scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Release No. 2013-009, Proposed Rule on Improving the Transparency of Audit: Proposed Amendments to PCAOB Auditing Standards to Provide Disclosure in the Auditor's Report of Certain Participants in the Audit

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. C1-C7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Urton L. Anderson ◽  
Lisa Milici Gaynor ◽  
Karl E. Hackenbrack ◽  
Ling Lei Lisic ◽  
Yi-Jing Wu
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY On December 4, 2013 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) solicited public comments on its reproposed amendments to its standards that would improve the transparency of public company audits. The amendments would require (1) disclosure in the auditor's report of the name of the engagement partner, and (2) disclosure in the auditor's report of the names, locations, and extent of participation of other independent public accounting firms that took part in the audit and the locations and extent of participation of other persons not employed by the auditor that took part in the audit. The comment period initially ended on February 3, 2014, but was subsequently extended to March 17, 2014. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on these amendments. Data Availability: The exposure drafts of the proposed and reproposed rules and related information are available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Pages/Docket029.aspx

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter 029: PCAOB Release No. 2011-007, Improving Transparency Through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith L. Jones ◽  
Jagadison K. Aier ◽  
Duane M. Brandon ◽  
Tina D. Carpenter ◽  
Paul Caster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Period ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Comment ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY In October 2011, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB or Board) issued a release to solicit public comment on amendments to its standards that would improve the transparency of pubic company audits. The objective of the release was to solicit public comments on a proposed standard that would (1) require registered public accounting firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner in the audit report, (2) amend the Board's Annual Report Form to require registered firms to disclose the name of the engagement partner for each audit report already required to be reported on the form, and (3) require disclosure in the audit report of other independent public accounting firms and other persons that took part in the audit. The PCAOB provided for a 91-day exposure period (from October 11, 2011, to January 9, 2012) for interested parties to examine the release and provide comments. The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the PCAOB on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter 029: PCAOB Release No. 2011-007, Improving Transparency Through Disclosure of Engagement Partner and Certain Other Participants in Audits. Data Availability: Information about and access to the release is available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket029/PCAOB_Release_2011-007.pdf

Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on the PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 31: PCAOB Release No. 2010-005, Application of the “Failure to Supervise” Provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Solicitation of Comment on Rulemaking Concepts

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. C11-C15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Brazel ◽  
James Bierstaker ◽  
Paul Caster ◽  
Brad Reed
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Exposure Period ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Supervision Practices

SUMMARY: Recently, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB” or “Board”) issued a release to address, in two ways, issues relating to the responsibilities of a registered public accounting firm and its supervisory personnel with respect to supervision. First, the release reminds registered firms and associated persons of, and highlights the scope of, Section 105(c)(6) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“the Act”), which authorizes the Board to impose sanctions on registered public accounting firms and their supervisory personnel for failing to supervise reasonably an associated person who has violated certain laws, rules, or standards. Second, the release discusses and seeks comment on conceptual approaches to rulemaking that might complement the application of Section 105(c)(6) and, through increased accountability, lead to improved supervision practices and, consequently, improved audit quality. The PCAOB provided for a 91-day exposure period (from August 5, 2010, to November 3, 2010) for interested parties to examine and provide comments on the conceptual approaches to rulemaking that might complement the application of Section 105(c)(6). The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association provided the comments in the letter below to the PCAOB on the PCAOB Release No. 2010-005, Application of the “Failure to Supervise” Provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Solicitation of Comment on Rulemaking Concepts.

Valuation Issues, Auditor Fraud, and PCAOB Confirmation: Findings From an Analysis of Lawsuits Against Large Public Accounting Firms

2021 ◽  
pp. 0148558X2110658
Author(s):  
Andrea Everard ◽  
Kent St. Pierre
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ◽  
The Public ◽  
Accounting Principles ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Source Of Information

In this article, we bridge the gap between academia and practice by analyzing and presenting the results of allegations in more than 200 lawsuits against the largest public accounting firms. Our findings are critical as the lawsuits damage the firms’ reputations, the credibility of the profession in general, and may result in large monetary losses and loss of clients. We find three key results not found in previous legal research. First, we find that Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) issues, especially those focused on valuation, dominate Generally Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) issues in the allegations. Second, fraud allegations against the auditors themselves are a significant problem, although often ignored in the fraud literature. Third, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) reports on the accounting firms provide an unintended source of information for third parties in future legal allegations against those same firms.

