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).

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.

The Impact of SOX Section 404 Internal Control Quality Assessment on Audit Delay in the SOX Era

2006 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Ettredge ◽  
Chan Li ◽  
Lili Sun
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Impact Factors ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
Control Quality ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Specific Material ◽  
The Impact

This study analyzes the impact of internal control quality on audit delay following the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) (SOX). Unlike prior studies of audit delay that obtain information about internal control strength via surveys, or use fairly crude proxies for internal control quality, our study employs external auditor assessments of internal control over financial reporting (ICOFR) that are publicly disclosed in SEC 10-K filings under SOX Section 404. Thus, the empirical evidence provided in this study is both timely and reliable (i.e., not subject to small sample bias or weak proxies). Consistent with our expectation, we find that the presence of material weakness in ICOFR is associated with longer delays. The types of material weakness also matter. Compared to specific material weakness, general material weakness is associated with longer delays. Additional analyses indicate that companies with control problems in personnel, process and procedure, segregation of duties, and closing process experience longer delays. After controlling for other impact factors, this study also documents a significant increase in audit delay associated with the fulfillment of the SOX Section 404 ICOFR assessment requirement. This suggests that Section 404 assessments have made it more difficult for firms to comply with the SEC's desire to shorten 10-K filing deadlines. Our finding thus supports and helps explain the SEC's decisions in 2004 and 2005 to defer scheduled reductions in 10-K filing deadlines (from 75 days to 60 days) for large, accelerated filers.

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.

The Persistence in the Association between Section 404 Material Weaknesses and Financial Reporting Quality

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma-Riikka Myllymäki
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Financial Reporting Quality ◽  
Control Problems ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Material Weakness ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Material Weaknesses ◽  
History Of

SUMMARY This study examines whether Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Section 404 material weakness (MW404) disclosures are predictive of future financial reporting quality. I find evidence that for companies with a history of MW404s, the likelihood of misstatements in financial information continues to be significantly higher for two years after the last MW404 report compared to companies without a history of reported MW404s. The magnitude of the effect decreases non-linearly with decreasing speed. The findings further imply that the reason for the misstatement incidences is the unacknowledged pervasiveness of control problems. In particular, it appears that in many cases, the future misstatements are unrelated to the MW types disclosed in the last MW404 report, suggesting that some MW types are unacknowledged and, hence, control problems are even more pervasive than what was identified. Overall, the findings of this study highlight the importance of discovering and disclosing material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.

Controls, Security, and Audit in Online Digital Accounting

2011 ◽  
pp. 318-383
Author(s):  
Ashutosh Deshmukh
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Annual Report ◽  
Control Structure ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company

Internal controls have existed since the dawn of business activities. Internal controls are basically systems of checks and balances. The purpose is to keep the organization moving along desired lines as per the wishes of the owners and to protect assets of the business. Internal controls have received attention from auditors, managers, accountants, fraud examiners and legislatures. Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002 now requires the annual report of a public company to contain a statement of management’s responsibility for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting; and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of the company’s internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. Section 404 of the Act also requires the auditor to attest to and report on management’s assessment of effectiveness of the internal controls in accordance with standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).

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.

Audit Fees after Remediation of Internal Control Weaknesses

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vishal Munsif ◽  
K. Raghunandan ◽  
Dasaratha V. Rama ◽  
Meghna Singhvi
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Audit Fees ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Future Research ◽  
First Year ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
The Third ◽  
Material Weaknesses ◽  
Audit Fee

SYNOPSIS: In this study, we examine audit fees for SEC registrants that remediate previously disclosed material weaknesses in internal control. We find that remediating firms have lower audit fees when compared to firms that continue to report material weaknesses in internal control. However, the remediating firms continue to pay, in the year of remediation as well as one and two years subsequent to remediation, a significant audit fee premium compared to firms that have clean Section 404 reports in each of the first four years. Firms that had an adverse Section 404 report only in the first year, but remediated the problems in year two and had clean Section 404 reports in years three and four, pay an audit fee premium of 32 (21) percent in the third (fourth) year when compared to firms that had clean Section 404 reports in each of the first four years. The results, thus, suggest that audit fees are “sticky” for firms that have material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting, and suggest some interesting questions for future research.

Investor Perceptions of Government Deregulation: Evidence from Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin W Hoffman ◽  
John L. Campbell ◽  
Jason L. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Government Regulation ◽  
Abnormal Returns ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company

We investigate the stock market's reaction to events leading up to the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (PCAOB) 2007 regulatory changes that reduced the scope of and documentation requirements for assessments of firms' internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR), as required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The stated goal of these regulations was to reduce firms' and auditors' compliance costs with mandatory ICFR assessments, while maintaining the effectiveness of these assessments. We examine abnormal returns surrounding key dates leading to the passage of these regulations and offer two main findings. First, investors reacted negatively on key event dates, suggesting that investors viewed the regulations as likely to reduce financial reporting quality rather than to drive firm and audit efficiencies. Second, this negative market reaction is larger when ICFR effectiveness should matter most - when firms are more complex, have higher litigation risk, and greater fraud risk. In additional analysis, we find that restatements increase in the post-regulation time period, consistent with investors' concerns that the effect of the legislation would be a reduction in ICFR effectiveness. Overall, our results may imply that investors prefer stronger government regulation when it comes to the assessments of a firm's internal controls over financial reporting.

An exploration of the choice to comply voluntarily with SOX section 404(b)

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-110
Author(s):  
Alan Blankley ◽  
David Hurtt ◽  
Jason MacGregor
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Small Businesses ◽  
Small Companies ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Financial Perspective ◽  
The Law ◽  
Several Delays

Purpose Central to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act was a requirement that every company have an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. However, there were concerns that this requirement was overly burdensome, from a financial perspective, for small businesses. This concern promoted several delays in enforcing the law for small companies and ultimately caused congress to permanently exempt small businesses. Yet, there are some small companies that voluntarily elect to comply with the law. The purpose of this paper is to explore why these companies elect to incur these costly audits. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of 5,834 non-accelerator US firms, this paper uses a robust logistic regression model to examine why some firms comply voluntary with SOX Section 404(b). Findings This study shows that small companies getting audits of internal controls may be doing so to restore investor confidence after reporting failures, to appear credible prior to raising funds, as a response to organizational changes, or in anticipation of being required to comply. Practical implications This study provides regulators with an improved understanding of when it is necessary to implement mandatory rather than voluntary guidance. Originality/value This study is the first to document why a client would voluntarily comply with SOX Section 404 (b).

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document