Search results

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 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.

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 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 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 paper is to investigate the potential influence of corporate governance mechanisms on risk disclosure quality in Tunisia.

The authors examine 152 annual reports of Tunisian non-financial-listed firms during 2008–2013, and use the manual content analysis method to measure the risk disclosure quality.

The authors find that the quality of risk disclosure in Tunisian companies is relatively low, and also find that the quality of risk disclosure is positively associated with institutional ownership, board independence, the presence of women on the board, the presence of family members on the board and the independence of audit committee. Managerial ownership has a negative effect on risk disclosure quality. Finally, the authors find that the revolution decreases the influence of concentration ownership, government ownership, family ownership and audit committee size on risk disclosure quality.

Using a comprehensive set of corporate governance mechanisms and a new measure for risk disclosure quality in Tunisia, the authors provide the first empirical evidence on the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on risk disclosure quality in a developing country. The study has theoretical and practical implications for both developed and developing countries.

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.

This paper aims to examine the effect of conditional conservatism on audit fees and whether the firm’s engagement in sustainable practices moderates the relationship between conditional conservatism and audit fees.

Using a sample of 3,767 firm-year observations from 14 European Union countries over the period of 2006–2019, the authors adopt the ordinary least square estimator to perform a panel data analysis of the effect of conditional conservatism on audit fees, and the moderating role of the environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores on the relationship between conditional conservatism and audit fees.

The authors find that conditional conservatism has a significant negative effect on audit fees, suggesting that auditors charge lower audit fees on more conservative clients. The authors also find that firms engaging in ESG actions, whether combined or individual, pay higher audit fees. More interestingly, the authors provide evidence that the negative effect of conditional conservatism on audit fees is mitigated only when ESG performance is considered in combination. This implies that firms exhibiting less commitment to ESG sustainability practices are prone to paying reduced audit fees when engaged in more conservative reporting. The findings remain robust after conducting a battery of tests.

The findings of this study have practical implications for several parties, including companies, auditors and regulators. This study emphasizes the potential benefit associated with using conservative accounting practices in terms of shaping downward the amount of audit fees. However, it also highlights the importance of considering the additional audit costs associated with higher ESG scores when making decisions about implementing sustainable practices.

Unlike prior studies that investigate the direct impact of sustainable practices on audit fees, the present work contributes to the literature on the benefits and costs of ESG by examining the moderating role of ESG performance in the association between audit fees and conditional conservatism. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine this relationship. Theoretically, the research integrates the theories of audit risk and agency to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the drivers of audit fees.

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.

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.