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.

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.

Are Fraud Specialists Relatively More Effective than Auditors at Modifying Audit Programs in the Presence of Fraud Risk?

2014 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 881-915 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Efrim Boritz ◽  
Natalia Kochetova-Kozloski ◽  
Linda Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Time Budget ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Standard Procedures ◽  
Revenue Cycle ◽  
Audit Program ◽  
Budget Increase

ABSTRACT Previous studies indicate that auditors are able to identify fraud risk factors, but may not be able to translate this knowledge into an audit plan that effectively takes these factors into account to increase the likelihood of detecting fraud. Fraud specialists may be able to compensate for such limitations. This study investigates the relative merits of involving fraud specialists in assisting auditors by developing an audit plan that would effectively address fraud risk in a revenue cycle. Results show that fraud specialists did not differ from auditors in the number of procedures selected from a standard audit program; nor were these procedures cumulatively more effective than those selected by auditors. Fraud specialists generated a greater number of non-standard additional audit procedures, and those procedures were marginally more effective, but less efficient, than those of auditors, except for certain groups of procedures. Finally, although the fraud specialists proposed significantly more additional (non-standard) procedures than auditors, their proposed budget increase for this category of procedures was significantly smaller than the budget increase proposed by auditors. Adjustments to the overall time budget did not differ between fraud specialists and auditors. Data Availability: Data are available from the authors upon request.

Fraud Risk Assessment Using the Fraud Risk Model as a Decision Aid

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore J. Mock ◽  
Rajendra P. Srivastava ◽  
Arnold M. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Risk Model ◽  
Program Planning ◽  
Fraud Detection ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Fraud Triangle ◽  
Audit Risk ◽  
Risk Decomposition ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Planning Decisions ◽  
Risk Condition

ABSTRACT This study investigates the efficacy of using a technology based on an elaboration of the traditional fraud risk model to assess the risk of fraud and subsequently plan the audit. The fraud risk model used is based on Srivastava, Mock, and Turner (2007, 2009) and explicitly assesses the presence of fraud triangle factors and the need for forensic tests to aid in the assessment of fraud detection risk and audit planning. Previous studies that examine fraud risk decomposition simply advise subjects to assess fraud risks separately without an analytical model. We examine the effectiveness of the approach using an experiment involving 76 experienced auditors where specific fraud risks are present or absent. As expected, the results indicate that the model significantly enhances auditors' sensitivity to differences in the level of fraud risks. That is, the auditors using the fraud risk model appropriately assessed low fraud risk as low and high fraud risk as high, whereas the auditors using the traditional Audit Risk Model approach assessed fraud risk at essentially the same level under either risk condition. The experiment also investigates effects on audit program planning decisions. Contrary to expectations but consistent with prior research, the risk decomposition technology tested did not result in auditors providing more effective fraud detection procedures. In all, the results suggest that although the tested risk decomposition technology can enhance risk assessments and recognition of the need for additional forensic tests, auditors continue to have difficulties in responding to fraud risks, perhaps because they lack the requisite fraud experience and training. Data Availability: Copies of the instruments are available from the first author.

A Review and Model of Auditor Judgments in Fraud-Related Planning Tasks

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline S. Hammersley
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Hypothesis Generation ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Direct Experience ◽  
Problem Solving Skills ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Epistemic Motivation ◽  
Auditor Judgments ◽  
Audit Program

SUMMARY In this paper, I develop a model that describes auditor and fraud risk factor characteristics that I expect to affect auditor performance in fraud-related planning tasks (i.e., fraud hypothesis generation, risk assessment, and audit program modification). I expect that auditor knowledge, especially fraud knowledge, will significantly affect auditor performance in audit program modification tasks through its effects on fraud risk factor identification and hypothesis generation. Further, due to fraud's rarity, I expect that this knowledge is acquired primarily through indirect experience such as training rather than from direct experience and is enhanced when auditors have better problem solving skills and higher epistemic motivation. This is a significant departure from knowledge acquisition in other audit settings, and there is currently no evidence in the literature examining these relationships. I also propose that the diagnosticity of fraud risk factors and, specifically, the degree to which they support generation of specific testable fraud hypotheses affect auditors' ability to plan effective changes to audit programs. Finally, I review and summarize the extant fraud-related, audit planning literature and identify opportunities for future research. JEL Classifications: M40; M41; M42.

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.

Financial Statement Fraud: Insights from the Academic Literature

2008 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris E. Hogan ◽  
Zabihollah Rezaee ◽  
Richard A. Riley ◽  
Uma K. Velury
Keyword(s):  
Academic Research ◽  
Financial Statement ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Fraud Triangle ◽  
Financial Statement Fraud ◽  
Audit Planning ◽  
Fraud Risk ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Risk Areas

SUMMARY: We summarize relevant academic research findings to contribute to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) project on financial statement fraud and to offer insights and conclusions relevant to academics, standard setters, and practitioners. We discuss the characteristics of firms committing financial statement fraud, as identified in the literature, and research related to the fraud triangle. We then discuss research related to the procedures and abilities of auditors to detect fraud, and how fraud risk assessments impact audit planning and testing. In addition, we discuss several “high risk” areas and other issues as identified by the PCAOB. Finally, we summarize prior findings and offer conclusions and suggestions for areas where future research is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document