Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the joint effect of supervisor influence and investor perspective on novice auditors’ assessments of accounting estimates.

The experiment used a 2 × 2 between-subjects design, randomly assigning proxies of novice auditors among four conditions. The authors manipulated the supervisor’s level of emphasis on evidence that suggests accounting estimate adjustment and whether auditors are prompted to take an investor perspective. Participants were asked to assess the misstatement risk of the allowance for doubtful accounts of the client company.

The authors find that auditors assign a higher (lower) risk of misstatement when their supervisor places high (low) emphasis on evidence suggesting accounting adjustment. The authors also find that contrary to the belief that taking the perspective of investors could enhance objectivity and independence, investor perspective leads to a decrease (rather than an increase) in auditors’ perceived risk of misstatement when the supervisor places low emphasis on evidence suggesting accounting adjustment.

This study provides early evidence on the efficacy of investor perspective and is one of the first to document an unintended consequence of asking auditors to take an investor perspective.

The value of an audit lies in its ability to detect and correct misstatements in financial statements. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the resolution of detected misstatements.

Using data on a large sample of audit adjustments by a German Big 4 audit firm, this paper reports an analysis of the factors that influence the resolution of detected misstatements at the engagement level and at the level of the individual adjustment.

The auditor’s book-or-waive decision is influenced by client characteristics and characteristics of the audit adjustments that can be linked to client as well as auditor incentives to oppose (require) the recording of adjustments. Offsetting effects of the detected adjustments on client income play a key role in auditors’ decisions.

The results may not be generalizable to Non-Big 4 audit firms. The sample includes unlisted firms which are subject to mandatory audits in the European Union. Other potential factors may not have been captured in the study.

The findings suggest that standard-setters and audit practice should give more attention to the offsetting effects of audit adjustments on income. The analyses at the two different levels could help practitioners to better structure their book-or-waive decisions.

In contrast to prior studies, the authors analyze the resolution of misstatements at the engagement level and the level of the individual adjustment. This design makes a methodological contribution by expanding the level of analysis of auditors’ book-or-waive decisions to include the engagement level. It further allows examining offsetting effects of different adjustments on client income, as well as the number and the total amount of detected adjustments.

This study explores feedback-induced and spontaneous postdecision restructuring in a complex decision environment. We examine the impact of experience, decision norms, and the actual decision on postdecision restructuring tendencies. Experienced and novice auditors performed an aspect rating task as part of a going concern judgment. After a break, all participants were asked to recreate their decision stage aspect ratings, but only the experiment group received outcome feedback. We find that the restructuring tendencies are impacted primarily by experience and the original audit report choice. The post-decision restructuring more often than not is a result of adjustments made by participants lacking outcome feedback. This spontaneous defense is particularly vigorous when the report choice violates perceived experience-group norms and base-rates

Auditors should realize misstatements and communicate to managers for adjustments. Managers usually modify the misstatements, but they have motivations, like earnings management, for not altering the misstatements. The auditor expects to identify the misstatements’ earnings management, inform the managers and reduce earnings management by proposing adjustments. This study aims to determine whether identified and adjusted misstatements cause a decline in earnings management. Is the increase in the materiality of identified and adjusted misstatements associated with a reduction in earnings management?

The identified and adjusted misstatements are obtained from the difference between nonaudited financial statements and audited ones. Earnings management is computed using the adjusted Jones model, and the quantitative materiality threshold has also been calculated based on the Iranian auditors’ guidelines. These variables and other required information were gathered for 159 listed firms on the Tehran Stock Exchange during 2014–2019 and examined by the regression models.

The results show a negative relationship between identified and modified misstatements of total assets and earnings management and a positive and significant relationship between identified and adjusted misstatements of total liabilities and earnings management. However, the positive relationship between identified and adjusted misstatements of net income with earnings management is not significant. Besides, the relationship between the materiality difference and an absolute value of identified and adjusted misstatements (materiality minus the absolute value of misstatements) of total assets and earnings management is positive and significant, but the negative association between materiality difference and the absolute value of identified and adjusted misstatements of total assets and earnings management is not significant. The relationship between materiality difference and the absolute value of identified and adjusted net income and earnings management misstatements is negative and significant. These results indicate that the more material the identified and adjusted misstatements, the less earnings management.

