The Effects of Fraud Risk and Management Representation on Auditors' Hypothesis Generation

Hypothesis generation is considered to be critical to the effectiveness and efficiency of diagnostic processes in auditing. Using a between-subjects experimental design, this work examines the impact of fraud risk and the availability of a non-misstatement management explanation on auditors' hypothesis generation performance. The context is when managers undertake analytical procedures at the planning stage of the audit. The results indicate that auditors are sensitive to increased fraud risk by generating more fraud hypotheses, while the number of misstatement hypotheses generated is not affected by fraud risk. The availability of a non-misstatement management explanation was found not to interfere with auditors' hypothesis generation performance, but facilitated the generation of proportionately more misstatement and fraud hypotheses from the same transaction cycle as that indicated by the management explanation. Together, these findings provide some insights on the sensitivity of auditors' hypothesis generation to fraud risk and whether this sensitivity could be undermined by the availability of management representations.     

The influence of litigation risk and internal audit source on reliance decisions

External auditor reliance on the work of internal auditors in an integrated audit of the financial statements and internal control is an important audit planning procedure that can impact audit efficiency and effectiveness. The purpose of this study is to examine how perceived auditor litigation risk and internal audit source affect external auditors' reliance decisions in an integrated audit environment under varying levels of risk of material misstatement. In an experimental study using 89 practicing Big 4 auditors, this study finds that auditors who perceive low litigation risk from placing reliance on the work of internal auditors will rely more on outsourced internal auditors than in-house internal auditors. The results also show that auditors' reliance decisions are sensitive to the level of account risk consistent with the risk-based approach to the integrated audit encouraged by the PCAOB.     

The use of analytical procedures by external auditors in Canada

The Enron debacle and other scandals highlight the issue of whether analytical procedures (APs) or more traditional audit approaches based on substantive testing are more appropriate. This paper surveys the use of APs by Canadian external auditors and augments understanding of the impact of auditing standards on professional practice. Our results demonstrate that APs are extensively applied in practice, particularly by larger firms, and that their use dominates the final review stage of the audit regardless of firm size. While standards do not appear to be an important influence upon practice for audit firms in general, this is not the case for smaller firms. Though auditors place more reliance on APs to reduce tests of detail, there are limits to this reliance. Our results indicate that while auditors may have increased their use of APs with the expectation of efficiency gains, these may be realized at present only partially.     

Integrating business risk into auditor judgment about the risk of material misstatement: The influence of a strategic-systems-audit approach

Auditing standards direct auditors to consider business risk and other risk factors when they evaluate the overall risk of material misstatement during the planning phase of an audit. Large audit firms generally use either a strategic-systems approach (SSA) or a transaction-focused approach (TFA) to evaluate misstatement risk. This study used data from a laboratory experiment to examine whether (1) being trained to use either SSA or TFA and (2) analyzing information organized in an SSA or TFA format influence the extent to which auditors integrate knowledge of business risk into their judgment about the likelihood of financial misstatement. Only auditors trained to use SSA who analyzed information provided in an SSA format effectively integrated business risk assessments with their assessment of the risk of material misstatement.     

The effects of disclosure type and audit committee expertise on Chief Audit Executives’ tolerance for financial misstatements

This study involves an experiment where 73 Chief Audit Executives and deputy Chief Audit Executives determine the amount of adjustment required to correct a misstatement. We manipulate the financial reporting location of the misstatement (recognized vs. disclosed) and the level of audit committee expertise (high vs. low). The results indicate that financial reporting location has significant effects on internal auditors’ decisions to correct misstatements. Specifically, internal auditors are more willing to waive disclosed misstatements relative to recognized misstatements. Contrary to expectations, the results do not indicate that increased audit committee expertise and associated increases in audit committee members’ perceived powers cause internal auditors to be less willing to waive misstatements.     

How do auditors respond to low annual report readability?

