Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits

This study investigates the extent to which auditors’ ratings of self-perceived abilities correspond with their actual performance, and whether these perceptions are influenced by audit experience and effectiveness when conducting audits within their domain of specialization. One hundred forty-four (144) industry-specialized audit seniors and managers reviewed two sets of audit working paper cases, one in banking and one in healthcare. At the end of the review, the auditors rated their ability to perform an audit in their domain. The analysis of these ratings shows that auditors significantly inflated their perceived abilities relative to actual performance. The results indicate that differences in auditor rank are insignificant in terms of this propensity to overestimate self-perceived abilities relative to actual performance; however, above median effective auditors are far less overconfident than below median effective auditors. These results have implications for the audit profession in terms of training, assignments, performance evaluation, and the use of decision aids to mitigate the propensity toward overconfidence.     

The value of Big 4 audits in Australia

Research suggests that equity markets value Big N audits over non‐Big N audits. Explanations include the information quality hypothesis, whereby Big N auditors increase information quality, and the insurance hypothesis, whereby investors value the deeper pockets of Big N auditors. Using client firms’ex ante cost of capital as the dependent variable, we investigate whether capital market participants differentially value Big 4 versus non‐Big 4 audits in Australia and whether the value of Big 4 audits in Australia changed as a result of the audit failures of 2001–2002. We find that Big 4 audits reduce the ex ante cost of equity capital until 2001, but not after 2001. We cannot dismiss the insurance hypothesis for the persistence of the loss beyond 2003 because of the establishment of liability caps, but the demise of the Big 4 audit value for 2001–2003 is consistent with the information quality hypothesis and does not support the insurance hypothesis.     

Internal control audits: Judges' perceptions of the credibility of the financial reporting process and likely auditor liability

This paper reports the results of a study in which fifty-seven sitting United States judges participated in a behavioral experiment to assess the perceived credibility of the financial reporting process and the legal risk auditors bear under conditions where they provide an internal control audit report (vs. no report) under two corporate governance environments. We find that participating judges believe internal control audits provide enhanced assurance that intentional misstatements do not exist and also serve to provide elevated protection to the public, but only under conditions of a strong corporate governance environment beyond current regulatory requirements. We also find that, after being informed of an undetected material fraud, judges who currently have high expectations of the auditing profession find auditors more liable when an internal control audit report has been issued (as compared to when no such report has been issued).     

Group audits: Are audit quality and price associated with the Lead auditor’s decision to accept responsibility?

Lead auditors frequently rely on work performed by Other auditors, especially when auditing clients with operations in multiple countries. The PCAOB has expressed concern that the quality of such group audits may differ depending on whether the Lead auditor accepts or declines responsibility for work done by Other auditors. The PCAOB also has been concerned with the venue through which Lead auditors and Other auditors disclose their participation in group audits, including disclosure of whether Lead auditors accept or decline responsibility. To investigate these issues, we employ a sample consisting entirely of group audit engagements. We identify Lead auditors taking responsibility from PCAOB Form 2, filed by Other auditors of U.S. registrants for fiscal years 2009 to 2017. We identify Lead auditors not accepting responsibility from audit report disclosures during the same period. The results suggest that Lead auditors accepting responsibility charge higher audit fees but provide audits of no higher quality, and possibly of even lower quality. These results are robust to various additional analyses. Our research contributes to the ongoing debate over how the participation of Other auditors affects audit quality.     

Embedding process mining into financial statement audits

The audit of financial statements is a complex and highly specialized process. Digitalization and the increasing automation of transaction processing create new challenges for auditors who carry out those audits. New data analysis techniques offer the opportunity to improve the auditing of financial statements and to overcome the limitations of traditional audit procedures when faced with increasingly large amounts of financially relevant transactions that are processed automatically or semi-automatically by computer systems. This study discusses process mining as a novel data analysis technique which has been receiving increased attention in the audit practice. Process mining makes it possible to analyse business processes in an automated manner. This study investigates how process mining can be integrated into contemporary audits by reviewing the relevant audit standards and incorporating the results from a field study. It demonstrates the feasibility of embodying process mining within financial statement audits in accordance with contemporary audit standards and generally accepted audit practices. Implementation of process mining increases the reliability of the audit conclusions and improves the robustness of audit evidence by replacing manual audit procedures. Process mining as novel data mining technique provides auditors the means to keep pace with current technological developments and challenges.     

Watchdogs,helpers or protectors? – Internal auditing in Malaysian Local Government

This paper examines internal auditor roles to support public governance in a developing country context, through interviews with chief audit executives across 17 Malaysian Local Government Authorities. Drawing on critical theory, the research shows that internal auditors seek to legitimise their position through compliance (watchdog) and performance (helper and protector) audits. At the micro level of practices, in performing these dual roles, internal auditors are not colonised by governance rules and managerial influence, but instead are enabled by them to perform communicative action. Nevertheless, this was undermined by financial and managerial capacity issues that are a challenge in developing countries.     

