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.

Reports research results which were presented to the Working Party of the Auditing Practices Board, which developed Statement of Auditing Standards 600 on the expansion of the audit report. Provides a brief discussion of the working party’s reception of the research. Results revealed that, with the short audit report used in the UK until September 1993, a gap existed between auditors and users with 14 of the 18 audit dimensions having statistically significant differences. An expanded audit report (a British version of SAS 58 constructed by the authors) changed users’ perceptions although ten of these 18 dimensions still had statistically significant differences between the users and the auditors. Expansion of the audit report is only a partial “solution” and needs to be combined with other measures, such as changing audit activities. An analysis of the dimensions for which users’ perceptions of the audit are enhanced shows that expansion of the audit report allows the audit profession to enhance its status without any change in actual audit activities or auditor accountability.

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.

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.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the decision usefulness of key audit matters (KAMs) disclosures from the perspective of financial analysts.

Using data from two groups of Chinese-listed firms subject to different audit standards, the authors use a quasi-natural experiment and the difference-in-differences approach to examine the impact of KAMs on analyst forecasts. The authors also conduct a textual analysis on management disclosures as well as on the content of KAM disclosures.

The results of this study show that both forecast errors and dispersion have significantly declined for the firms disclosing KAMs compared to the firms without such disclosures. Further analysis presents evidence that KAM disclosures have resulted in simultaneous increase in management disclosures and audit quality. In addition, auditor characteristics, such as auditor’s dependence on client fees and its industry specialization, and firm’s characteristics, such as its ownership structure and its social connection with the auditor, appear to affect the informativeness of KAM disclosures. The authors also perform content analysis of KAMs to provide additional insight.

As AH firms are required to adopt the expanded audit report one year before A shares firms, by design, there is only one year in which these two types of companies differ. Therefore, the results without overgeneralizing the impact of KAM disclosures should be interpreted. In addition, this study involves the Chinese market alone and, therefore, may be affected by factors peculiar to the functioning of the Chinese economy and financial markets.

The main contribution of this study lies in highlighting the salience of KAM context in shaping the relationship between auditors, managers and analysts and its collective impact on information environment. The findings of this study are significant in that they help establish the importance of KAM disclosures in helping to assure that higher quality financial information is available to capital markets, as well as information that is otherwise unavailable given disclosure mandates in China. This study adds to the literature on the importance of providing additional means of safeguarding auditor independence and on the value of auditor expertise in providing useful content in audit disclosures. Moreover, the findings suggest that the expanded audit report can help reduce the level of asymmetric information, especially for state-owned entities. They provide insight on how the new audit rule influences managers and auditors communicating complex accounting matters as well as the moderating effect of the social connections between auditors and firm executives.

This paper aims to ask whether the implementation of the expanded auditor’s report, which included a requirement to disclose key audit matters (KAMs) in Thailand since 2016, has improved audit quality.

To answer this question, the authors examined audit quality two years before and two years after its adoption by analysing 1,519 firm-year observations obtained from 312 companies. The authors applied logistic regression analyses to the firm-year observations.

The authors found some weak evidence that KAMs disclosure improved audit quality because of auditors putting more effort into their audits and audits being performed thoroughly after the implementation of KAMs. Interestingly, the number of disclosed KAMs and the most common types of disclosed KAMs are not associated with audit quality. Only disclosed KAMs related to acquisitions are more informative because the presence of this type of disclosed KAMs signals the greater likelihood of financial restatements being made in a later year.

Unlike previous studies on the impact of KAMs disclosure on audit quality, which used discretionary accruals as proxy for audit quality, this study used the occurrence of financial restatements.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on audit fees and the reporting of key audit matters (KAMs). Additionally, this study also looks into potential differences in the behavior of male and female audit partners during this period, adding to the existing research on gender's effect on different elements of the audit process.

This study used a sample of all FTSE 350 firms from before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the pandemic. It analyzed the data using Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis to test its hypotheses.

This paper provides early evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on audit fees and KAM disclosures in the UK. The results of this study show an increase in audit fees during the pandemic and greater detail in the reporting of KAMs, with no significant difference between male and female audit partners. These findings will be of interest to audit firms and regulators as they assess the performance of auditors during the pandemic and evaluate the expanded audit report's effectiveness in providing sufficient information to financial statement users.

This study provides first-of-its-kind empirical evidence on how auditors in the UK reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings of this study will be of interest to audit firms, regulators, such as the Financial Reporting Council, and other stakeholders as they evaluate the performance of auditors during the crisis period. The results will help regulators assess the effectiveness of the expanded audit report in providing sufficient information during a time of heightened risk and scrutiny.

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.

This study aims at investigating the effect of the qualified audit reports on shares prices and returns in Jordan.

A market‐based study conducted on the qualified audit reports of the shareholding companies in Jordan during the period 2000‐2005.

The conclusions of the study showed that there is no clear or significant effect of a qualified audit opinion on share prices and returns.

Based on the conclusions of the study, the researchers recommend there is a need for further educating users of the role of the audit report and the need for extending this study to investigate the effect of the qualified audit reports on share prices and returns during other periods and using different test periods other than the announcement date.

This study is original because it provides us with new evidence about the effect of qualified audit reports on shares prices and returns in a developing country.

This chapter focuses on the international aspects of auditing in the context of the airline industry for the year 2018. This chapter finds that International Standards on Auditing have been widely adopted in the global context. This chapter also analyses several observations related to the composition of audit firms (Big 4 vs. non-Big 4), types of audit opinions, emphasis of matter, other matters, material uncertainty related to going-concern, and types of auditors (single or joint auditor). This chapter covers the frequency of the four elements of describing key audit matters (KAM) in the audit reports in the global and auditor context as well as the KAMs observed in the airline industry and classifies them as industry-specific KAMs and entity-specific KAMs. In addition, this chapter analyses the requirements of the expanded audit report of the UK which includes the declaration of materiality threshold and scope of the audit in connection with the materiality and KAMs considering UK and non-UK airlines.