Search

In October 2022, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued Exposure Draft 500 (ED‐500). This is focused on revising and integrating the standard auditors use when evaluating audit evidence during an external audit. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse as the IAASB evaluates feedback to ED‐500 and executes its standard‐setting agenda. We review academic literature published in the past 10 years to synthesize extant knowledge specifically on the use of technology and the application of professional skepticism during audit evidence evaluation. Our review offers factors the IAASB should consider when seeking to modernize and future‐proof its standards, suggesting improvements to the proposed ED‐500. We also identify fruitful avenues for future academic research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY: We summarize a recent study that examines whether and how the signals provided by the internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) opinion and auditor use of advanced data analytic tools (ADAs) influence juror negligence perceptions. When auditors issue an unqualified ICFR opinion and rely on traditional statistical sampling, jurors assess the auditors as more negligent than when the auditors use ADAs. Conversely, when auditors issue an adverse ICFR opinion, jurors ascribe less blame to auditors and more to investor plaintiffs, regardless of whether the auditors use ADAs. Further, jurors perceive auditors as less negligent when they use ADAs for full population testing because they perceive ADAs to be an indicator of higher audit quality. Interestingly, jurors perceive no difference in the level of assurance provided by the audit opinion alone when auditors use ADAs relative to traditional sampling testing methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection data from 2006 to 2018, we examine the use of auditor‐employed specialists in audit engagements. First, we find that the use of specialists is increasingly prevalent and related to clients' size and complex accounting estimates. Second, the use of specialists is positively associated with the incidence of audit process deficiencies (identified by PCAOB inspections) but is not associated with output‐based audit‐quality proxies (restatements or absolute discretionary accruals). Hence, although process deficiencies are more likely to occur in engagements with higher use of specialists, financial reporting quality is not negatively impacted. Third, the use of specialists is positively associated with the likelihood of goodwill impairments and negatively associated with engagement profitability. Finally, cross‐sectional tests suggest that board accounting expertise is a salient condition for more effective use of specialists. Collectively, our findings align with concerns noted by the PCAOB and prior experimental and survey studies. Although specialists assist auditors with the audit of complex estimates, engagements with comparatively high specialist use entail an incremental risk of audit process deficiencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY: Audit data analytics (ADAs) allow auditors to analyze the entire population of transactions that has measurable benefits for audit quality. However, auditors caution that the level of assurance on the financial statements is not incrementally increased. We examine whether the testing methodology and the type of ICFR opinion issued affect jurors' perceptions of auditor negligence. We predict and find that when auditors issue an unqualified ICFR opinion, jurors make higher negligence assessments when auditors employ statistical sampling than when they employ ADAs. Further, when auditors issue an adverse ICFR opinion, jurors attribute less blame to auditors and more blame to the investor for an audit failure. Additionally, jurors perceive the use of ADAs as an indicator of higher audit quality and are less likely to find auditors negligent. However, jurors do not perceive a difference in the level of assurance provided when auditors use ADAs versus sampling testing methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]