Search results

This paper aims to examine the perspectives of auditors, regulators and financial report preparers on the effects of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting on audit effort, fees, quality and report transparency.

The authors conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders (13 Audit Partners, 5 Chief Financial Officers and 3 regulators) and thematically analysed the interviews. They use the frame of “Paradox of Transparency” to explain the findings.

Auditors perceive that the overall quality control of their audits has improved both in the planning and execution stages, and such improvement can mostly be attributed to the coercive pressures from professional bodies and regulators. Nevertheless, audit fee remains unchanged. Auditors disclose industry generic items and descriptions of KAMs, sometimes masking the real problem areas of the clients. Even after improving the performative audit quality, transparency of audit reporting has not improved. Issues that warrant going concern qualifications or audit report modifications are now reported as KAMs. Hence, KAMs reporting might make the audit report less transparent.

Localised audit environments and institutions affect the transparency of KAMs reporting. Without attention to corporate governance and auditors’ independence issues, paradoxically, performative improvement in audit quality (due to the KAMs reporting requirement) does not enhance the transparency of audit reports.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to provide field-level evidence in Bangladesh and other developing countries about the perceptions of auditors, financial report preparers and regulators on the effects of KAMs reporting on audit efforts, fees, quality and report transparency.

In this study the authors examine the nature and contents of key audit matters (KAMs), and the consequences of KAMs reporting on audit quality in the context of a developing country, Bangladesh. The authors’ proxies of audit qualities are discretionary accruals, small positive earnings surprise, audit report lag, earnings management via below the line items and audit fees.

The authors use content analysis of the KAMs for the period 2018–2021 to understand the nature and extent of KAMs reported by auditors in Bangladesh. The authors then use multivariate regression analysis to examine the effect of the number and content characteristics of KAMs on audit quality by using multivariate regression analysis.

Auditors in Bangladesh disclose a higher number of KAMs compared to other countries, disclose short descriptions of KAMs and industry generic KAMs. The authors document significant cross-sectional variations in the number and content characteristics of KAMs reported by auditors in Bangladesh. The authors’ pre-post analysis suggest that audit quality has improved after the adoption of KAMs. Cross-sectional analysis suggests that KAMs number and content characteristics are related to audit quality.

The authors’ findings imply that the KAMs reporting has the potential to play significant monitoring role in reducing the opportunistic behavior of managers. Hence, KAMs reporting can play a significant role in reducing the agency problem. For regulators, shareholders and corporate managers, the authors’ findings imply that if the audit quality is to be increased, the audit effort should be supported by an appropriate amount of audit fee.

The content characteristics of KAMs significantly influence managerial reporting behavior and affect the level of audit efforts.

Unlike developed countries (Gutierrez et al., 2018; Lennox et al. 2022), this study supports that KAMs reporting improves audit quality and control opportunistic behavior of managers in developing countries. The authors show that even though the KAMs disclosure quality is poor, it has the potential to improve financial reporting quality.

This study aims to examine the strategies that auditors in Bangladesh follow in identifying and reporting key audit matters (KAMs). The study also examines the factors affecting auditors’ strategies in the identification and disclosures of KAMs.

The authors have conducted interviews with audit partners, chief financial officers (CFOs) and regulators involved in KAMs reporting and monitoring. The authors have used the lens of institutional theory of coercive, mimetic and normative isomorphism and the concept of decoupling.

Auditors have used a decoupling strategy by identifying and reporting greater number of industry-generic KAMs than that of other countries in an effort to minimize risks and avoid regulatory scrutiny, although they disclose remote risks as KAMs and mask severe problem areas of the client. Because of the principle-based approach of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 701 and because of the pressure and misunderstanding from the audit committee, auditors report industry-generic items and generic descriptions of KAMs.

The findings have important implications for the standard setters and local and global audit firms for the diffusion of new auditing standards in different jurisdictions. Without the development of audit firm-level capability and the corporate governance environment, changes in standards may not be effective in achieving the objectives of the standards.

Although auditors consider that the KAMs reporting requirements provide with opportunities to enhance audit profession’s legitimacy and public trusts, the actual KAMs reporting practices are driven by the market logic, an urge to maintain the status quo with clients and eventual rationalization of the impairment of professional independence.