We show that increased audit effort is associated with lower annual report readability to compensate for a perceived increase in the risk of financial misstatement for United States (US) firms. In particular, we find that lower annual report readability is associated with longer audit delays and higher audit fees for Form 10-K for US auditors, suggesting that auditors spend more effort auditing clients when annual reports have lower readability. We also find that low readability increases the likelihood of auditors using more explanatory language in unqualified audit reports.     

Section 45 of the Auditing Profession Act: Blowing the whistle for audit quality?

This study responds to the calls for more practically-orientated research which does not hesitate to open the ‘black box’ of audit practice. Using detailed interviews, the research provides insights into how a legislated duty for South African auditors to report certain irregularities to an independent regulator may be a means of improving audit quality and widening the scope of information made available to stakeholders. The legislation is not, however, without its limitations. Where the reporting requirement is applied in a legalistic fashion, or adhered to merely for the sake of professional appearance, notions of the auditor blow the whistle in the public interest may be more symbolic than pragmatic. This is relevant, not only for academics wanting to understand the functioning of the audit practice in the largely neglected African context. The reporting requirement, as an example of the interaction between audit practice and external regulation of the profession, has implications for policy makers when examining how arms-length regulation can be used as a means of enhancing the quality of audit engagements and relevance of audit reports.     

Auditor reporting and earnings management: some additional evidence

This paper investigates the reasons that lead to modification of auditors’ opinions. We revisit the conclusions of prior US‐based research on whether a modification highlights likely earnings management activities. Extending this research, we consider an alternate explanation that managers adjust accruals to report earnings that better predict future firm performance, which has the side‐effect of placing them in conflict with their auditors. Our study sample comprises all firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange over the period 1999–2003. Consistent with prior research, there is no evidence of earnings management leading to an audit opinion modification. However, we do show that firms receiving inherent uncertainty modifications (other than going concern) have greater persistence of earnings (accruals) relative to other firms. This is consistent with the proposition that managers have made policy choices in reporting current earnings, with which their auditors disagree, that will likely result in a greater ability to forecast the firm's future earnings.     

Impact of the timing of receipt of an inherited explanation on auditors' analytical procedures judgements

The present study extends prior research relating to auditors’ analytical procedures (AP) processes in two ways. First, it examines whether the timing of receipt of an inherited explanation (before or after self‐generating explanations) affects auditors’ hypothesis generation. Second, responding to calls to address how the auditors’ performance of the earlier stages of the AP process affects their performance in later stages of that process ( Koonce, 1993 ; Cohen, Krishnamoorthy and Wright, 2000 ) the present study concurrently addresses the hypothesis generation, information search, hypothesis evaluation and final judgement stages of the AP process. Consistent with a facilitation effect, more non‐error explanations were generated by auditors initially inheriting a non‐error explanation. Further, consistent with a recency effect, the initial likelihood assessed for the inherited explanation was higher when it was received after self‐generation of alternatives. Despite these initial differences, the timing of the inherited explanation did not significantly affect the auditors’ information search, evaluation processes or outcome performance (in terms of cause selection). Results relating to the receipt of an inherited explanation were similar, except that significantly fewer subjects not inheriting an explanation selected a cause the same as the inherited explanation. These results suggest that although inheriting an explanation from management does affect the outcome of the AP process, it does not lead to fewer correct outcomes, and highlight the importance of examining the AP process in its entirety rather than in a piecemeal manner.     

Audit Fees, Non-Audit Fees and Auditor Going-Concern Reporting Decisions in the United Kingdom

The accounting profession has come under increased scrutiny over recent years about the growing number of non-audit fees received from audit clients and the possible negative impact of such fees on auditor independence. The argument advanced is that providing substantial amounts of non-audit services to clients may make it more likely that auditors concede to the wishes of the client management when difficult judgments are made. Such concerns are particularly salient in the case of reporting decisions related to going-concern uncertainties for financially stressed clients.
 This study empirically examines audit reports provided to financially stressed companies in the United Kingdom and the magnitude of audit and non-audit service fees paid to the company's auditors. We find that the magnitude of both audit fees and non-audit fees are significantly associated with the issuance of a going-concern modified audit opinion. In particular, financially stressed companies with high audit fees are more likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion, whereas companies with high non-audit fees are less likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion. Additional analyses indicate that the results are generally robust across alternative model and variable specifications. Overall, evidence supports the contention that high non-audit fees have a detrimental effect on going-concern reporting judgments for financially stressed U.K. companies.     

