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.

Assurance on XBRL for Financial Reporting

2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. David Plumlee ◽  
Marlene A. Plumlee
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Financial Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
Business Reporting ◽  
Paper Version ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Reporting Environment

SYNOPSIS: Since 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken steps toward requiring eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) to be used in its filings, including a voluntary filing program. “Tagging” financial information using XBRL creates documents that are computer readable and searchable. Once XBRL is required, investors are likely to demand assurance on the tagging process. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has issued guidance on attest engagements regarding XBRL financial information furnished under the SEC’s current voluntary filer program, which relies on the auditor “agreeing” a paper version of the XBRL-related documents to the information in the official EDGAR filing. This approach may be adequate for the current paper-oriented reporting paradigm. However, once filing in XBRL becomes required, the power of XBRL to allow individual financial datum to be extracted from the SEC’s financial database will be realized. This “data-centric” idea is a crucial extension of the traditional reporting paradigm that will alter the way financial and nonfinancial data can be used. The current audit focus on reconciling only the XBRL output with the paper submissions does not address this paradigm shift. In this commentary, we discuss the SEC’s efforts to incorporate XBRL into its filing process and provide a brief overview of the technical aspects of XBRL. The commentary’s principal focus is on several important questions that assurance guidance must address in a data-centric reporting environment, such as, what constitutes an error, or what does materiality mean when individual pieces of financial data will be used outside the context of the financial statements? It also describes some XBRL-related areas where academic research can help guide XBRL-document assurance efforts.

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.

Research, Writing, Editorial Reviewing, and Publishing as Social Justice Issues: The Effects of Stigma

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 295-303
Author(s):  
Lee A. Crandall ◽  
Sharon M. Holder
Keyword(s):  
Social Stigma ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Behavioral Characteristics ◽  
Research Writing ◽  
Community Based ◽  
The Public ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
The Way

People with disabilities face problems, not only because of their specific impairments but because of social stigma. This article focuses on stigma as it relates to a broad range of physical, social, and behavioral characteristics, and on the effect of stigma on academic research. Effects examined here include decisions regarding the ways in which research questions are defined, what research is funded and how it is funded, the ways in which research is conducted (e.g., the use of community-based participatory research versus traditional approaches), the way in which publication decisions are made, and the way in which research is received by professional colleagues and the public.

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.

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.

US public auditing reforms may follow 2020

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Fiscal Year ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Public ◽  
Securities Law ◽  
Budget Proposal ◽  
Public Company

Subject US public accounting oversight and proposed reforms. Significance Earlier this month, President Donald Trump released his budget proposal for the 2021 fiscal year. Among the proposals is merging the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) into the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) beginning in 2022. The move would further weaken US securities law and the accounting framework, which has steadily eroded in recent years. Impacts Shifting oversight over audit quality to the SEC would greatly reduce resources available for this function. House Democrats will be reluctant to give Trump legislative victories before November. Under Trump, the SEC will further shrink its enforcement activities; this process began before he became president.

scholarly journals Auditing Issues with Chinese Reverse Merger Companies Traded in the United States

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Frederic M. Stiner ◽  
Susan A. Lynn
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Audit Quality ◽  
The United States ◽  
Auditor Independence ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Chinese Government ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reverse Mergers ◽  
Public Company

Recently there have been two issues related to Chinese companies seeking capital in the United States.   The first issue is frauds that have been perpetrated by companies using reverse mergers in order to go public.   The second issue is fraud in continuing audit engagements when there has been reliance by an American audit firm on a foreign accountant’s audit work.  There is also conflict between the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) demanding to inspect audit workpapers for companies in China and the Chinese government’s refusal to let the PCAOB see these workpapers.   These issues relate to characteristics of the practice of accounting and auditing in China that threaten auditor independence and audit quality. The paper discusses: (1) issues involving reverse mergers and the response of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to these issues, (2) issues involving reliance on the work of foreign Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and the response of the PCAOB to these issues, (3) issues involving conflicts between U.S.  regulatory agencies and the Chinese government over access to audit-related documents, and (4) suggestions for future research.

Engagement Quality Reviews: A Comparison of Audit Firm Practices

2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn K. Epps ◽  
William F. Messier
Keyword(s):  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Quality Review ◽  
Audit Review ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Quality Control Mechanism

Engagement quality (concurring partner) review is an important part of the audit review process. It is one quality control mechanism used by public accounting firms to monitor the quality of audit engagements. The engagement quality reviewer serves as an evaluator of the performance of the engagement partner and engagement team. Concerns about the effectiveness of existing firm concurring partner review practices have led to increased partner sanctions imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In addition, Section 103 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 directs the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to develop an auditing standard on engagement quality review. This practice note reports on an analysis of six major firms' written guidance and practice aids for engagement quality review. Our comparison of the firms' guidance shows some differences in the assignment of engagement quality reviewer, the participation of the engagement quality reviewer in audit planning, the extensiveness of practice aids, and the involvement of engagement quality reviewer during the course of audit engagements. Lastly, we identify a number of research questions and practice implications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document