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 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 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 paper aims to investigate the relationship between key audit matters (KAMs) and audit costs and whether board size and independence affect this relationship. Furthermore, this paper examines the moderating effect of corporate governance on the relationship between KAMs and audit costs.

The authors hypothesise that disclosing more KAMs in the audit report is positively associated with audit costs because of the greater effort. The agency theory suggests that firms with good governance will mitigate the agency conflict of interest and improve financial reporting quality. Thus, good governance might moderate the relationship between reported KAMs and audit costs. The authors use a quantitative approach. The authors are using a sample of the UK FTSE all-share non-financial firms from 2014 to 2018 for the UK Financial Times Stock Exchange all-share non-financial firms.

The authors provide evidence of a significant positive relationship between KAMs and audit costs. The relationship is relatively higher when considering the independent directors' percentage as a moderating factor. These results came consistent with the agency theory literature. However, the authors found no empirical evidence to support a moderating effect of board size on the relationship between KAMs and audit cost.

The finding benefits the regulatory setters to better understand the consequences of the new auditing standards. This paper has theoretical and practical implications for regulators, standard setters, professional bodies, shareholders and academics.

This paper contributes to the literature assessing the regulatory changes related to audit reform and adds to the debate on the impact on audit costs. This paper underlines governance factors as a moderating role in this relationship between KAMs and audit costs.

This study investigates the consequences of the key audit matter (KAM) disclosure requirement by considering two salient audit proxies: audit fees and audit report lag. This investigation is relevant because most auditors worldwide are required to expand their audit report including discussion on key matters faced in the audit engagement. However, the emerging literature on the implications of KAM is inconclusive.

Using a distinctive dataset of 601 year-observations for firms listed on the Omani capital market over 2012–2019, this study employs pooled panel data regression with robust standard error.

Results indicate that auditors increased their fees considerably during the period of KAM but substantially shortened audit report lag. Conversely, using the KAM period as a sample, the authors find marginal or insignificant evidence for the effect of the number of KAM on both proxies. In additional analyses, this study shows that entity-level risk KAM is associated with higher fees and shorter audit report lag, while KAM related to account-level risk does not have the same effect. Interestingly, it is observed that KAM disclosure is strongly associated with higher fees and high-quality audit even when the auditors issue their report in a shorter time.

This study contributes to the limited research examining the consequences of KAM in emerging markets. It is also the first to show that KAM is associated with shorter audit report lag.

New Zealand regulatory bodies guided preparers and auditors of financial statements to deal with potential COVID-19 impacts on the financial statements and audit procedures. This study provides evidence of auditors' response to the impact of COVID-19 on the reporting of key audit matters (KAMs) in audit reports of listed companies in New Zealand. The purpose of this paper is to address this issue.

A sample of 50 New Zealand listed companies was selected to compare the KAMs in 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and 2020 (during COVID-19). The study uses content analysis to evaluate the KAMs’ disclosures and descriptive analysis to examine the differences between 2019 and 2020 in terms of the auditor type, industry sector and accounting standards.

Auditors responded positively to the request from regulators to communicate the impacts of COVID-19. The findings show an increase in the amount and length of KAMs in 2020 compared to 2019, with 82% of companies and 61% of KAMs reporting the impact of COVID-19. The real estate and information technology sectors disclosed more on the impact than other sectors. In analysing the KAMs, accounting standards for inventories, property plant and equipment, impairment of assets, investment property, revenue from contracts with customers and leases were highly affected by COVID-19.

The findings support regulators to evaluate how well auditors communicated matters relating to COVID-19 in the audit report. Also, the findings will help standard setters to identify key accounting standards affected by COVID-19 of KAMs and provide insights to users on how the KAM reporting enhances communicative value during the pandemic.

The current study captures the impact of COVID-19 on the reporting of KAMs by comparing changes before and during the pandemic.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the decision usefulness of key audit matters (KAMs) disclosures from the perspective of financial analysts.

