Search results

Part V analyzes the details of how to assess materiality. It first tackles qualitative versus quantitative criteria and the role of professional judgment. It then analyzes the selection of quantitative threshold, to expand to the choice of benchmarks. It contrasts the whole financial statements with subaggregates, line items, and components.

Specific sections contrast IASB, FASB, SEC, and other guidance on materiality applied to comparative information, interim reporting, and segment reporting.

The section on estimates mingles complex guidance coming from accounting, auditing, and internal control over financial reporting to explain how the management can improve its assessment of materiality concerning estimates.

After explaining the techniques to move from individual to cumulative misstatements, the part tackles verification ex post, and finally summarizes the intricacies of whether immaterial misstatements are permissible and their consequences.

Audits of long‐term insurers are complex, high‐risk engagements. The auditor’s consideration of materiality has a direct impact on the quality of such audits. So far, however, no research has been published on the application of materiality in audits of long‐term insurers. This study examines various aspects of planning materiality in the audits of listed South African long‐term insurers on the basis of responses to a questionnaire, taking into account issues identified from the literature reviewed. A number of recommendations are made on the basis of the findings. Largely on the basis of the results of this study, the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants has commissioned a project to revise existing guidance for auditors.

Part II contrasts the views of materiality in the Conceptual Frameworks of the IASB, FASB, IPSAS, and other framework such as the Integrated Reporting. In particular, it analyzes at what level and how differently that concept interacts with the qualitative characteristics of financial information in each of those frameworks. It looks at its pervasiveness and entity specificity, the interlock with the concept of relevance, reliability and faithful representation, completeness, understandability, neutrality, and drills down to the link to recognition.

This part then compares the definitions of materiality in different standards and contexts, to then draw a taxonomy of materiality and its attributes, such as the subject matter, thecontext of assessment, the addressees, the assessor, and the materiality test. A large part of the analysis involves the comparison between legal definitions of materiality and characterizations in the accounting, financial, and larger management contexts.

This paper seeks to focus on the issue of materiality judgements and the need for public disclosure of materiality levels. Insights about the concept of materiality are drawn from the words of users of audited financial reports, auditee managements, suppliers to the market for audit services and auditing standard setters and regulators.

This paper reports findings arising from face‐to‐face office interviews with individuals representing identified groups of stakeholders in the market for audit services about the issue of “materiality” as this concept is applied in auditing. The interviews canvassed many issues related to audit as part of a larger project entitled “The future of audit”.

In general, stakeholders perceive that the concepts involved in audit materiality are not well understood and they point to the difficulty in providing educative materiality about it, especially in relation to qualitative materiality, to retail investors in particular. There are mixed views as to whether the actual level of tolerable error, as per one of the meanings of materiality in the audit space, should be disclosed, with some feeling that it might be detrimental or dangerous.

If incremental information about materiality is to be disclosed, the issue of where, what to whom, by whom and when arise. Various suggestions are made by stakeholders in respect of these questions.

The paper concludes by drawing from the insights gained by the authors through the comments of participant stakeholders to make recommendations that deal with the issue of audit materiality.

In 1954, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Committee on Accounting Procedure released an auditing book, which listed under the heading “Material” certain items of which it cautioned “material errors” could occur (AICPA, 1954, p. 1). From this date until the present, the accounting profession has struggled in its endeavors to find both a suitable definition and associated guidance to determine the materiality of information provided to financial statement users. Accordingly, in September 2015, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued two exposure drafts that address the concept and interpretation (our emphasis) of materiality. The releases are Proposed Amendments to Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts, Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting; Chapter 3: Qualitative Characteristics of Useful Financial Information (Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), 2015a) and Proposed Accounting Standards Update, Notes to Financial Statements (Topic 235) Assessing Whether Disclosures Are Material (FASB, 2015b). In this article, the authors focus on the Chapter 3 amendments (FASB, 2015a), which proposes a new definition whose genesis is based on the US Supreme Court definition of the concept. Accordingly, the authors examined the views of two stakeholders in the US financial reporting system, auditors in large public accounting firms, and Chief Financial Officers of the Fortune 1000 companies, regarding their perceptions of the proposed definition. The authors developed the research instrument to evaluate their perceptions of the proposed definition’s potential impact on various aspects of the audit and financial reports. The authors found that both populations have negative perceptions of the materiality definition in the exposure draft and an interpretation of the responses did not indicate an addition of any benefits from its adoption. Subsequent to our solicitation for our subjects’ opinions, the FASB voted unanimously in November 2017 to remove the reference to materiality as a legal concept (FASB, 2017) and in August 2018 (FASB, 2018) amended FASB Concept Statement No. 8 to replace the materiality definition with language similar to the previously superseded FASB Concept Statement No. 2. However, as the authors will explain in this article, the fact that three authoritative definitions exist, which continue to present problems for financial statement preparers and auditors. In this analysis, the authors find evidence that auditors and investors continue to see a significant difference between the terminology of “users” and “reasonable resource provider” within the various materiality definitions.

The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence concerning the effective use of qualitative materiality factors (QMF) included in the new ISA 450, and its potential consequences from the perspective of Spanish independent auditors and preparers of financial statements.