The effect of benchmarked performance measures and strategic analysis on auditors’ risk assessments and mental models

As the audit environment becomes more demanding and complex, so does the set of analytical tools available to an auditor. The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of two complex audit technologies commonly used by auditors, benchmarking of performance measures and strategic analysis, on the risk judgments of auditors carrying out the initial planning of an audit. We conduct an experiment that utilizes a Balanced Scorecard for organizing and evaluating analytical evidence about the performance of business units within a large client. Our first principal finding is that external benchmarking can cause an auditor to focus on performance measures that are unique to a business unit and disregard performance measures that are common to multiple business units but not benchmarked. However, our second finding is that an in-depth strategic analysis completed prior to assessing a client’s business risk or risk of material misstatement allows an auditor to incorporate more information from performance measures in risk assessments regardless of whether the performance measures are benchmarked. Strategic analysis facilitates a more balanced and accurate assessment of the risks across the business units being evaluated. We also provide evidence that the latter result occurs because in-depth strategic analysis allows auditors to develop a more complete mental model of a client, which has been a long time belief of advocates of business risk audit methodologies and consistent with current and emerging auditing standards on risk assessment.     

Using machine learning to predict auditor switches: How the likelihood of switching affects audit quality among non-switching clients

In this paper, we utilize machine learning techniques to identify the likelihood that a company switches auditors and examine whether increased likelihood of switching is associated with audit quality. Building on research that finds a deterioration in audit quality associated with clients that engage in audit opinion shopping, we predict and find lower audit quality among companies that are more likely to switch auditors but remain with their incumbent auditor. Specifically, we find that companies more likely to switch auditors have a higher likelihood of misstatement and larger abnormal accruals. These results are consistent with auditors sacrificing audit quality to retain clients that might otherwise switch. Our findings are especially concerning because there is no public signal of this behavior, such as an auditor switch. Our methodology is designed such that it could be implemented by investors, audit firms and regulators to identify companies with a higher probability of switching auditors and preemptively address the deterioration in audit quality.     

A meta-analysis of factors affecting acceptance of information technology in auditing

Technology advancements provide opportunities for auditors to use new tools in the audit process. This study presents a synthesis of technology-related auditing research to identify factors affecting the use of technology in auditing. We analyze 88 studies in identifying 21 factors relevant to technology acceptance in auditing based on country of origin (developed or developing), user type (external or internal), type of technology (traditional or advanced), firm size (Big 4 or non-Big 4), and publication time (before and after 2013). Our results show that the most important factors in accepting technology from an individual perspective are facilitator conditions, perceived usefulness, and understanding of ease of use. Technology acceptance factors relevant to an organizational perspective are cost-benefit technology, competitive pressure, company readiness, and matching technology-task. Results suggest that perceived usefulness and subjective norm are more important in developed countries and Big 4 audit firms, while auditors in developing countries and non-Big 4 audit firms are more influenced by perceived ease of use, facilitating conditions, and organizational factors. Adopting traditional technologies is also more influenced by understanding the ease of use, subjective norms, and top management support than advanced technologies. This study contributes to the literature by assessing technology acceptance factors in auditing and thus provides policy, practice, and research implications.     

An Investigation of Framing and Firm Size on the Auditor's Going Concern Decision

This study investigated the effects of framed information and firm size on the auditor's going concern report modification decision. Framing has been shown to affect individual decision-making in a variety of contexts. Investigations of framing effects in an audit context have reported mixed results. The findings of this study indicate that auditors are susceptible to the effect of framed information. Previous research has reported that auditors from small firms may be less conservative in audit disclosure recommendations than auditors associated with larger firms. This study evaluated the going concern decisions of auditors from three firm sizes: local/regional, a large non-Big Six firm, and a Big Six audit firm. Results indicate that differences in the report issued do exist across firm size. Possible explanations for the reported results are discussed.     