The effect of inspections,rotations and client preferences on staffing decisions

With increased regulatory focus on audits and concerns about whether audit regulation is achieving its stated aims, it is timely to investigate how regulator inspection of audit files and partner rotations may be affecting staffing decisions. This is an important issue, which affects all audits, as the calibre of staff allocated across engagements impacts the quality of audit work delivered. This study reports the results of an experiment where auditor participants allocate staff across two audits, where regulation anticipated (none, inspection, rotation) and a client request for the best staff (absent, present) are manipulated between‐subjects. We find that auditors allocate lower calibre staff when neither an inspection nor rotation is anticipated than when either is anticipated. When an inspection is anticipated, auditors allocate staff with more knowledge and compliance skills. When a rotation is anticipated, auditors allocate staff with more people skills. A client request for the best staff only has an effect when a partner is due to be rotated, where auditors allocate staff with more people skills in response to the client request. Our findings provide greater understanding of staffing decisions, which may affect audit quality if concerns around audit inspections and partner rotations are perceived by auditors as more important than the underlying risk or complexity of an engagement when allocating staff.     

Costs and benefits of internal control audits: evidence from M&A transactions

To inform the debate on the merits of internal control audits, we examine managers’ decisions to temporarily exempt newly acquired businesses from Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We document that managers are more likely to elect the exemption when expected compliance costs are higher, such as when acquisitions are larger and occur later in the year. We find only modest evidence that managers use the exemption to avoid scrutiny of value-destroying deals. Exemption use, however, is associated with negative post-acquisition outcomes, including lower return-on-assets and higher likelihoods of goodwill impairments and financial statement restatements. These results comport with compliance providing benefits by facilitating timely identification and correction of control problems in the newly acquired business. Finally, we document negative abnormal stock returns at the time exemption use is announced and over the subsequent 3 years, suggesting that investors view exemption use negatively and that their initial price reactions are incomplete.     

Perceived stakeholder influences and organizations’ use of environmental audits

While the use of internal, external, and both types of environmental audits are becoming more pervasive in society, little is known about the stakeholder influences associated with their use, in large part because previous research has viewed them as a uniform type of management practice. This study draws on stakeholder theory to explore organizations’ use of different types of environmental audits. It uses international manufacturing data to show that significant variations in the use of environmental audits are associated with differences in stakeholder influences, and that a more nuanced treatment is needed when evaluating these audits.     

Technology safeguards needed as security rule audits loom

The Department of Health and Human Services will conduct security rule audits that will involve on-site visits and include: Compliance-focused interviews with key organizational leaders. Scrutiny of physical operations controls, especially regarding storage, maintenance, and use of protected health information. Assessment of organizational policies and procedures to ensure compliance with privacy and security rules. Identification of regulatory compliance areas of concern.     

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.     

Internal control reporting differences among public and governmental auditors: The case of city and county Circular A-133 audits

We investigate potential differences in audit reporting outcomes between Circular A-133 audits performed by governmental auditors vs. those performed by certified public accounting (CPA) firms. Specifically, we investigate the association between auditor type and the likelihood of auditor-disclosed internal control concerns. We employ a cross-sectional sample of 13,386 single audit reports of US cities and counties during 2004–2006. In contrast to prior literature, the results indicate that in the post-Sarbanes–Oxley environment, CPA firms appear more likely to issue audit reports that identify internal control concerns than are governmental auditors in the context of Circular A-133 audits. The differences are more pronounced for larger CPA firms.     

Why good accountants do bad audits

On July 30, President Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act addressing corporate accountability. A response to recent financial scandals, the law tightened federal controls over the accounting industry and imposed tough new criminal penalties for fraud. The president proclaimed, "The era of low standards and false profits is over." If only it were that easy. The authors don't think corruption is the main cause of bad audits. Rather, they claim, the problem is unconscious bias. Without knowing it, we all tend to discount facts that contradict the conclusions we want to reach, and we uncritically embrace evidence that supports our positions. Accountants might seem immune to such distortions because they work with seemingly hard numbers and clear-cut standards. But the corporate-auditing arena is particularly fertile ground for self-serving biases. Because of the often subjective nature of accounting and the close relationships between accounting firms and their corporate clients, even the most honest and meticulous of auditors can unintentionally massage the numbers in ways that mask a company's true financial status, thereby misleading investors, regulators, and even management. Solving this problem will require far more aggressive action than the U.S. government has taken thus far. What's needed are practices and regulations that recognize the existence of bias and moderate its effects. True auditor independence will entail fundamental changes to the way the accounting industry operates, including full divestiture of consulting and tax services, rotation of auditing firms, and fixed-term contracts that prohibit client companies from firing their auditors. Less tangibly, auditors must come to appreciate the profound impact of self-serving biases on their judgment.     

