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.

Auditor Attestation under SOX Section 404 and Earnings Informativeness

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Huajing Chen ◽  
Jayanthi Krishnan ◽  
Heibatollah Sami ◽  
Haiyan Zhou
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Control Sample ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Test Sample ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Earnings Informativeness ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Audit Reports ◽  
Section 302

SUMMARY Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires managers to assess, and their auditors to express an opinion on, the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR). Policymakers expect the ICFR audits to enhance the credibility of firms' financial statements. Prior research argues that audit characteristics that enhance the credibility of financial reporting are associated with stronger earnings-return associations. We examine whether earnings accompanied by the first-time Section 404 ICFR reports were associated with higher informativeness compared with earnings in the prior year when only financial statement audit reports were available. We conduct our analysis for a test sample of accelerated filers with clean ICFR reports and clean previous Section 302 disclosures. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compare the change in earnings informativeness for the test sample with that for a control sample of non-accelerated filers. We find that earnings informativeness for companies with clean internal control reports was greater in the Section 404 adoption year than in the previous year, while there was no change in earnings informativeness for the non-accelerated filers. Also, there is no difference in the increase in earnings informativeness across firms with small and large compliance costs (measured by change in audit fees), suggesting that both groups benefited from the Section 404 ICFR audits.

Internal Control Quality and Audit Pricing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rani Hoitash ◽  
Udi Hoitash ◽  
Jean C. Bedard
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Risk Adjustment ◽  
Initial Period ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Control Problems ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Audit Pricing ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Section 302

This paper extends prior research on audit risk adjustment by examining the association of audit pricing with problems in internal control over financial reporting, disclosed under Sections 404 and 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act [SOX]. While studies of auditors' responses to internal control risk provide mixed evidence, it is important to re-examine this issue using data on specific client problems not available prior to SOX. As a baseline, we first establish a strong association of audit fees with internal control problems disclosed in the first year of implementation of Section 404, consistent with prior research (e.g., Raghunandan and Rama 2006). We then address two issues on which prior results are contradictory. In a broadly based sample of accelerated filers, we find that audit pricing for companies with internal control problems varies by problem severity, when severity is measured either as material weaknesses versus significant deficiencies, or by nature of the problem. Also, while audit fees increase during the 404 period, our tests show less relative risk adjustment under Section 404 than under Section 302 in the prior year. Further examining intertemporal effects, we find that companies disclosing internal control problems under Section 302 continue to pay higher fees the following year, even if no problems are disclosed under Section 404. Overall, our findings provide detailed insight into audit risk adjustment during the initial period of SOX implementation.

SOX Section 404 Material Weakness Disclosures and Audit Fees

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Raghunandan ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Control Material ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
The Mean

Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Auditing Standard No. 2 (PCAOB 2004) require management and the auditor to report on internal controls over financial reporting. Section 404 is arguably the most controversial element of SOX, and much of the debate around the costs of implementing section 404 has focused on auditors' fees (Ernst & Young 2005). In this paper, we examine the association between audit fees and internal control disclosures made pursuant to section 404. Our sample includes 660 manufacturing firms that have a December 31, 2004 fiscal year-end and filed the section 404 report by May 15, 2005. We find that the mean (median) audit fees for the firms in our sample for fiscal 2004 is 86 (128) percent higher than the corresponding fees for fiscal 2003. Audit fees for fiscal 2004 are 43 percent higher for clients with a material weakness disclosure compared to clients without such disclosure; however, audit fees for fiscal 2003 are not associated with an internal control material weakness disclosure (in the 10-K filed following fiscal 2004). We also find that the association between audit fees and the presence of a material weakness disclosure does not vary depending on the type of material weakness (systemic or non-systemic).