A specially designed questionnaire was distributed to a sample of both (352) auditors and (121) preparers in Spain. Frequencies and ranking comparisons, Student's t‐tests, and Mann‐Whitney tests were used to analyse the data.

Results show that the majority of auditors and preparers that participated in the study agree on the issuance of qualified audit reports when the financial statements contain uncorrected misstatements that are below the materiality levels but are related to QMF included in ISA 450. Furthermore, both groups accept that this situation would have important positive effects on the development and results of current practice in auditing, on the quality of financial statements, and on both users and society.

First, as with all mail surveys, there are some limitations associated with individuals' responses. Second, the findings of this paper should be interpreted bearing in mind that the survey was conducted before the new ISA 450 was published in October 2008. Finally, this paper is limited to the Spanish context; thus, the findings may not be applicable elsewhere.

The findings of this paper have significant practical implications for auditors, as well as for policy makers, enabling them to better understand the importance of the qualitative side of materiality in auditing judgments.

From the perspective of both auditors and preparers, this paper provides evidence about the QMF included in the new ISA 450, effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after December 15, 2009.

The specific purpose of this study is to understand how firm size and public/private affiliation (employment status) affect voluntary disclosure decisions concerning quantitatively immaterial nonfinancial information. Although the prior disclosure literature is large and has considered a variety of factors including size and to a lesser degree employment status, this study offers a new perspective by considering both factors in the context of qualitative materiality.

This paper presents 136 manager participants with 24 cues representing nonfinancial, realistic business events and solicits their disclosure judgments. The cues are adapted from Pinsker et al. and contain information that does not meet widely-accepted quantitative thresholds for disclosure (e.g. 5 percent of net income), yet were identified by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as more likely to be material. This paper uses a median split of total assets and total revenues to determine “large” and “small” firms. Managers' judgments are measured in an own-firm setting (The context is their current employer, which can be public or private.).

This paper finds that disclosure is positively linked to firm size, but this paper do not find an employer status effect. Additional testing reveals that private firm managers are sensitive to SEC oversight and other external, competitive pressures, suggesting that they face mimetic pressures to behave like their public firm counterparts. In sum, their findings contribute significantly to the disclosure, strategic management, institutional theory and judgment-and-decision-making (JDM) literatures.

Although there is a vast literature on public firm managers' voluntary disclosure behavior (mostly involving large firms), there is little research regarding the voluntary disclosure behavior of small or large private firm managers involving nonfinancial information.

In reviewing contemporary literature on materiality judgement and the audit expectations gap (AEG), this paper considers an apparent void concerning that aspect of the AEG caused by the non‐disclosure of materiality and risk thresholds and criteria in the financial reports. The review enables the formation and discussion of two premises: first, disclosing cornerstone concepts, such as materiality and risk judgements, in financial reports enhances users' understanding of the limitations of information contained therein; and second, expanding the wording in audit reports reduces the AEG and enhances users' understanding of the objectives and limitations of an audit. In supporting the validity of these premises, it is concluded that the disclosure of materiality and risk judgements in financial reports may reduce the AEG. This hypothesis may be useful for future empirical research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between the amounts obtained using professionally accepted quantitative benchmarks of audit planning materiality and the size of accounting misstatements corrected by financial statements restatements.

The paper uses a sample of 136 companies (237 company years) that have restated such financial statements and compare the amounts of the restatements with planning materiality benchmarks (rules of thumb) established to aid auditors in arriving at audit planning levels.

It was found that, depending on the method of analysis selected and the materiality benchmark followed, as high as approximately 62 per cent of the restatements involve income levels less than the planning materiality level.

The results lead to questions as to the appropriate relationship between the scope of audit procedures, which is in part determined by these quantitative materiality benchmarks, and subsequent financial statement restatements.

The issue addressed in this study is important because if audit planning levels for materiality are in excess of the amounts subsequently restated due to accounting misstatements, this might serve as an explanation for a number of recent restatements. Furthermore, it might suggest the need to consider decreasing acceptable materiality planning levels, thus resulting in a recalibration of the audit process.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the socio-political role of materiality assessment in sustainability reporting literature and discuss the potential of materiality assessment to advance more inclusive accounting and reporting practices, in particular critical dialogic accounting.

Drawing on literature on the concept of materiality together with insights from stakeholder engagement, commensuration and critical dialogic accounting the paper analyses disclosure on materiality in sustainability reports. Empirically, qualitative content analysis is used to analyse 44 sustainability reports from the leading companies.

The authors argue that, first, the technic-rational approach to materiality portrays the assessment as a neutral and value-free measurement, and second, the materiality matrix presents the multiple stakeholders as having a unified understanding of what is considered important in corporate sustainability. Thus, the technic-rational approach to the materiality assessment, reinforced with the use of the matrix is a value-laden judgement of what matters in corporate sustainability and narrows down rather than opens up the complexity of the assessment of material sustainability issues, stakeholder engagement and the societal pursuit of sustainable development.

The understandings and implications of the concept of materiality are ambiguous and wide-reaching, as, through constituting the legitimised set of claims and information on corporate sustainable performance, it impacts our understanding of sustainable development at large, and affects the corporate and policy-level transition towards sustainability. Exploring insights from critical dialogic accounting help us to elaborate on the conceptions and practical implications of materiality assessment that enhance stakeholder engagement in a democratic, rather than managerial, spirit.