Given the dearth of prior research on the implementation and diffusion patterns of ISA 701 KAMs reporting, this study fills the gap in the literature. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first known study to examine auditors’ strategic responses to balance among conflicting priorities in reporting KAMs.

This paper aims to explore the potential effect of key audit matters (KAM) on the audit report lag (ARL). In particular, it aims to discover whether the number of KAMs reported by an audit firm in Jordan is related to the length of its ARL.

The authors analysed data from the first three years of KAM reporting in Jordan (2017–2019) for 194 public listed Jordanian companies to examine the relation between the number of KAMs and the ARL, taking into account several control variables related to the Jordanian context.

This study found that there is no statistically significant relation between the number of KAMs reported by Jordanian audit firms and their ARLs, suggesting that the KAM reporting in Jordan is somewhat superficial, with the selection of what is actually reported as a KAM not directly related to the efforts needed to deal with its concerns. However, this study also found statistically significant positive relations between the ARL and each of audit fees, audit firm size, the issuance of a qualified audit opinion and company leverage and a statistically significant negative relation between the ARL and company profitability.

This is one of the very few studies to cover the potential relation between KAM reporting and the ARL. In a developing country context characterised by limited demand for an external audit of high quality, this study finds that auditors may decouple on their reporting of KAMs by not actually making significant efforts to deal with them.

The new audit regulation for disclosure of key audit matters (KAMs) in financial reporting has been introduced in both developed and developing countries. This study investigates the influence of three distinctive sets of variables, namely industry features, firm characteristics and auditor attributes, on the extent, pattern and level of disclosure of KAMs by companies listed in Bangladesh, an emerging economy.

The study uses qualitative and quantitative research approaches to investigate the pattern of disclosure of KAMs and their determinants. With a sample of 447 firm-year observations from companies listed on the Dhaka Stock Exchange over 2018–2020, the study reveals industry-level, firm-level and auditor-specific characteristics that affect KAMs' communication in the new audit reporting model.

The findings suggest that significant differences exist between firms in the number and types of KAMs reported and the extent of their disclosure. The study findings also observed variations both within and across different industry sectors. Highly regulated firms disclose a greater number of KAMs, while environmentally sensitive firms are found to provide a greater detail of the issues presented as KAMs. Further, both firm size and age positively impact the number of KAMs disclosed and the extent of the disclosure provided. Big-4-affiliated auditors do not issue a significantly higher number of KAMs but deliver extensive details to their KAMs description, compared to non-Big-4 auditors. In addition, while auditors, in general, tend to issue boilerplate KAMs, Big-4 associates are found to disclose more new KAMs. However, audit fees and auditor rotation do not influence KAMs disclosure.

This study is based on two years of publicly available data. However, future studies could consider in-depth interviews to explore the motivation behind KAMs' disclosure in Bangladesh and other developing countries with similar cultural and contextual values.

These findings have substantial policy considerations for improving firms' audit quality and, thus, their financial reporting quality, with implications for national and international standard-setters, regulators and other stakeholders.

This study is one of the earliest endeavours to investigate KAMs in a context of an emerging country, such as Bangladesh, which adopted KAMs' disclosure in 2018.

This study aims to investigate the extent, level and pattern of key audit matters (KAMs) reporting by companies listed in the market for alternative investment (MAI) in Thailand, and to test for a relationship between the external auditors and KAMs reporting.

The population and sample used in this study were all companies listed in the MAI. Based on the annual reports issued by the sample of companies from 2016 to 2018, content analysis was used to quantify the KAMs reporting in the audit reports by using word counting and a checklist. Descriptive analysis, correlation matrix and multiple regression were used to analyse the data.

The results showed that the word counts of KAMs reporting fluctuated around 600 words during the three year period studied, while the number of issues on which KAMs reporting was performed was similar each year with an average of 1.63 KAMs issues per company. Moreover, the study found a significant positive relationship between auditor type, audit fees and the level of KAMs reporting.

This is the first longitudinal study of the KAMs reporting of companies listed in the alternative capital market in Thailand.

Communication and legitimacy theories were found to offer cogent explanations explaining the quality of and reasons for KAMs reporting by Thai listed companies as a reaction to the need for quality communication between external auditors and company stakeholders, based on external pressure due to societal expectations.