Control Self-Assessment and Costs of Compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence J. Abbott ◽  
Susan Parker ◽  
Gary F. Peters ◽  
Theresa J. Presley
Keyword(s):  
Control Systems ◽  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Negative Association ◽  
Management Control ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Internal Auditor ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley

ABSTRACT Control self-assessment (CSA) represents the practice of making operational-level managers responsible for internal control monitoring. We investigate the association between the use of CSA and certain costs incurred in maintaining internal control systems and complying with regulatory requirements. We find a negative association between CSA and external audit fees paid for the audit of internal control over financial reporting. Moreover, we find an incremental fee reduction resulting from the interaction between CSA and Section 404 assistance provided to the external auditor by the internal auditor. Additionally, we find a negative association between the use of CSA and some costs of the internal audit's own evaluation of operational and financial controls for managerial purposes. In sum, our study suggests that CSA can lessen at least some internal control costs while reducing control risk as proxied by external costs of internal control compliance. We discuss implications for broader management control systems.

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.

The Effects of PCAOB Inspections on Auditor-Client Relationships

2017 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew A. Acito ◽  
Chris E. Hogan ◽  
Richard D. Mergenthaler
Keyword(s):  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Textual Analysis ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Big 4 ◽  
Client Relationships ◽  
Jel Classifications

ABSTRACT We investigate whether PCAOB-identified audit deficiencies lead to higher audit fees or turnover likelihood for clients of Big 4 auditors. To examine this, we identify areas of GAAP related to PCAOB deficiencies for each auditor. We then use textual analysis to identify how important the deficiencies are to clients to measure each client's exposure to deficient auditing. We find that this measure positively relates to audit fees and that this association is moderated by client bargaining power. Auditor turnover is also higher when deficiency exposure is high relative to what it would be for peer auditors, but we only observe this relation for smaller clients and do not find it is affected by client bargaining power. Finally, we find that companies switching Big 4 auditors tend to select an auditor resulting in lower deficiency exposure. These results have implications for understanding how PCAOB inspection reports affect the market for audit services. JEL Classifications: M41; M42. Data Availability: We obtain all data from publicly available sources.

The Effect of the SEC's XBRL Mandate on Audit Report Lags

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keval Amin ◽  
John Daniel Eshleman ◽  
Cecilia (Qian) Feng
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Economic Consequences ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Difference In Differences ◽  
Financial Report ◽  
Business Reporting ◽  
Mandatory Adoption

SYNOPSIS: There is considerable debate about whether the adoption of eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) will result in timelier SEC filings. We provide empirical evidence on this debate by investigating the effect of XBRL adoption on audit report lags. Using a hand-collected panel of S&P 1500 clients' XBRL financial report filings and both levels and difference-in-differences analyses, we show that audit report lags decrease following the mandatory adoption of XBRL. These results are robust to various subsamples and model specifications. On average, audit report lags decrease anywhere from 0.4 to 3.4 percent (0.21 to 1.93 days) in the post-adoption period, depending on the specification used. We further document that these results are concentrated among filers with strong internal control systems and no prior XBRL reporting experience. We also find that audit report lags continue to decline in the years following adoption, which is indicative of a learning curve and improvements in XBRL reporting quality. Additional tests reveal that XBRL is negatively associated with audit fees, suggesting that the XBRL effect is at least partially driven by auditor efficiency gains. Our findings are informative for assessing the economic consequences of requiring XBRL adoption, which should be of interest to regulators, managers, and researchers. JEL Classifications: M41; M42. Data Availability: All data are publicly available from sources quoted in the text.

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.

Unexpected Fees and the Prediction of Material Weaknesses in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 485-505 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan M. Albring ◽  
Randal J. Elder ◽  
Xiaolu Xu
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Material Weaknesses ◽  
New Material ◽  
Internal Control Weaknesses ◽  
Section 302

We investigate whether prior year unexpected audit fees help predict new material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting reported under Section 404 of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX). Predicting material weaknesses may be useful to investors and other financial statement users because these disclosures have adverse economic impacts on disclosing firms. Unexpected fees are significantly associated with material weaknesses reported under Section 404, even after controlling for Section 302 disclosures and other factors associated with internal control weaknesses. Unexpected fees are associated with company-level weaknesses but are not significantly associated with account-specific weaknesses, consistent with differences in the nature and severity of the two types of material weaknesses. Our results are consistent with unexpected audit fees containing information on unobserved audit costs and client control risks, which help predict future internal control weaknesses.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document