Effect of outsourcing public sector audits on cost‐efficiency

This study compares the cost‐efficiency of ‘in‐house’ and outsourced to private sector audit supplier arrangements to deliver financial audits in the public sector by examining audit cost‐efficiency within the context of the public sector arrangement at one state in Australia (Western Australia). The results for 178 public agencies show that outsourced audits are, in general, more costly than in‐house audits, but this result is conditional on the type and size of public agency. Specifically, outsourced audits are more costly than in‐house audits for small statutory authority audits, whereas for specialist audits (i.e. hospitals) and large and complex statutory authority audits, the in‐house supply is equally efficient as the outsourced service.     

AUDITOR'S SKILL,AUDITING STANDARDS,LITIGATION, AND AUDIT QUALITY

This paper introduces a model of the market for audit services in which auditors differ in their levels of skill, which may or may not be observable and capture differences in ability. The model captures the interplay amongst auditing standards, litigation, and auditors’ levels of skill, which determines auditors’ responses to auditing standards. The paper shows that the quality of audit supplied by any auditor is increasing in the auditor's level of skill regardless of whether or not auditors’ levels of skill are observable. An increase in the quality of audit prescribed by auditing standards is shown to induce some auditors endowed with low levels of skill to decrease the quality of their audits so that the average quality of audit and economic welfare may actually decline as auditing standards are raised. Auditors’ choices of audit quality are furthermore shown to be increasing in trial awards. Incentives for trials and out-of-court settlements are shown to depend crucially on whether or not auditors’ levels of skill are observable. Only when auditors’ levels of skill are unobservable do trials obtain with some probability. When auditors’ levels of skill are unobservable, the introduction of either restrictions on costs awarded by the courts or an imperfection in the courts’ technology is shown to lead the most skilled auditors to supply audits of a quality strictly exceeding the quality prescribed by the prevailing auditing standards. When the courts err often enough, the most skilled auditors having exercised due care furthermore make offers to settle when sued.     

Quis Auditoret Ipsos Auditores? Can Auditors Be Trusted?

This article explores the extent to which the audit profession and its practices promote public trust in audits. Differences between auditors and non‐auditors as to beliefs about the role of a financial report audit have long been discussed under the term ‘expectations gap’. However, this prior debate has tended to focus on non‐auditors’ alleged misunderstanding of audit processes without a corresponding understanding on the part of the profession as to why the public might place its trust in auditors. The study explores the nature of trust in an auditing context and notes that like any profession, auditing faces practical limitations but the inability to directly observe the conduct of audits combined with professional status create an ‘over trust’ expectation in the public. Changes in audit practices and culture have also exposed the profession to criticism. The article seeks to offer one approach by which the auditing profession can restore public confidence; namely, evidence‐based practice, which has proven effective in improving the quality of practice in medicine. Adoption of a reflective evidence‐based approach to audit practice offers the promise of greater audit quality and an improvement in the profession's accountability and public confidence.     

From joint to single audits – audit quality differences and auditor pairings

This study analyses audit quality differences between audits by a single big audit firm and joint audits with either one or two big audit firms. We exploit the unique situation in Denmark beginning on 1 January 2005, at which time a long-standing mandatory joint audit system for listed companies was replaced by a voluntary joint audit system. First, we report the results of a survey of Danish CFOs’ views on and their experiences with the choice of single or joint audits and their perceptions of audit quality. Second, based on data from the mandatory joint audit abolition year and the following two years, we test the audit quality differences using abnormal accruals. Most CFOs perceive that audit quality by a single big four audit firm is the same as it is in joint audits with either one or two big four audit firms. The results of our empirical analysis are in line with the perceptions. We find no evidence of audit quality differences between audits made by a single big four firm and those conducted by either of the two combinations of joint audits.     

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.     

Monitoring Legal Compliance: The Growth of Compliance Committees*

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations’ (COSO) framework outlines three objectives of internal control. This paper addresses the third and least emphasized component, compliance with laws and regulations. We address the growing importance of board‐level oversight of legal compliance and the emerging role of a separate board committee dedicated to the compliance function. A recent COSO project emphasizes the importance of the monitoring function; COSO observes that many companies are not conducting this function effectively. We examine the use of a board‐level compliance committee to monitor legal compliance. We also discuss the roles of corporate counsel and internal auditors in assisting with monitoring. Our results show that over the last 15 years a growing percentage of S&P 500 firms have adopted a board‐level compliance committee. Internal auditors’ specialized training and expertise in the areas of monitoring and prevention would complement the company’s legal expertise and be of significant value to boards of directors in helping them fulfill their compliance oversight responsibilities.