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Release No. 2015-004, Supplemental Request for Comment: Rules to Require Disclosure of Certain Audit Participants on a New PCAOB Form

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. C1-C10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcus M. Doxey ◽  
Marshall A. Geiger ◽  
Karl E. Hackenbrack ◽  
Sarah E. Stein
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
The Public ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Audit Firms ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
New Form

SUMMARY On June 30, 2015 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) issued a supplemental request for comment on its 2013 reproposal to require auditors to disclose in the auditor's report the name of the engagement partner and information about certain other participants in the audit. The supplemental request solicited public comments on an alternative to disclosure of this information in the auditor's report, namely that audit firms report (1) the name of the engagement partner, and (2) the names, locations, and extent of participation of other audit participants in a new form (Form AP) to be filed with the PCAOB within 30 days of the date the auditor's report is first included in a document filed with the SEC. The comment period ended on August 31, 2015. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on the alternatives presented in the supplemental request for comment. Data Availability: The exposure drafts of the proposed and reproposed rules, the supplemental request for comment, and related information are available at: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Pages/Docket029.aspx

Auditing the Auditors: A Case on PCAOB Inspection Reports of Registered Public Accounting Firms

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. B1-B18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Daugherty ◽  
Marshall K. Pitman
Keyword(s):  
Public Accounting ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Evidence ◽  
Inspection Process

SUMMARY: We present a timely practice-oriented case related to the inspection process of registered firms by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). This case allows auditing students an opportunity to explore the unique challenges that public accounting firms auditing U.S. public companies face with respect to the PCAOB inspection process. The case focuses on large and small registered firms (inspected annually and triennially, respectively) receiving an inspection report where the PCAOB identified certain matters considered to be audit deficiencies of such significance that the inspection team believed the audit firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support the auditor’s opinion. The case exposes students to the PCAOB inspection process, highlights many deficiencies noted to date by the PCAOB inspectors, and emphasizes the importance of sufficient and appropriately documented audit evidence to support audit opinions. By reviewing ‘deficient’ inspection reports, students gain an appreciation for common audit deficiencies as well as the subjective nature of portions of the authoritative literature and the inspection process itself. The case reinforces students’ understanding of the practical matters involved in appropriately obtaining, evaluating, and documenting audit evidence, as well as educates students on the PCAOB inspection process in order to address important competencies required of Sarbanes-Oxley era audit professionals.

scholarly journals Comments by the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No. 042: PCAOB Release No. 2017-005, Proposed Amendments Relating to the Supervision of Audits Involving Other Auditors and Proposed Auditing Standard— Dividing Responsibility for the Audit with Another Accounting Firm

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. C11-C18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean A. Dennis ◽  
Denise Dickins ◽  
Christine E. Earley ◽  
Christine Nolder ◽  
Tammie J. Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Audit Report ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards

SUMMARY On September 26, 2017, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) solicited public comments on Proposed Amendments Relating to the Supervision of Audits Involving Other Auditors and Proposed Auditing Standard—Dividing the Responsibility for the Audit with Another Accounting Firm. The supplemental request for comment seeks commenters' views on the proposed amendments and standard related to audits involving accounting firms and individuals other than the accounting firm that issues the audit report. The comment period ended on November 15, 2017. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on these amendments. Data Availability: The supplemental request for comment Proposed Amendments Relating to the Supervision of Audits Involving Other Auditors and Proposed Auditing Standard—Dividing Responsibility for the Audit with Another Accounting Firm is available at: https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket042/2017-005-other-auditors-SRC.pdf, and the comment letter sent in by the Auditing Standards Committee is available at: https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket042/020b_AAA.pdf.

scholarly journals The Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association is Pleased to Provide Comments on PCAOB Staff Consultation Paper No. 2015-01, The Auditor's Use of the Work of Specialists

