentives are defined as the sensitivity of the value of executives' equity portfolios to changes in share price (delta incentive) and to changes in return volatility (vega incentive). We find a positive association between audit fees and vega, but not delta. However, when we interact vega with proxies for residual auditor business risk, we find that the fee premiums for risk decrease as vega increases. Our results suggest that auditors do consider executive compensation in audit planning.

The Influence of Documentation Specificity and Priming on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments and Evidence Evaluation Decisions

2010 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 547-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline S. Hammersley ◽  
E. Michael Bamber ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
Unintended Consequence ◽  
Risk Assessments ◽  
Planning Stage ◽  
The Public ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Support Theory ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Evidence Evaluation ◽  
Fraud Risk Assessments

ABSTRACT: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) recently suggested that auditors' lack of specific fraud planning documentation has led auditors to devote insufficient attention to fraud risks in subsequent audit work. Guided by Support Theory, we experimentally investigate how the specificity of fraud risk documentation during audit planning influences auditors' subsequent audit work. We also examine the effect of priming auditors about the fraud risks identified during planning before they begin subsequent evidence evaluation. We find that auditors' planning stage efforts affect subsequent fraud risk assessments and evidence evaluation decisions. Unprimed auditors who receive more specific documentation increase their fraud risk assessments and evidence requests. Priming's effects are more complex. Priming auditors who receive summary documentation also increases fraud risk assessments and evidence requests; however, priming auditors who receive specific documentation reduces these judgments because the priming makes the client-specific risks seem less typical. Accordingly, the PCAOB's call for more documentation can have the unintended consequence of reducing auditors' sensitivity to fraud.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document