Accountability Demands and the Auditor's Evidence Search Strategy: The Influence of Reviewer Preferences and the Nature of the Response (Belief vs. Action)

This study examines differences in auditors' search behaviors associated with the preferences of audit management (reviewer preferences) and the nature of the required response (belief versus action) in the context of an accounts receivable collectibility review. I find that auditors facing reviewers who expressed concern about auditors spending time specifically looking for evidence inconsistent with explanations provided by the client (credence preference) examined fewer evidence items and followed a more client-prompted search (i.e., a search for evidence that follows directly from the client's explanation) than those facing reviewers who expressed concern about auditors' ready acceptance of client explanations without adequate justification (skepticism preference) and those facing reviewers who expressed no specific concern (unknown preference). Further, auditors in the action conditions examined fewer evidence items and spent less time per evidence item than those in the judgment conditions. Additional analyses also indicate that auditors who were held accountable to a reviewer with an unknown preference generally responded as if the reviewer maintained a skepticism preference.     

The influence of judges' attitudes on liability assessments related to failed audits exhibiting significant audit team over-time or significant use of off-shore auditors

This study provides evidence on how audit firms' decisions to use offshore (outsourced) auditors or to assign on-site (local) auditors extensive overtime affect judges' evaluation of auditor legal liability I conduct a behavioral experiment in which actual judges responded to a hypothetical audit lawsuit. The results suggest auditors may be penalized during the litigation process depending on the extent of overtime or off-shoring and judges' attitude toward the public accounting profession. Judges with a positive attitude toward public accounting assessed more liability for an audit firm that used offshore (outsourced) auditors than for the use of extensive overtime for on-site auditors or a control condition. However, judges with a negative attitude toward the auditing profession assessed higher liability for auditors except when on-site auditors bore significant overtime in the final weeks of the audit.     

The Simultaneous Relation Between Auditor Switching and Audit Opinion: An Empirical Analysis

Previous studies examining the relation between the audit opinion and auditor switching assume a one-way causation, with the issuance of a qualified opinion triggering a switch. However, analytical studies dealing with auditor independence issues (e.g., Magee and Tseng, 1990; Dye, 1991; Teoh, 1992) suggest an opposite causation, in which the auditor is less likely to qualify the opinion for a client who may switch auditors. Some evidence of an opposite causation is provided by Krishnan (1994), who finds that auditors treat switchers more conservatively (relative to non-switchers) in issuing the audit opinion. The causation between switching and the audit opinion is clearly important for policy decisions regarding both opinion shopping and auditor independence. In this paper, we test the two-way causation hypothesis and find evidence in support of a two-way causation. Our simultaneity-adjusted estimates confirm previous findings of a positive effect of a qualified opinion on switching (Chow and Rice, 1982; Craswell, 1988; Citron and Taffler, 1992). However, we find in addition that auditors are more likely to issue qualified opinions to switchers. This finding does not support the analytical studies cited earlier.     

Do auditors’ early-life socioeconomic opportunities improve audit quality? Evidence from China

Prior research documents significant variation in audit outcomes based on individual auditors' demographic features, working experience, educational background, and social connections. This study examines whether individual auditors' early-life socioeconomic opportunities also affect audit practices. We expect that auditors from big cities have more access to socioeconomic opportunities and accumulate more human capital in early life, thus are more capable of providing high-quality audits after they start careers. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that auditors from big cities make more audit adjustments to earnings compared with auditors from small towns. Additional tests suggest that this early-life effect on audit quality is moderated when auditors receive higher education or gain more auditing experience and is more pronounced in downward adjustments than in upward adjustments. We also find a fee premium for auditors from big cities. Overall, this paper provides evidence that auditors’ early-life socioeconomic opportunities have a far-reaching influence on audit quality.