An analysis of attributes that impact information technology audit quality: A study of IT and financial audit practitioners

The importance of information technology (IT) auditing has grown with increased reliance on IT for business operations and new regulations regarding the assurance of IT for these operations. Prior work on IT and financial auditing has suggested several general frameworks that may affect IT audit quality; however, the prior work has not provided measurable constructs nor has it considered whether these proposed constructs are the same or different. Building on prior work that has proposed frameworks of IT audit quality, we identify and evaluate potential constructs suggested by these frameworks as well as financial auditing literature. We develop a survey tool and ask IT and financial accounting practitioners to assess the impact of these items on IT audit quality. A factor analysis is used to refine the set of IT audit quality factors identified, and we are able to provide insight into the prioritized impact of each factor on IT audit quality. In comparison to prior research, we find that additional factors are significant for IT audit quality and that the relative importance of the factors for IT audit quality differs for IT versus financial auditors.     

Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections

This study investigates the degree of concordance between fifteen measures of audit quality used in academia and two measures of audit process quality determined either by audit firms’ internal inspections or by Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspections of individual engagements. Using two confidential datasets of these assessments of audit process quality, I find that three of the measures of audit quality used by academics have significant associations with both measures of audit process deficiencies used by auditors and regulators: (i) the propensity to restate financial statements, (ii) the propensity to meet or beat the zero earnings threshold, and (iii) audit fees. Seven academic proxies are significantly associated with only one audit process quality measure, and five have insignificant associations with both practitioner assessments. Overall, the significant associations indicate that practitioners and academics share common ground in identifying low-quality audits. These findings can provide guidance for future studies in selecting audit-quality proxies suitable for different research questions.     

Audit Committee Effectiveness and Financial Reporting Quality: Implications for Auditor Independence

Auditors participating in a survey identified oversight of financial reporting and the external audit process, and ensuring quality internal controls, as the most important functions of effective audit committees. Financial literacy or expertise, independence, and a strong commitment to perform the job effectively were noted as important attributes. The results also suggest that although audit committees have enough power to confront management on contentious issues, they are not very effective in helping to resolve financial reporting disputes. Management was identified as a key influence in affecting the nature, extent, and quality of communication between the auditor and the audit committee. Most auditors believe that it is not important for each member of the audit committee to be an expert, but it is important that they are financially literate.     

An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions

We address the following overarching questions: What kind of accountability framework could regulators use to (a) motivate auditors to improve audit quality, and (b) evaluate how well auditors have carried out their duties? We draw on research in accounting, economics, psychology, and neuroscience to critique the accountabilities, incentives, and learning opportunities embedded in auditors’ extant regulatory environment. We first establish that forward-looking estimates are the basis for most financial statement information and that some of these estimates are highly uncertain, which increases the challenges faced by auditors. We propose an accountability framework with two dimensions: rewards versus penalties and processes versus outcomes. We show that auditors’ current regulatory accountabilities generally are in the form of penalties rather than rewards and primarily depend on audit outcomes rather than attributes of auditors’ judgment processes. We provide evidence from a range of disciplines that questions the suitability of the present system for improving the quality of auditors’ judgments and the quality of evaluations of those judgments made by inspectors. We identify four potential changes for improvement in audit quality based on our framework. Each of these identified changes has an impact on one or both of the two dimensions in our framework. For each of these changes, we outline JDM research questions that could be addressed to inform our overarching questions and to provide empirical evidence to help refine our accountability framework and improve audit quality.     

The case for process mining in auditing: Sources of value added and areas of application

Process mining aims to extract knowledge from the event logs maintained by a company's ERP system. The objective of this paper is to make the case for why internal and external auditors should leverage the capabilities process mining offers to rethink how auditing is carried out. We do so by identifying the sources of value added of process mining when applied to auditing, which are as follows: 1. process mining analyzes the entire population of data and not just a sample; 2. critically that data consists of meta-data—data entered independently of the actions of auditee—and not just data entered by the auditee; 3. process mining allows the auditor to have a more effective way of implementing the audit risk model by providing effective ways of conducting the required walkthroughs of processes and conducting analytic procedures; 4. process mining allows the auditor to conduct analyses not possible with existing audit tools, such as discovering the ways in which business processes are actually being carried out in practice, and to identify social relationships between individuals. It is our argument that these sources of value have not been fully understood in the process mining literature, which has focused on developing it as a statistical methodology rather than on applying it to audit practice. Only when auditors and audit researchers appreciate what is new and unique about process mining will its acceptance in auditing practice become feasible.     