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. C18-C37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Joe ◽  
Diane J. Janvrin ◽  
Dereck Barr-Pulliam ◽  
Stephani Mason ◽  
Marshall K. Pitman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Economic Implications ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Potential Improvement ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Current Practices

SUMMARY On May 28, 2015 the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (hereafter, the Board) issued Staff Consultation Paper No. 2015-01 (hereafter, the Staff Consultation Paper) to seek information and input on the potential need to improve standards related to the auditor's use of the work of specialists. The Board requested input from investors, accounting firms, specialists, companies, and others (such as academics) about (1) current practices, (2) the potential need for changes, and (3) possible alternative regulatory approaches, and any associated economic implications, for potential improvement in standards related to oversight and assessing the objectivity of employed and engaged specialists. The comment period ended July 31, 2015. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on selected questions posed in the Staff Consultation Paper. Data Availability: The invitation to comment (through July 31, 2015), with links to the Consultation Paper, is available at: http://www.pcaobus.org/Standards/Pages/SCP_Specialists.aspx

A Theoretical Framework of the Relationship between Public Accounting Firms and Their Auditors

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Dreike Almer ◽  
Julia L. Higgs ◽  
Karen L. Hooks
Keyword(s):  
Future Research ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sociology Of Professions ◽  
Rich Description ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Current Article ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Significant Attention

The behavior of auditors in the context of their employment by public accounting firms has received significant attention in the accounting literature. The current article extends this literature by providing a framework that identifies what auditing professionals contribute and receive as a result of their work efforts, as well as related influences. Using agency theory modified with fundamental ideas from the sociology of professions literature, we develop a model of the auditor-public accounting firm employment relationship. This framework is grounded in a timely, contextually rich description of the public accounting work environment, and the pressures and incentives faced by auditors. Propositions for future research are suggested that arise from understanding the auditor-firm relationship.

scholarly journals The Influence of Reputation of Public Accounting Firms on the Integrity of Financial Statements with Corporate Governance as the Moderating Variable

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 177-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nera Marinda Machdar ◽  
Dade Nurdiniah
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Governance ◽  
Audit Committee ◽  
Institutional Ownership ◽  
Financial Statements ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Accounting Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Accounting Firms

This research aimed to determine the effect of the reputation of the public accounting firm on the integrity of financial statements by including leverage and firm size as the control variables. This research also investigated the effects of corporate governance moderation that was proxied by the independent commissioner, institutional ownership, and audit committee in strengthening or weakening the reputation of the public accounting firms on the integrity of the financial statements. The population was manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) in 2013-2015. The sample utilized the purposive sampling method and resulted in 34 manufacturing firms, so the total observations were 102 firms in all observed years. This research performed statistical data processing with EVIEWS 8. There are two main findings of this research. First, the reputation of public accounting firm affects the integrity of the financial statement. Second, corporate governance that utilizes the independent commissioners and institutional ownership strengthen the effect of the reputation of the public accounting firm on the integrity of the financial statement. However, corporate governance using audit committee weakens the reputation of the public accounting firm on the integrity of financial statements.

Materiality Guidance of the Major Public Accounting Firms

2014 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aasmund Eilifsen ◽  
William F. Messier
Keyword(s):  
Data Availability ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Public Accounting ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Qualitative Factors ◽  
Research And Education ◽  
High Level ◽  
Implementation Of Standards

SUMMARY This paper examines the materiality guidance for eight of the largest U.S. public accounting firms. Knowledge of how materiality guidance is integrated into a firm's methodology is important for accounting and auditing researchers as well as for practitioners, regulators, and educators. Our results show a high level of consistency across the firms in terms of the quantitative benchmarks (e.g., income before taxes, total assets or revenues, and total equity) used to determine overall materiality, the related percentages applied to those benchmarks, the percentages applied to overall materiality for determining tolerable misstatement, and what constitutes a clearly trivial misstatement. We also find that the firms' guidance for evaluating detected misstatements, including qualitative factors and firm guidance for group audits, is consistent across firms. However, there are differences in how the firms consider the possibility of undetected misstatements when evaluating detected misstatements. The results of this study provide important insights into implementation of standards and valuable information for future research and education. Data Availability: The data used are proprietary to the firms and are not available for distribution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document