No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore auditors' perceptions of goodwill accounting under international financial reporting standards (IFRS). More specifically, the authors surveyed auditors to see if they believe that IFRS enables earnings management in goodwill accounting. Further the paper explores background factors behind opinions.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses a survey of KHT certified Finnish auditors. The electronic questionnaire was sent to 523 KHT‐auditors. The authors received 123 responses yielding a response rate of 23.5 percent.FindingsThe survey indicates that there are two lines of thought regarding goodwill accounting under IFRS. According to the first line of thought, managers of listed Finnish companies behave opportunistically in goodwill write‐off decisions. The other line of thought suggests that there is a favorable attitude towards the IFRS procedures of goodwill accounting. Big Four auditors seem to favor goodwill accounting under IFRS.Research limitations/implicationsThis study is conducted in Finland. Larger data collection would enhance the reliability of the results.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the literature by providing the perspective of auditors on fair value and goodwill as very few studies have examined goodwill issues from this viewpoint.

Purpose Key audit matters (KAMs) in International Standard for Auditing, 701 seek to enhance the value of the auditor’s report by increasing the transparency of how the audit was performed. The purpose of this study is to investigate how professional auditors themselves perceive the impact of KAMs on audit quality and audit effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach Statistical analyses of an electronic survey of certified public auditors (CPAs) in Finland. Findings Regarding the perceptions of KAMs, the authors found two dominant views on auditing: quality and efficiency. In general, the respondents did not consider that KAMs improve audit quality. However, auditors focusing on efficiency considered that KAMs make the audit process more fluent. Further, the use of KAMs may facilitate audit effectiveness and cooperation between auditors and managers. The authors also found three factors related to the KAMs processes and auditing work: effectiveness, risks and workload. Practical implications Auditors may use KAMs to provide focus in their work. This facilitates balancing between the demands for added value while keeping the workload and audit risks at a tolerable level. Originality/value This study contributes to the emerging literature on KAMs as well as to the literature examining practitioner views of changes in auditing regulation. It is, as far as we know, the first study to report survey evidence on how CPAs themselves perceive KAMs and the effects of KAMs on audit work in an European Union country context.

While inputs used in analysts' valuation models have been documented (Brown et al. 2015), it has not been studied how analysts' personal characteristics are associated with their level of critical perception regarding agency conflict manifested in published financial statements. This is important because analysts are, to some extent, substitutes for industry-specialised auditors in monitoring financial reporting (e.g., Sun and Liu 2011). To address this shortcoming, we investigate analysts' level of critical perception concerning current goodwill accounting standards, which provide significant reporting latitude. We use data from a survey of Nordic financial analysts and examine this data with statistical methods, including factor analysis and structural equation modelling. We find two latent constructs, one which reflects a critical attitude to the current goodwill accounting standards and one which reflects an uncritical attitude to the current standards. Our structural equation model suggests that having a background in auditing, as well as general experience and exposure to different industries, is associated with a higher degree of critical perception of current standards. In contrast, having a basic (low) level of formal business (accounting) education is associated with a more uncritical perception than having a high level of education.