央行财务审计工作的困惑与对策

中国人民银行自2000年成立内部审计部门以来,财务审计就成为内审部门的一项重要业务。近年来,随着财务工作的发展和变化,财务审计在审计工作中的地位越来越重要,财务审计的内容也越来越广泛。本文结合人民银行财务管理和财务审计工作开展的现状,对影响人民银行财务审计质量的问题进行了详细、深入剖析,并提出了提高财务审计质量的措施和建议。     

Subjective adjustments to objective performance measures: The influence of prior performance

This field study examines whether and how supervisors’ subjective adjustments to objective performance measures are influenced by their prior subjective evaluations of employees. Evaluations were determined entirely subjectively in the sample internal audit organization in 2005. In 2006, the organization introduced a pay-for-performance incentive plan that established four objective measures of audit manager performance. Then, knowing the challenges of objectively measuring manager performance, the organization gave supervisors the discretion, mandate, and training to subjectively adjust each of the objective measures when performance as indicated on the individual measures misrepresented managers’ true performance.     

Diversification by the audit offices in the US and its impact on audit quality

Audit offices in the US exhibit a wide variation in the number of industries they service. Strategic management theory suggests that diversification can affect the quality of output, depending on the nature and circumstances of diversification. This paper examines the effect of diversification at the audit office level on audit quality. Five proxies of audit quality are examined, mainly, absolute discretionary accruals, propensity to meet-or-beat earnings expectations by a cent, propensity to restate financial statements, propensity to receive a comment letter after an SEC review and propensity to issue a going concern opinion. Results suggest that diversification has detrimental effects on audit quality. On the other hand, when the diversification is part of the audit firm level strategy, the detrimental effects on audit quality are dampened. Moreover, when the diversification at the office level is part of a revenue expansion strategy, the audit quality is adversely affected. However, there is no detrimental effect on the audit quality when revenue expansion is not the objective. Also, diversification across dissimilar industries leads to more adverse effect on audit quality than diversification to similar industries. Results also suggest that when the audit office is located in a market with more (less) diversified client base, the adverse effects of diversification on audit quality are weaker (stronger). Finally, the offices of big-4 audit firms handle diversification better with less adverse effect on audit quality. The findings are important since they identify additional factors that explain audit quality at the audit office level.     

Effect of audit report disclosure on auditor litigation risk

Internationally, the escalating number of cases levelled against auditors and the costs of defending such actions has led to the auditing profession calling for measures to reduce their liability burden. Relatively few measures have been taken by the auditing profession by way of adapting the disclosure contained in the audit report to mitigate their litigation risk. This study examines whether the issuance of an audit opinion with a going concern related ‘emphasis of matter’ paragraph or work practices disclosure has any effect on potential litigants' likelihood of pursuing litigation against the auditor. An analysis of 69 responses from advanced law students and 18 practitioners working in corporate liquidation demonstrate that a modified (but not qualified) audit report effectively acts as a ‘red flag’ and reduces potential litigants' propensity to initiate litigation. However, work practices disclosure did not significantly alter potential litigants' inclination to recommend litigation. Despite this finding, respondents (particularly liquidators) indicated that work practices disclosure was an important factor in their litigation decision. These results suggest that further investigation into how to effectively disclose the work done on audit and assurance engagements is needed. This has implications for standard setters and the auditing profession, especially considering recent changes in the disclosure contained in audit and assurance reports.     

Joint Audit: Issues and Challenges for Researchers and Policy-Makers

Abstract

The publication of the European Commission Green Paper, ‘Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis’ in October 2010, has stirred up a lively debate on the role of joint audits. This literature review identifies and evaluates, for the benefit of future research and regulators, existing evidence about joint audits. We find limited empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to increased audit quality, but some empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to additional costs. Overall, this paper indicates that joint audit should be seen as a mechanism that is embedded in a broader institutional context and not be considered in isolation from other factors that might impact the audit market. The results indicate that various country-level characteristics are simultaneously at play. While joint audits can potentially enhance the audit market competition by allowing smaller audit firms to maintain larger market shares, the related impact on audit quality has not yet been clearly demonstrated and thus provides a promising avenue for future research.     

SMPs’ Strategic Responses to Conflicting Normative,Material and Client Constraints

The objective of this study is to understand how small and medium audit practices (SMPs) deal with the obligation to conform to evolving norms, given their limited resources and the fact that they serve a client base of mainly small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). Semi‐structured interviews held with 36 respondents working in 33 SMPs revealed that the main response of some SMPs’ to conflicting normative, material and client constraints was to eliminate the normative constraints by exiting the field to which the constraints pertained. When this was impossible, they resorted to less radical strategies. All strategies eventually led to adverse effects, including loss of expertise by some firms and practitioners, a condition that exacerbates the fragmentation within the accounting profession. Disenchanted by an increasingly demanding normative environment, the majority of respondents dealt with their disillusionment by mechanically applying the updates, a process that can lead to lower audit quality. Although the accounting profession was attempting to overcome a confidence crisis by issuing the updates, it ended up ignoring its less visible members and thus triggered upheavals with potentially irreversible consequences. In addition, banks may have been involved in narrowing the audit market for SMPs.     