The difference between nonaudited and audited financial statements represents identified and adjusted misstatements (audit adjustments). The client probably made some adjustments, but separating these adjustments from the auditor’s identified items was impossible with the available data.

The results show that significant audit adjustments decline earnings management. Paying more attention to a high-quality audit performed by the audit firms, auditors, managers and users and, consequently, discovering misstatements and adjusting or reporting them would decline the earnings management’s unfavorable impacts.

The unfavorable consequences of earnings management can cause the inappropriate transfer of wealth in the capital market and some investors’ loss to others’ benefit. These consequences can cause a loss of trust and leave unfavorable psychological effects on the capital market and society. Identifying and adjusting significant misstatements can lead to the decline of such impacts.

The previous studies assessed the relationship between identified and adjusted misstatements (audit adjustments) and earnings quality or earnings management. However, this study focuses on audit adjustments’ materiality to assess the impact of significant adjustments on earnings management.

Independent auditors play an important role in increasing the reliability of financial information by giving their professional opinion on the financial statements of business units. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between the audit adjustments and financing of companies.

The sample of the study includes 173 Iranian companies listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE) between 2010 and 2017.

There is no significant association between the profit incremental audit adjustments (Disagreement) and financing of companies in the current year and the following year through a loan. Furthermore, there is no meaningful relationship between the earnings downward/upward audit adjustments (Disagreement) and the financing of companies in the current year and the following year through ordinary stocks. However, there is a meaningful relationship between the profit downward audit adjustments (Disagreement) and the financing of firms in the current year through a loan. In general, as Iran's economy is facing severe economic sanctions, the existence of a high inflation rate has led to a steady increase in the stock prices of Iranian companies; hence, investors regardless of audit reports prefer to invest their money in the stock market so that it does not lose its purchasing power. Under these disaster economic circumstances, creditors are less willing to lend to companies with lower profits.

The results of the current study extend the knowledge of previous studies as financial pressures from economic sanctions have both positive and negative psychological effects on corporate financing.

Audit negotiations are impacted by many factors. This study aims to investigate how two such factors, communication of the National Office Accounting Consultation Unit (ACU) and the auditor’s approach, affect chief financial officers’ (CFOs’) willingness to adjust the financial statements and satisfaction with the auditor.

This study uses a 2 × 3 between-subjects experimental design. Participants are 169 highly experienced CFOs and financial officers. The experimental design crosses the two multi-dimensional auditor approaches found in the literature with two influence tactics used to communicate ACU involvement, as well as a control condition, with no communication of the ACU involvement.

Communicating the ACU’s involvement as a higher authority (similar to a boss) results in greater willingness to record an adjustment to the financial statements when auditors use a hands-off “compliance-officer” auditor approach, but lower willingness by CFOs to adjust the financial statements when auditors use an expert-advisor auditor approach as compared to when coalition tactics are used. Results also show that communicating the ACU as a higher authority negatively impacts a CFO’s satisfaction with the audit partner. Overall, these results highlight the importance of the auditor’s approach and communication of ACU involvement within the auditor–client relationship. The outcomes of this study are limited to situations where unexpected audit adjustments are found during the year-end process and thus cannot be discussed pre-emptively with clients.

This paper advances the understanding of how the multi-dimensional auditor’s approach can shape and limit the effectiveness of influence tactics. These factors are important, as auditors are tasked with maintaining not only quality audits but also client relationships. However, although rich in detail, factors other than auditor approach may have inadvertently been manipulated and are driving results.

The approach taken by the auditor with a client throughout the audit sets the stage during the auditor–client negotiations. Therefore, audit partners must consider their own approach with the client before communicating the ACU’s involvement as the auditor approach shapes and limits the tactics available for use. Using ill-suited tactics may undermine the client’s willingness to record an adjustment to the financial statements and cause undue harm to the auditor–client relationship.

This paper uses highly experienced CFOs and financial officers to examine how two common elements in the audit negotiation context can significantly affect the outcome to the financial statements and the relationship between the client and audit partner.

