scholarly journals A Vetting Protocol for the Analytical Procedures Platform for the AP-Phase of PCAOB Audits

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Mohamed Gaber ◽  
Edward J. Lusk
Keyword(s):  
Moving Average ◽  
False Negative ◽  
Pilot Test ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Moving Average Models ◽  
Test Platform ◽  
Analytical Procedures ◽  
Study Context ◽  
Directional Difference

Study Context AS5[2017], issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, requires the use of Analytical Procedures [AP] at the Planning and Substantive Phases of Assurance Audits of firms traded on active exchanges. Logically, an aspect of this requirement is satisfied by using a Panel of the Client’s data at the Planning Phase to forecast the Client’s YE-closing values and then at the Substantive Phase to dispose the directional difference between the: [Actual Client’s YE-value and the AP-Forecasted YE-value]—the Disposition Phase. Research Focus To date, neither the PCAOB nor the AICPA have suggested a pilot-test paradigm to vet the AP-forecasting Protocol under consideration. To address this lacuna, we detail an AP: Decision Support System [AP:DSS] that offers to the Audit InCharge a two-stage pre-analysis AP-vetting [Pilot-Test] platform that employs False Negative [FN] and False Positive [FP] Profilers. In inferential analyses, the FP-Risk is usually benchmarked using the FN-Risk. Deliverables A comprehensive AP-vetting model is offered and illustrated using: (i) a preliminary estimator of a reasonable sample size, (ii) two Standard Forecasting Models: The Excel versions of the OLS Linear Two-parameter and the Moving Average Models, and (iii) a Benchmarking protocol. Unique in this AP:DSS vetting protocol is that the FP-risk is contexted by the FN-risk from the independent benchmark domain. This duality enhances the inferential impact of the vetting protocol as it uses separate variable sets. The AP:DSS is available at no cost as an e-Download.  

FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES IN THE AUDIT OF AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.A. Udalov ◽  
◽  
Z.V. Udalova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
The Public ◽  
Foreign Experience ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Agricultural Organizations ◽  
Analytical Procedures

The article provides an example of foreign experience in the use of analytical procedures in the audit of agricultural organizations. The definitions of analytical procedures of companies such as the. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), RSM Global, Lutz Accounting and the Association of Financial Professionals (AFP) are examined. In addition, the work provides examples of analytical procedures for the audit of agricultural organizations used by these organizations

Using The Fully Modified M Method In Estimating The Effect Of Cultivated Area On Barley Production In Iraq For The Period 1970-2018

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (66) ◽  
pp. 101-110
Author(s):  
. Azhar Kadhim Jbarah ◽  
Prof Dr. Ahmed Shaker Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Regression Model ◽  
Moving Average ◽  
Estimation Method ◽  
Estimation Methods ◽  
Autoregressive Moving Average ◽  
Moving Average Models ◽  
Error Terms ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Barley Crop

The research is concerned with estimating the effect of the cultivated area of barley crop on the production of that crop by estimating the regression model representing the relationship of these two variables. The results of the tests indicated that the time series of the response variable values is stationary and the series of values of the explanatory variable were nonstationary and that they were integrated of order one ( I(1) ), these tests also indicate that the random error terms are auto correlated and can be modeled according to the mixed autoregressive-moving average models ARMA(p,q), for these results we cannot use the classical estimation method to estimate our regression model, therefore, a fully modified M method was adopted, which is a robust estimation methods, The estimated results indicate a positive significant relation between the production of barley crop and cultivated area.

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.

The Development of Auditing Standards at the PCAOB and Related Audit Practitioner Input

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Tyler Williams ◽  
W. Mark Wilder
Keyword(s):  
Standard Setting ◽  
The Public ◽  
Setting Process ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Auditing Standards ◽  
Audit Standard ◽  
Comment Letters ◽  
Feedback Responses

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB; Board) maintains that constituent feedback plays an essential and dynamic role in its audit standard-setting process. We examine a major source of constituent feedback, responses to standard-setting questions, using a sample drawn from the original proposals of fourteen PCAOB auditing standards. We find that after receiving comment letter feedback to the standard-setting questions, the Board revises approximately half of its guidance tied to those questions before it finalizes auditing standards-a finding consistent with the Board's assertion that it carefully considers constituent perspectives as it develops new regulation. We also explore the related comment letters of eight professional auditing firms subject to the PCAOB's annual inspection program and discover varying levels of opposition to and support for the PCAOB's proposed authoritative guidance. We observe PCAOB revision to authoritative guidance highly contested by the firms in more than three-fourths of cases of standard-setting questions and PCAOB non-revision to guidance highly supported by the firms in more than ninety percent of cases.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document