大数据技术在国家重大政策措施落实情况跟踪审计中的应用研究

大数据技术在国家重大政策措施落实情况跟踪审计中的应用研究是近年来审计领域的热点问题。传统的国家重大政策措施落实情况跟踪审计方法对于数据的挖掘和使用存在一定的局限性不能做到全面和深入,因此存在审计发现的问题仅限于表面,无法发现更深层次问题的情况。本文基于Python的文本关键字提取、文本相似度计算和企业依存度计算,审计数据标准化常见问题及处理方法,Neo4j图数据库的审计应用,企业名称模糊匹配技术,特征工程技术方法及应用等,将这些大数据技术与国家重大政策措施落实情况跟踪审计相结合,找到大数据技术的着力点,分析了重大政策跟踪大数据审计理论实际应用,指出存在的问题,提出了改进措施。研究结果为在大数据环境下开展国家重大政策措施落实情况跟踪审计提供了理论依据以及技术手段。     

The impact of audit committee quality on financial reporting quality and audit fees

This study examines the association between the quality of audit committees on financial reporting quality and external audit fees in an environment where the formation of audit committees was unregulated. The study uses a sample of 87 New Zealand firms in 2001 when no regulations or listing rules existed for audit committees. The results show no significant association between the quality of an audit committee and the quality of financial reporting. These results are robust to alternative measures of earnings quality. Similarly, the quality of audit committees has little impact on the level of fees paid to external auditors. The results suggest that the benefits of ‘best practice’ audit committees may be less than anticipated by regulators and policymakers.     

Auditor specialization, perceived audit quality, and audit fees in the local government audit market

Prior governmental research implies a positive relation between auditor specialization and audit quality, but the effect of specialization on audit fees is mixed. However, no single governmental study investigates the effect of auditor specialization on both audit quality and audit fees. Also, prior studies focus on either large- or small audit firms and often employ indirect proxies for audit quality. We study the effects of auditor specialization on perceived audit quality and audit fees. Our data represent both Big 5 and smaller audit firms and include three market-based measures of specialization. We survey 241 Florida local government finance directors and find that specialization is positively associated with perceived audit quality but not with audit fees. We also find that Big 5 auditors, often used as a proxy for higher audit quality in prior research, are not uniformly associated with increased perceived audit quality but consistently charge higher audit fees. Our results confirm a relation between measures of audit firm specialization and audit quality and raise questions regarding audit firm size and audit quality in the municipal sector. Our findings suggest that engaging specialized auditors may be good policy for many local governments.     

Income smoothing and audit fees

In this study, we examine the effect of income smoothing on auditors' pricing decisions. Analyzing a sample of 12,823 firm-year observations from U.S. companies in non-regulated industries for the period 2000–2018, we find that income smoothing is negatively associated with audit fees, suggesting that auditors favorably view smoothed earnings. This result holds when we control for other variables that have been identified as determinants of audit fees in prior literature, including client-specific (e.g., client size, audit complexity, litigation risk, and corporate governance), auditor-specific (e.g., auditor quality, auditor tenure, and auditor expertise), and engagement-specific (e.g., audit opinion, busy season, reporting lag) factors. Our results also hold across (1) alternative smoothing measures (with and without considering the use of accruals to smooth earnings), (2) different sources of income smoothness (innate vs. discretionary components) and (3) various robustness tests. Overall, our evidence supports the notion that auditors perceive income smoothing as signaling rather than opportunistic behavior, and thus charge lower audit fees. To our knowledge, this is the first study that examines income smoothing directly from the perspective of auditors.     

Costs and Returns on Graduates of the University of Bradford

Global repercussions of the Enron scandal and particularly the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) in the USA, resulted in significant changes in the UK regulatory regime for audit and corporate governance, including an increased role for audit committees and independent inspection of audit firms. UK-listed company chief financial officers, audit committee chairs (ACCs) and audit partners were surveyed in 2007 to obtain views on the impact of 36 economic and regulatory factors on audit quality post-SOX. Four hundred and ninety-eight usable responses were received, representing a response rate of 36%. All groups rated various audit committee interactions with auditors among the factors most enhancing audit quality. However, International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and the audit inspection regime, aspects of the ‘standards-surveillance-compliance’ regulatory system, are viewed as less effective. Exploratory factor analysis reduces the 36 factors to nine independent dimensions: economic risk; audit committee activities; risk of regulatory action; audit firm ethics; economic independence of auditor; audit partner rotation; risk of client loss; audit firm size and, lastly, ISAs and audit inspection. Post-SOX regulations have introduced additional dimensions to the factors influencing audit quality. Respondents commented that aspects of the changed regime are largely process and compliance driven, with high costs for limited benefits, a finding consistent with regulatory over-reaction.     

