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.

This study aims to investigate the moderating effect of the COVID-19 epidemic on the relationship between key audit matter (KAM) and auditing quality.

The authors use the ordinary least squares regression on data from 942 firm-year observations of Jordanian non-financial institutions across the period (2017–2022) to test the hypotheses. The authors use content analysis method to measure levels of KAM disclosure.

The investigation’s findings highlight the importance of KAM disclosure in achieving audit quality in line with international standard on auditing no. 701 (ISA-701) requirements. COVID-19 is also found to have a positive relationship with audit quality, further confirming the crisis’s devastating impact on audit complexity and risks and providing evidence for the need for supplementary, high-quality audit services. Due to the correlation between KAM disclosure and increased auditor workload and responsibility, the analysis reveals that the COVID-19 factor strengthens the link between KAM disclosure and audit quality.

This study has the potential to be used as a basis for the creation of a new regulation or standard regarding the reporting of unfavourable events in financial filings. This study’s findings provide standard-setters, regulators and policymakers with current empirical data on the effects of implementing ISA-701’s mandate for external auditors to provide more information on KAM. The COVID-19 crisis offers a suitable setting in which to examine the value of precautionary disclosures in times of economic uncertainty, as well as the significance of confidence interval disclosures and the role of external auditing in calming investor fears. This analysis is helpful for stakeholders, regulatory agencies, standard-setters and readers of audit reports who are curious about the current state of KAM disclosures and the implementation of ISA-701. The results may have ramifications for academia in the form of a call for more evidence expanding this data to other burgeoning fields to have a clear explanation of the real impact of reporting KAM on audit practices.

To the authors’ awareness, this research is one of the few empirical studies on the effect of the COVID-19 crisis on auditing procedures, and more specifically, the effect of disclosures on KAM by external auditors on audit quality. This study’s findings represent preliminary scientific evidence linking the pandemic to business performance. Minimal research has been done on how auditors in developing nations react to pandemic investor protection and how auditors’ enlarged reporting responsibilities affect them. The vast majority of auditing studies have been conducted in a highly regulated system, so this research contributes by examining audit behaviour in a weak legal context.

This study aims to examine how new regulation changes for the auditor’s report, so-called key audit matters (KAMs), influence tax avoidance.

This study uses data from firms listed on the Omani capital market over the period 2012–2019 and analyzes these data using pooled panel data regression with a robust standard error. It uses two common proxies for tax avoidance and two measures for the KAMs disclosure requirement.

This study finds a sharp decrease in the effective tax rate following the introduction of KAMs disclosure and the issuance of more KAMs in audit reports. This result is supported by several robustness checks. In an additional analysis, the authors observe interesting results, indicating that real earnings management mediates this association, while the audit committee plays a moderating role. The authors do not find a moderating effect of Big4 on this association, but find discrepancies within the Big4 firms in relation to this moderating effect.

The results of this study indicate that although the introduction of the KAMs disclosure requirement may have positive consequences, it may also lead to unintended negative consequences. This conclusion has not been comprehensively reported in literature.

This chapter focuses on the international aspects of auditing in the context of the airline industry for the year 2018. This chapter finds that International Standards on Auditing have been widely adopted in the global context. This chapter also analyses several observations related to the composition of audit firms (Big 4 vs. non-Big 4), types of audit opinions, emphasis of matter, other matters, material uncertainty related to going-concern, and types of auditors (single or joint auditor). This chapter covers the frequency of the four elements of describing key audit matters (KAM) in the audit reports in the global and auditor context as well as the KAMs observed in the airline industry and classifies them as industry-specific KAMs and entity-specific KAMs. In addition, this chapter analyses the requirements of the expanded audit report of the UK which includes the declaration of materiality threshold and scope of the audit in connection with the materiality and KAMs considering UK and non-UK airlines.

Introduction: Information technology is a field with particular importance in the activity of companies, which requires additional procedures in the audit of financial statements.

Aim: The purpose of the chapter is to identify the reports in which the financial auditors considered the impact of information technology on the financial statements of companies as a Key Audit Matter (KAM) and what was the approach in assessing this issue.

Method: The sample consists of companies listed on the primary market on European stock exchanges for 2013–2021 from 25 countries. Data were synthesised, systematised and analysed according to auditor type, audit year, countries and industries.

Findings: During the analysed period, 465 KAMs were identified for 174 distinct companies that referred to information technology, of which a Big4 auditor issued 97 per cent. The most KAMs were issued on companies from countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway, and the least in Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Italy. Also, most KAMs were issued by auditors in 2018 (19 per cent), and the least in 2013 (2 per cent). The industry that recorded the most KAMs related to information technology was finance, insurance, and real estate (64 per cent), and those which identified a single KAM on this topic were agriculture, forestry, fishing.