The dangers of management bias and the resulting increased need for auditors to be cognizant of environmental characteristics may be particularly acute in the area of accounting estimates. Accounting estimates pose relatively unique auditing problems because it is an area where management has significant discretion (to set estimates) and there is limited ability to apply traditional accounting controls. Thus auditors have difficulty obtaining conclusive evidence to challenge management′s estimates. Research examining auditors′ accounting estimate judgments, however, has been scant, especially with regard to the relationship of auditors′ assessment of materiality and risks of fraudulent financial reporting. Reports the results of an empirical study examining the reporting decisions of audit seniors and audit managers related to a client′s decision to change four accounting estimates relative to the prior year. The auditor′s task was to review the changes and to indicate whether audit adjustments proposed by the audit staff were necessary to preserve an unqualified opinion. Three environmental red flags related to management lifestyle, bonus compensation programme and internal audit department strength were manipulated between subjects. The results indicated that the direct effect of the red flags on reporting decisions was limited. The findings provided greater support for an indirect model. In the indirect model, red flags affected auditors′ assessments of management intent, which, in turn, influenced auditors′ reporting decisions in combination with assessed materiality and level of auditor experience.

Prior literature provides clear evidence that the judgments of experts differ from those of non‐experts. For example, Smith and Kida concluded that the extent of common biases that they investigated often are reduced when experts perform job related tasks as compared to students. The aim in this theoretical study is to examine whether “heuristic biases significantly moderate the understanding of experts versus novices in the going concern judgment?”

The authors address the posited question by marshalling extant literature on expert and novice judgments and link these to concepts drawn from the cognitive sciences through the Brunswick Lens Model.

The authors identify a number of heuristics that may bias the going concern decision, based on the work of Kahneman and Tversky among others. They conclude that experience mitigates the unintentional consequences played by heuristic biases.

The conclusions have implications for the education and training of auditors, and for the expectation gap. They suggest that both awareness of factors that affect understanding of auditing reports and greater attention to training are important in reducing the expectation gap.

This paper develops additional theoretical understanding of factors that may impact the expectation gap. While there has been limited prior discussion of the impact of cognitive factors on differences between experts and novices, the paper significantly expands the range of factors discussed. As such, it should provide a stimulus to new research in this important area.

This paper attempts to combine the developments in the accounting area with those in the auditing area. More specifically, it presents the effects of International Accounting Standards (IAS) on the auditor findings and report.

International Standards on Auditing (ISA) are revised in order to be accepted by the European Union as the common and formal auditing standards of the member states. The introduction of IAS has been one of the most significant developments in the history of the financial statements preparation and presentation. The effects of the application of these standards are present both on the valuation of the firm and on the presentation of its “true and fair view”. An extended analysis of the financial statements and the auditor reports is conducted.

The effects of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) on the auditor reports and notes, for the first two years of their formal application, are analyzed. It is realized that the auditor notes and the equity adjustments they propose are positively related to the notes that accompany financial statements before the application of IFRS, whereas they are negatively related to the explanatory notes imposed by IFRS. The different role of the company's notes before and after the application of IFRS and the relevant change of the auditor notes are further examined.

Most of the research focuses on the accounting effects of IFRS. In this study, it is attempted to combine the developments in the accounting area with the developments in the auditing area. ISA are revised in order to be accepted by the European Union as the common and formal auditing standards of the member states. Much research is being developed in this area, although the data available are yet very limited. Most of the research focus is on the accounting effects of IFRS.

This study aims to explore the effect of negotiating audit differences on auditors’ internal control deficiency (ICD) severity assessments, an ensuing, non-negotiated judgment, in an integrated audit.

The experiment manipulates the client’s concession timing strategy as either immediate or gradual, holding the outcome constant. A total of 34 auditors (primarily managers) resolve an audit difference with the client.

The client’s concession timing strategy during the negotiation of an audit difference spills over to affect auditors’ severity assessment of a related ICD. Auditors judged the ICD severity to be higher (lower) in the immediate (gradual) condition. Client retention risk inferences mediate this effect.

The effect on auditors’ ICD severity assessments may not ultimately affect the audit report. Participants did not control their negotiation strategy, allowing the client’s negotiation strategy and the outcome to be held constant; it is possible that interactive effects between the client and auditor’s strategy might affect the study’s implications.

Features of the auditor–client negotiation process may influence auditors’ downstream, post-negotiation judgments and may therefore help to explain empirical evidence and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspection findings that show auditors often fail to identify an internal control material weakness after identifying a financial statement misstatement.

This paper expands current negotiation research by exploring the impact of inferences made based on counterparty concession strategy for downstream, non-negotiated judgments and current integrated audit research by identifying client retention perceptions as a driving factor of lower ICD severity assessments.