Closing the Loop: Review Process Factors Affecting Audit Staff Follow‐Through

The PCAOB recently expressed concern regarding the sufficiency and effectiveness of review and supervision of audit fieldwork. For the audit review process to succeed as a quality control mechanism, any issues or questions identified by a reviewer must be adequately resolved and documented in the workpapers. If audit review fails to correct for errors/biases in the work of reviewees, there can be serious detrimental effects on audit quality and, in turn, financial statement quality. Our study extends the literature by examining the phase of the review process in which reviewees respond to (or “close”) notes/comments provided by their reviewers. Utilizing an experiment, we find that certain contextual factors (review timeliness and review note frame) influence reviewee follow‐through during this critical phase. Specifically, we find that a delayed review elicits significantly lower effort levels than a timely review. Review note frame (i.e., how the reviewer phrases the rationale given for the underlying directive of a review note) significantly affects reviewee effort and performance when the review is timely. Through mediation analyses, we explore the mediating effect of effort on performance. In addition, we find that reviewer delay leads to greater over‐documentation.     

A content analysis of CPA firms’ correspondence following PCAOB inspections: 2004–2010

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has conducted well over 1000 inspections of public accounting firms since 2004, the year their inspections began. The PCAOB inspections are mandated by the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and are designed to promote high professional audit standards and improve the audit quality of registered public accounting firms (U.S. House, 2002). Since then, a growing body of research has emerged focusing on the process, results, and decision implications of the inspections. Most of the research to date has focused on determining the impact of the inspection regimen from the perspective of regulators, clients, or markets, but there has been very little research focused on the effect of inspections on the accounting firms themselves.We evaluate the letters provided by triennial audit firms (100 or fewer issuer clients) to the PCAOB in response to their inspections. The response letters provide insight into what the firms themselves think about the value of the inspection and the results of the inspections. Our study and its findings are particularly timely in light of the PCAOB Chairman James Doty’s recent speech (Doty, 2011) in which he claimed that deficiencies were concrete instances of audit failure, and sharply criticized the responses of many audit firms who received inspection deficiency reports, most of whom maintain that their deficiency finding resulted from either differences in professional judgment or inadequate documentation, or both (but not audit deficiencies).We find that a majority of firms writing response letters (1) state they support the PCAOB’s objective of improving audit quality and (2) believe the inspection process will lead to higher audit quality. However, a substantial majority of firms that had an audit engagement deficiency disagreed with the PCAOB’s evaluation, citing differences in professional judgment and/or documentation issues. Our findings do not support but run counter to the PCAOB Chairman’s criticisms and insistence that inspection deficiencies are not attributable to professional judgment differences.     

Audit Partners’ Role in Material Misstatement Resolution: Survey and Interview Evidence

Auditors are expected to identify and resolve material misstatements (MMs) in management's financial statements. However, beyond the audit opinion, the audit process is opaque. To address this, we independently survey 462 audit partners and interview 24 audit partners, CFOs, and audit committee members on how partners assess and address MM risk, resolve MMs, and the consequences of MMs. Partners identify MMs in approximately 9% (15%) of public (private) engagements and use qualitative factors to waive apparent MMs. Loan covenant and going-concern issues increase MM risk more than earnings benchmark issues. Partners point to a variety of both auditor and client factors as threats to audit effectiveness. Partners often rely on rapport with management and involve the national office and audit committee in resolving MMs. Partner incentives around restatements are context specific. Our results provide new insights into the auditor's role in financial reporting that are relevant to academics, practitioners, and regulators.     

Internal information technology audit process quality: Theory development using structured group processes

A theoretical framework of the internal information technology audit (ITA) process is developed by collecting data from multiple sources using structured group processes. A series of nominal group processes involving information technology auditors, ITA managers, and financial auditors from three different internal audit organizations was performed to generate source data. This data was then coded and analyzed using a constant comparison approach to identify the codes, indicators, concepts, and relationships included in the theory. The results reveal 26 concepts organized into six categories: Audit Organization, Client Organization, Enterprise Environment, Process and Methodology, Target Process or System, and Audit Personnel. Based on the data and the concepts identified ten propositions are suggested. The results are then compared with prior research.