Conclusion: Information technology and its impact on audit quality and automation remain a growing topic especially in this pandemic period that caused more changes in the financial audit planning and risk assessment. The auditors were forced to perform remote audits and use information technology more than in previous years.

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 whether audit partners’ gender affects the year-to-year changes (year-to-year additions and drops) of key audit matters (KAMs) identified in the audit report. This study also examines whether female audit partners’ audit experiences, accounting education and narcissism reduce the difference in time variances of KAMs reporting between female and male audit partners. This study defines the year-to-year additions and drops of KAMs as the time variance of KAMs.

Data of this study includes the audit reports of Australian Securities Exchange 300 companies for the period from 2017 to 2021. This study also applies the theory of female auditors’ preference for anchoring and availability heuristics. This study uses multivariate regression with robust standard errors clustered by the firms. This study also uses several robustness tests.

The findings suggest that female audit partners disclose fewer time variant KAMs in that they have a lower tendency both to add new KAMs and to drop old KAMs. Further analysis suggests that the differences between female and male audit partners decrease as the female audit partners’ experience increases or if the female audit partner possesses a bachelor’s degree in accounting. Female audit partners’ narcissism also reduces the gender gap in the time variances of KAMs.

The fact that female audit partners report more stable KAMs implies that there are differences between female and male audit partners in the way audit risk assessments are conducted, audits are planned and professional judgement is applied by female and male audit partners.

The findings imply that female audit partners’ experience, accounting education and narcissistic personality can play a significant role in explaining the differences in audit outcomes produced by male and female audit partners.

This study is novel in showing that female audit partners report more stable and less time-variant KAMs. The findings of this study may inform audit firms and regulators that female audit partners’ experience, tertiary qualifications in accounting and narcissistic personality traits may be effective means of reducing the gender gap in auditing. The findings also imply that auditors’ observable and unobservable personality traits affect audit outcomes.

The authors examine the association between two important audit partner characteristics and the readability of key audit matters (KAMs) disclosed in the audit reports. Specifically, the authors examine how the readability of KAMs is associated with audit partner tenure and workload.

The authors conduct the study in the audit context of Norway and applied the Flesch reading ease scale to measure the readability levels of reported KAMs in the audit reports of companies listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. Panel data estimation techniques are applied in estimating how partner tenure and workload are associated with the readability of KAMs. In addition, several robustness tests including different measures of KAMs readability and subsample analyses are performed.

The authors find that audit partner tenure and workload have significant associations with the level of KAMs readability. Specifically, the results show that the reported KAMs become more readable as the audit partner tenure increases but are less readable for partners with more workload. These results appear stronger in subsamples of KAMs typically noted to be more complex and associated with higher risks.

As KAMs represent the most significant issues in financial statements audit, these results provide important insights to stakeholders on the potential impact of audit partner tenure and workload on KAMs readability. Less readable KAMs could derail stakeholders' desire to bridge the information gap between auditors and users of the audit report. The uniqueness of this study lies in its focus on audit partner characteristics as opposed to the audit firm.

Excessive audit partner workload impairs KAMs readability.

As KAMs represent the most significant issues in financial statements audit, these results provide important insights to stakeholders on the potential impact of audit partner tenure and workload on KAMs readability. Less readable KAMs could derail stakeholders' desire to bridge the information gap between auditors and users of the audit report. The uniqueness of this study lies in its focus on audit partner characteristics as opposed to the audit firm.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether the required disclosure and the high frequency of key audit matters (KAMs) are likely to moderate the effect of higher credit risk on earnings quality.

This study uses 15,106 Taiwanese firm-year observations to explore the relationship between earnings quality and credit risk during the 2011 to 2020 period. We use the two-stage least squares method to test whether the presence of KAM disclosures moderated the association between earnings quality and credit risk and also to examine whether higher KAM frequency moderates the association between earnings quality and credit risk.

Our results provide evidence that the presence of a KAM disclosure requirement moderates the impact of firms with higher credit risk on earnings quality. In addition, there is significant evidence that the higher the frequency of KAM disclosures the greater the moderation impact that is found.

This research investigates whether the disclosure and high frequency of KAMs moderates the effect of credit riskiness on earnings quality. This study improves our understanding of whether more KAMs disclosures would improve earnings quality of firms with higher credit risk. In addition, we also use Beneish M-SCORE, as an alternative earnings quality proxy, to reinforce our empirical results. This markedly differentiates this paper from other studies.

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.