Search results

“The definition of auditing calls for the communication of the degree of correspondence between assertions and established criteria” [ASOBAC, 1973]. As the profession has rejected adoption of universal quantitative definitions of materiality as infeasible [FASB, 1979], Don Leslie [1984] recommended adoption of a standard requiring disclosure of specific engagement materiality thresholds in the auditor's report. This study examines how such disclosures might affect perceptions of an auditor's culpability and liability in instances where post publication errors are discovered which alternately aggregate to more or less than reported materiality thresholds. A behavioral experiment was conducted in which eighty‐seven U.S. general jurisdiction judges participated. Findings support the potential for meaningful modifications to the standard auditor's report to reduce perceived auditor liability but also note the importance of jurists' pre‐experimental attitudes and beliefs respecting the public accounting profession. In 1985, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants published Materiality: The Concept and its Application to Auditing [CICA, 1985]. In that research study, Don Leslie focused on his perceptions of the communication deficiencies of the standard form audit report used in Canada and the U.S. — the most critical of which he found to be the continuing lack of a quantitative definition of materiality. Leslie's remedy for the problem was novel and controversial even if his recognition of this problem was not without precedent. Leslie did not recommend the prompt adoption of universal, quantitative materiality standards (a proposal which has stalemated progress in the profession for years) but rather adoption of a standard making it compulsory that auditors disclose their individual materiality standards, whatever they may be, on each specific audit, in the audit report. To date, no serious research has examined this proposal since the report's publication, and yet the costs of the communications gap between accounting/auditing professionals and the public seem to be getting greater. The Auditing Standards Board recently readdressed the communications provided by the standard form audit report. One of the clearest observa‐tions to emerge from those deliberations was that there is a lack of reliable research data upon which to base regulatory decisions in this area [Elliott and Jacobson, 1987]. This paper contributes to reduce that vacuum. Specifically, on the following pages we outline the genesis of a research project and the findings of that study in which eighty‐seven (87) U.S. judges evaluated whether and to what degree an altered form of the audit report (including quantitative definition of materiality) would reduce the assessed culpability and legal liability of auditors. The remaining sections of this paper are organized as follows: in section one, we will summarize representative recent relevant literature; in section two, we develop testable hypotheses from that background literature; in section three, we provide a description of the design of our study; in section 4, our findings are reported and in section 5 we discuss implications for practice and future research.

In 1988, the US standard form audit report experienced its first major modification in 39 years. Among the objectives of the “new” report were better auditor/user communications leading to, among other things, an abridgement of auditor liability. Nearly a decade later, this issue has yet to be addressed empirically and with rigour. The empirical research reported examines the ability of the “new” audit report to reduce perceptions of auditor responsibility/liability across two instances of alleged audit failure. It is argued that a jurist’s advantage of “perfect hindsight” may mitigate the effectiveness of revised communications contained in the audit report, in instances where audit risk at the time of the audit appears high. Accordingly, consideration of environments of both high and low perceived risk were provided in a behavioural experiment conducted with 81 investors serving as subjects. Findings reveal that the revised audit report language may provide relief for auditor liability, but the presence of red‐flags, or red‐flag related environmental conditions, may exacerbate negative perceptions.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate empirically the channels through which Islamic and/or conventional banking can spur economic growth in MENA region.

The study uses a range of developed econometric approaches, including panel cointegration technique, panel Granger causality test and a panel-based vector error correction model (VECM), to analyze explicitly all the causal relationships among Islamic banking, conventional banking development and economic growth in a unified framework.

The empirical results show that Islamic banking in MENA countries not only leads to economic growth but also affects positively and significantly conventional banking development. Thus, Islamic banking has an active role and could be classified as “supply-following” since its development only leads to economic growth, whereas conventional banking, with passive role, could be classified as “demand-following” since it only reacts to economic growth in long run.

The study has two principal limitations. It is conducted within a relatively limited time period and sample of countries. Also, the used models did not take into account the impact of others financial and macroeconomic variables like stock market development, interest rate, inflation and financial crisis.

The results have two main implications. First, in MENA countries, well-functioning Islamic banking sector could not only promote economic growth but also can be served as a development factor for their conventional one. Second, unlike conventional banks, the customer of Islamic banks seems not to be motivated by interest and profits. Rather religious factors are recommended as the main motive for investing and saving in Islamic banks.

The study tries to perceive whether there exists a substitution or complementarity effect between Islamic and conventional banking in promoting economic growth for MENA countries. This situation is neither revealed nor clarified in the relevant literature.

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.