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.

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.

Materiality is a critical and challenging auditing concept. To help auditors improve their materiality judgments, the authors provide examples from Judaism, primarily due to its longevity and the richness and variety of its stories. The authors show how Judaism interprets and applies materiality in many contexts. For each, the authors provide guidance on how auditors might apply these lessons to improve their materiality judgments. The authors examine five areas where Judaic examples can inform modern auditing including: (1) considering both quantitative and qualitative measures; (2) recognizing that small quantitative changes can lead to material qualitative effects; (3) understanding that ignoring small issues can become a slippery slope; (4) considering the importance of financial statement users’ needs in developing materiality criteria; and (5) prioritizing substance over form. In all examples, context is a critical factor to consider when applying materiality. These results should be of interest to auditors, financial statement users and others.

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.

Part IV provides readers with the extant requirements for the application of materiality to recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure in the financial statements. This part also includes a detailed critical review of the recent Practice Statement on materiality, the FASB’s proposed ASU on the notes and the amendments to the Conceptual Framework proposed by the IASB and the FASB.

The part expands to issues that are typical of Management Commentary, including the SEC guidance on materiality in Management Discussion and Analysis.

It informs about the complexities and subtle differences between financial statements and bookkeeping and the different standards of reasonableness versus materiality.

A section moves from materiality to material misstatements and covers the application of materiality in auditing.

Another section goes in depth on internal control over financial reporting, showing the linkages between materiality and risk appetite and risk tolerance and the related application guidance.

Part VI illustrates different approaches concerning the processes and methods that an entity can establish to determine materiality. Given the highly subjective nature of materiality assessments, proper processes, systems, and methodologies are at the forefront of the recent and future developments in this area.

The part divides the processes analyzed into four groups: (1) those that derive from accounting approaches, including the recent IASB’s four-step approach; (2) audit-derived models, generally elaborated from techniques to detect material misstatements; (3) risk-based approaches employed in risk management or in internal control over financial reporting; and (4) approaches derived from larger models involving financial, management, environmental, and corporate responsibility factors.

Finally, two sections deal with the disclosure of materiality determination, one concerning the process employed by an entity, and the second concerning general model disclosures of material matters.

Part III reviews the uses and effects of materiality as an accounting, legal, audit, and managerial concept. After mentioning several uses of materiality as a legal concept and explaining the FASB’s proposed direction to avoid an accounting definition, it goes in depth to the differences in the respective definitions, applications, practical interactions, and different nature of the legal and accounting views. It then draws on the differences between audit and accounting uses of materiality.

It counterbalances the interests and positions of the various stakeholders involved, such as investors, preparers, standard-setters, auditors, regulators, financial analysts, and other users of the financial statements. It shows that those who regulate, use, decide, and assess materiality are different subjects.

Finally, the part capitalizes on the author’s vast experience in industry to theorize a plethora of alternative and complementary models of materiality with their pros and cons.

The last part of the book wraps up the whole content in showing how an experienced professional can handle discussions with management to uncover inappropriate schemes, manipulation tactics, if not frauds.

It first reports the predominant idea that today’s issue about materiality is simply behavioral or concerns implementation issues. It then moves to the observation of illegitimate use of materiality in the real world to manipulate financial results.

It then goes through an illustration of SEC staff’s comments on materiality in the review of Form 20-F of foreign private issuers reporting under IFRS.

Finally, the part spells out typical materiality abuses by management, which can be found in practice. Each occurrence of this long list is linked to the respective part of the book that treats the theoretical bases of why a certain reasoning is a fallacy, and the specific pronouncements that such a behavior would contravene.

Over the last decade, many published papers lament auditors’ shift from professionalism to commercialism and call for increasing auditors’ commitment to the public interest (see, e.g., Bailey, 2008; Fogarty & Rigsby, 2010; Lampe & Garcia, 2013; Wyatt, 2004; Zeff, 2003a, 2003b). At the same time, suggesting effective methodologies for improving auditors’ commitment to the public interest is particularly challenging because issues arising in the audit context are complex, and often involve tradeoffs between multiple stakeholders (e.g., Gaa, 1992; Massey & Thorne, 2006). An understanding of auditors ethical characterizations across separate phases of the audit process is needed so that methodologies can be devised to improve auditors’ commitment to the public interest. Thus, in this paper we interviewed 24 auditors and asked them to describe critical ethical incidents that they have encountered throughout the various phases of the audit process. Our results not only document the tension underlying the shift between professionalism and commercialism in auditing suggested by others, but also show that ethical conflicts are found in each phase of the audit and there are cross-phase differences in the auditors’ ethical characterizations. Limitations of the findings are also discussed as are suggestions for future research.

This chapter explored how authenticity and objectivity in autoethnography research are viewed from a new materialist perspective. The study is framed within Barad’s (2007) concept of agential realism, which reconceptualizes how objects are examined, and knowledge created in scientific activities. The findings showed that in terms of authenticity, new materialism suggests a non-representationalist voice, which argues against the need to exactly mirror pre-existing phenomena in some metaphysical world through language in traditional research paradigms. This means the researchers must give up the authority of their narrative voice as a privileged source of knowledge with a valued property of authenticity. The study suggests performative voice as an alternative. The performative narrator is concerned not with identifying who researchers are, and how they are similar or different from the Other, but how their experiences constrain what they know and how they represent participants or themselves in their worlds. Writing autoethnographies now is less a way of telling than a way of knowing in being. An agential-realist account of objectivity posits that “distance is not a prerequisite for objectivity, and even the notion of proximity takes separation too literally” (Barad, 2007, p. 359). So objectivity does not mean to be removed or distanced from what we, as individual subjects of cognition, are observing. Objectivity, instead, is embodied through specific material practices enacted between the subject and the object. This entails that “objectivity is about accountability and responsibility to what is real” (Barad, 2007, p. 91). This understanding of objectivity engenders a reconfiguring of data as diffractive phenomena and reliability as axiological intra-actions in what I now call an auto-ethico-ethnography.