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.

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.

This research seeks to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of financial reporting and the auditor's responsibility. This paper aims to investigate how the auditors identified the impact of COVID-19 on the companies' annual financial statements and considered this impact as a key audit matters (KAM) in the reports issued and the factors that influenced their reporting.

The empirical research consists of a qualitative analysis of KAMs and a quantitative one based on a panel data econometric model using a random effects maximum likelihood regression. The sample includes companies listed on the primary market on European stock exchanges in 2019–2020.

The results suggest a direct positive correlation between numbers of KAMs and the auditor's size, frequency of the event and going concern uncertainty. Two of the variables were not validated: auditor rotation and audit fees.

The limitation of research can be the sample structure, and the model we proposed does not take into account all possible influencing factors.

This study will help researchers, policymakers and business owners have a deeper understanding of auditors' responsibility in their work. As practical implications of the COVID-19 impact following the implementation of telework, audit firms have begun to invest in digital programs to assist them in their teamwork and communication with clients. One impact on regulators has been to relax reporting requirements by extending deadlines.

This research contributes to the academic literature by providing a synthesis and econometric model of the effects identified by auditors, following the COVID-19 pandemic, expressed by KAMs in their reports.

This study aims to investigate how external auditors properly classify the requirements of ISA 701 for key audit matters (KAM) compared with an emphasis of matter or other matters (EOM) in ISA 706 and going concern (GC) in ISAs 706 and 570. Such investigation is important to assess whether the explanatory matters included in ISAs 701, 706 and 570 are appropriate for external auditors so they can properly classify identified audit matters as either KAM, EOM or GC matters and considering the relationship among them.

The research used questionnaires sent to a sample of external auditors in five audit firms with international affiliations including two of the Big 4 audit firms. The Z-test for two proportions is conducted to assess whether external auditors were confused when interpreting the explanatory matters included in the ISAs.

The research suggests that the current ISA 701 explanations may not adequately help some auditors in their aim of properly identifying all KAM from among the different matters they reach during their audit. When classifying EOM and GC, most of the external auditors misclassified them as KAM.

This is a timely study. The results have implications for standard setters and regulators through revising the explanations included in the different audit reporting standards including ISA 701 and considering the relationships among them.

According to the authors’ knowledge, this study is considered among the first that surveyed the appropriateness of the explanations included in ISAs for KAM, EOM, GC and how auditors perceive such explanations when forming their opinion about their clients’ financial statements.

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.