This paper aims to address a topical and controversial issue, namely, the degree of conformity with the new auditor reporting requirements in Australia and the extent of variations in the reporting of key audit matters (KAMs) by Australian firms.

This paper compares the 64 elements identified in the applicable standards with the auditor’s report from the sampled companies to determine the degree to which the top 200 firms listed on the Australian Stock Exchange are complying with the requirements of the new audit report. This paper investigates KAM disclosures within and across industries.

The results indicate that there is a high degree of conformity with the new reporting framework, yet significant variations in the contents of the report, particularly in KAM disclosures. This paper observes that the number of KAMs and their extent of disclosure generally varies within industries. The types of KAMs presented vary both within and across industries. This paper further provides evidence that auditors have a tendency of not disclosing negative KAMs and tend to avoid negative wordings when describing KAMs. This paper also finds that there are significant differences in the placement of various types of KAMs in the audit report.

These findings have important policy implications for the standard-setters, regulators, auditors and users of financial reports on the adequacy of the new auditor reporting framework.

This study is one of the first to examine the degree of conformity with the new audit reporting model in Australia.

The study aims to examine the relationship between key audit matters (KAMs) reporting and audit quality of companies listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET).

Corporate annual reports from 2016 to 2019 were used as samples, with 100 companies and their 400 annual reports. The word count from KAMs paragraph in the audit report was used to assess KAMs reporting, while the Modified Jones Model was used to assess audit quality. In addition, external audit characteristics were used as variables in this study. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis, correlation matrix and panel multiple analysis.

As the results, there was a positive significant relationship between KAMs reporting and audit quality. Moreover, the study found the impact of audit tenure, auditor firm size, audit independence, corporate size and corporate risk on audit quality.

The number of samples as well as the proxies of KAMs reporting and audit quality are listed as limitations of this study.

Investors can use KAMs reporting as important information to their decision-making because KAMs information is associated with a high audit quality.

The study demonstrates that communication theory can be used to describe the positive impact of the new audit reporting on audit quality in an emerging country like Thailand as well as in developed countries.

This study aims to examine the setting of International Standards on Auditing (ISA) 701 on disclosing key audit matters (KAMs) to explore the role of standard setting in maintaining or reconstituting the relationship of the auditing profession with preparers and users of financial reports.

This study draws on concepts from the sociology of the professions literature and the regulatory space metaphor. Data comprises comment letters and other documents pertaining to the setting of ISA 701.

The study shows that the KAM reporting requirement is part of the ongoing re-calibration of the regulatory arrangements governing auditing, which started in the early 2000s. This study interprets standard setting as a site for negotiating the relationships between linked ecologies in the audit regulatory space, namely, the auditing profession, preparers of financial statements and users of audited reports. This study identifies three processes involved in setting ISA 701, namely, reconstitution of the rules governing auditors’ reports as a link between the three ecologies, preserving boundaries between the auditing profession and preparers and negotiation aimed at balancing competing interests of the interrelated ecologies.

The study offers insights into the role of regulatory rule setting as a central medium through which the adaptive relationship of the profession with its environment is negotiated.

Key audit matters (KAMs) in International Standard for Auditing, 701 seek to enhance the value of the auditor’s report by increasing the transparency of how the audit was performed. The purpose of this study is to investigate how professional auditors themselves perceive the impact of KAMs on audit quality and audit effectiveness.

Statistical analyses of an electronic survey of certified public auditors (CPAs) in Finland.

Regarding the perceptions of KAMs, the authors found two dominant views on auditing: quality and efficiency. In general, the respondents did not consider that KAMs improve audit quality. However, auditors focusing on efficiency considered that KAMs make the audit process more fluent. Further, the use of KAMs may facilitate audit effectiveness and cooperation between auditors and managers. The authors also found three factors related to the KAMs processes and auditing work: effectiveness, risks and workload.

Auditors may use KAMs to provide focus in their work. This facilitates balancing between the demands for added value while keeping the workload and audit risks at a tolerable level.

This study contributes to the emerging literature on KAMs as well as to the literature examining practitioner views of changes in auditing regulation. It is, as far as we know, the first study to report survey evidence on how CPAs themselves perceive KAMs and the effects of KAMs on audit work in an European Union country context.