Using data from two groups of Chinese-listed firms subject to different audit standards, the authors use a quasi-natural experiment and the difference-in-differences approach to examine the impact of KAMs on analyst forecasts. The authors also conduct a textual analysis on management disclosures as well as on the content of KAM disclosures.

The results of this study show that both forecast errors and dispersion have significantly declined for the firms disclosing KAMs compared to the firms without such disclosures. Further analysis presents evidence that KAM disclosures have resulted in simultaneous increase in management disclosures and audit quality. In addition, auditor characteristics, such as auditor’s dependence on client fees and its industry specialization, and firm’s characteristics, such as its ownership structure and its social connection with the auditor, appear to affect the informativeness of KAM disclosures. The authors also perform content analysis of KAMs to provide additional insight.

As AH firms are required to adopt the expanded audit report one year before A shares firms, by design, there is only one year in which these two types of companies differ. Therefore, the results without overgeneralizing the impact of KAM disclosures should be interpreted. In addition, this study involves the Chinese market alone and, therefore, may be affected by factors peculiar to the functioning of the Chinese economy and financial markets.

The main contribution of this study lies in highlighting the salience of KAM context in shaping the relationship between auditors, managers and analysts and its collective impact on information environment. The findings of this study are significant in that they help establish the importance of KAM disclosures in helping to assure that higher quality financial information is available to capital markets, as well as information that is otherwise unavailable given disclosure mandates in China. This study adds to the literature on the importance of providing additional means of safeguarding auditor independence and on the value of auditor expertise in providing useful content in audit disclosures. Moreover, the findings suggest that the expanded audit report can help reduce the level of asymmetric information, especially for state-owned entities. They provide insight on how the new audit rule influences managers and auditors communicating complex accounting matters as well as the moderating effect of the social connections between auditors and firm executives.

This paper aims to investigate how auditors’ characteristics affect key audit matters (KAMs) in the new audit report. It also provides an understanding of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on different audit reporting decisions and audit quality in specific industries.

The paper uses a survey based on actual audit case studies extracted from the management letters of clients in an audit firm with international affiliation to test the proposed hypotheses. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests are conducted to analyze variance in responses among different groups of auditors regarding their selection of audit report sections required for each audit matter. The Wilcoxon signed rank test analyses difference in the auditors’ responses pre- and post-COVID-19 implications.

Most of the developed hypotheses were only partially accepted where industry specialization, professional qualifications of the auditors and the effects of COVID-19 had some effects on the ability of auditors to recognize and disclose KAMs. Auditor position is the most factor that significantly influenced the recognition of KAMs in the new audit report resulting in higher audit quality. This was specially the case with auditors specializing in manufacturing and financial institutions.

The current research illustrates that during the pandemic, auditors were more effective in recognizing KAMs compared to other audit matters, thus enhancing users’ confidence in both the audit and the financial reporting processes. The results are useful to regulators and auditors as they provide a better understanding of the factors that may impact communicating KAMs in the new audit report under COVID-19.

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.

Using China’s key audit matters (KAMs) data, this study aims to examine whether negative press coverage alleviates boilerplate KAMs.

This study uses Levenshtein edit distance (LVD) to calculate the horizontal boilerplate of KAMs and investigates how boilerplate changes under different levels of the perceived legal risk.

The findings indicate that auditors of firms exposed to substantial negative press coverage will reduce the boilerplate of KAMs. This association is more significant for auditing firms with lower market share and client firms with higher financial distress. Additionally, the authors find that negative press coverage is more likely to alleviate the boilerplate disclosure of KAMs related to managers’ subjective estimation and material transactions and events. Furthermore, the association between negative press coverage and boilerplate KAMs varies with the source of negative news.

The findings suggest that upon exposure to negative press coverage, reducing the boilerplate of KAMs has a disclaimer effect for auditors.