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 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.

In response to the users of financial statements’ need for better communication value from audit reports, auditors are required to expand the format and content of their reports. This paper aims to investigate the heterogeneity of key audit matters (KAM) for big4 audit firms.

Using a pool of 273 year-observations from the Omani capital market for the period 2016–2019, a quantile regression approach is adopted to achieve this purpose because it can provide a broader picture of this heterogeneity.

The results indicate that all types of big4 audit firms are associated with lower numbers of KAM. However, each big4 audit firm reports these KAM differently. Also, the results indicate heterogeneity in the number of KAM among the partners of each firm. Specifically, partners in some big4 audit firms show a significant association with fewer KAM while others are insignificant. Some partners of Ernst and Young show a positive association with a higher number of KAM. Overall, the results confirm the heterogeneity among auditors in styling their KAM disclosure.

There are crucial implications for various policymakers. This paper is the first to analyse KAM aspects at the partner level and use quantile regression to detect the effect of audit firms on KAM.

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.

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.

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 rich descriptive study examines auditors' client risk assessment (i.e. “key audit matters”/critical audit matters) disclosures in expanded audit reports of 328 Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 350 companies. The study compares auditor-identified client risks with corporate risk disclosures identified in audit committee reports, in terms of number and type of risks. The research also compares variation in auditor-identified client risks between individual Big 4 audit firms. In addition, the study examines auditor ranking of their client risks disclosed.

The study manually content analyses disclosures in audit reports and audit committee reports of a sample of 328 FTSE-350 companies with 2015 year-ends.

Audit committees identify more risks than auditors (23% more risks). However, auditor-identified client risks and audit-committee-identified risks are similar (80% similar), as are auditor-identified client risks between the individual Big 4 audit firms. Only ten (3%) audit reports rank the importance of auditor-identified client risks.

Sample is restricted to one year, one jurisdiction, large-listed companies and companies audited by Big 4 auditors.

The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

The paper mobilises institutional theory to interpret the findings. The findings suggest that auditor-identified client risks in expanded audit reports may demonstrate mimetic behaviour in terms of similarity with audit-committee-identified risks and similarity between individual Big 4 audit firms. The study provides important insights for regulators, auditors and users of financial statements by identifying influences on disclosure of auditor-identified client risks.

This study aims to identify the intellectual structure of expanded audit reporting (EAR), offers a quantitative summation of prominent themes, contributors and knowledge gaps and provides suggestions for further research.

This research uses various bibliometric techniques, including co-word and co-citation analysis for EAR science mapping, based on 123 papers from Scopus Database between 1991 and 2022.

The results show EAR research is focused on Audit Quality; Auditor Liability and Litigation; Communicative Value and Readability; Audit Fees; and Disclosure. Regarding EAR research, Brasel et al. (2016), article is the most cited paper, Bédard J. is the most cited author, Laval University is the most influential university, The Accounting Review is the most cited journal and USA is the leading country. Furthermore, the results show that in common law countries, in which shareholder rights and litigation risk is high, topics such as disclosure quality and audit litigation have been addressed more; and in civil legal system countries, which usually favor stakeholders’ rights, topics of gender diversity or corporate governance have been more studied.

This research has practical implications for standard setters and regulators, who can identify important, overlooked and emerging issues and consider them in future policies and standards.

This paper contributes to the literature by providing a more objective and comprehensive status of the accounting research on EAR, identifying the gaps in the literature and proposing a direction for future research to continue the discussion on the value-relevance of EAR to achieve more transparency and less audit expectation gap.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of gender diversity in the composition of engagement auditors on the disclosure of key audit matters (KAMs) in a dual-signature environment.

The authors used the unique institutional setup of Taiwan, where the law requires that audit reports be signed by two audit partners. The authors examined the effect of gender diversity composition among engagement auditors on KAM disclosure, considering behavioral differences between female and male auditors.

The empirical results indicate that gender diversity composition in the dual-signature environment is associated with the number of disclosed KAM items (KAMIT) and the length of the explanations for each KAMIT. Furthermore, the authors found that gender diversity composition, particularly when led by female audit partners, has a more pronounced impact on the explanation of each KAMIT rather than on the disclosure of KAMIT. The authors also noted that the moderating effect of audit firm specialization does not influence the gender diversity composition of audit partners in disclosing KAMs.

This study’s empirical findings demonstrate that the interaction between different gender compositions in a dual-signature environment influences KAM disclosure.