No abstract

No abstract

The publication of the European Commission Green Paper, "Audit Policy: Lessons from the Crisis" in October 2010, has stirred up a lively debate on the role of joint audits. This literature review identifies and evaluates, for the benefit of future research and regulators, existing evidence about joint audits. We find limited empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to increased audit quality, but some empirical support to suggest that joint audits lead to additional costs. Overall, this paper indicates that joint audit should be seen as a mechanism that is embedded in a broader institutional context, and not be considered in isolation from other factors that might impact the audit market. The results indicate that various country-level characteristics are simultaneously at play. While joint audits can potentially enhance the audit market competition by allowing smaller audit firms to maintain larger market shares, the related impact on audit quality has not yet been clearly demonstrated and thus provides a promising avenue for future research.3

No abstract

The three lines of defense model (TLoD) aims to provide a simple and effective way to improve coordination and enhance communications on risk management and control by clarifying the essential roles and duties of different governance functions. Without effective coordination of these governance functions, work can be duplicated or key risks may be missed or misjudged. To address these challenges, professional standards recommend that the chief audit executive (CAE) coordinates activities with other internal and external governance stakeholders (assurance providers). We consider survey responses from 415 CAEs from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland to analyze determinants that help to implement the TLoD without any challenges and to explore the extent of (coordination) challenges between the internal audit function and the respective governance stakeholders. Our results show a great variance in the extent of coordination challenges dependent on different determinants and the respective governance stakeholder.

We investigate the impact of considering key audit matters (KAM) on auditor judgment performance and conducted a 2×2 between-subjects experiment based on a goodwill impairment testing case with 73 experienced auditors. We manipulated the two independent variables KAM consideration (present vs. absent) and client pressure (high vs. low). As dependent variables, we captured skeptical judgment and action as different facets of auditor judgment performance. Our results suggest that auditors' reaction to our client pressure manipulation is rather weak. If at all, auditors seem to become slightly more skeptical in their judgments and actions when client pressure is high, which might suggest that a reasonableness constraint has been triggered. Furthermore, we find that auditors exhibit significantly less skeptical judgment when KAM consideration is present than when KAM consideration is absent. This suggests that, when considering KAM, auditors are more willing to acquiesce to their clients' desired accounting treatments due to moral licensing. JEL Classification: M42

We investigate the effect of key audit matters (KAM) in the auditor's report as required by the new ISA 701. We consider investment professionals and nonprofessional investors in our experiments, in which we test the communicative value of a KAM section relating to goodwill impairment. Our main results show that in the condition in which the KAM section suggests that already small changes in the key assumptions could eventually lead to a goodwill impairment (KAM negative condition), investment professionals assess the economic situation of the company to be significantly better as compared to the condition in which the KAM section suggests that only large changes in the key assumptions could eventually lead to a goodwill impairment (KAM positive condition). In the additional analysis with non-professional investors, we find that a KAM section has no communicative value, implying that nonprofessional investors have difficulties with processing the information conveyed with KAM.

This article empirically examines the time dependence of audit quality and audit fee effects resulting from the presence of audit firm alumni (AFA) on audit committees (ACs) in the German setting. Following the European Union's audit reform in 2014, the subject of this study is of particular importance, as European regulators have strengthened the position of ACs, while simultaneously restricting the presence of AFA on ACs. We find that the presence of AFA who have recently left their former employer on ACs is associated with higher audit quality, while we fail to find a significant effect on audit quality with regard to AFA who have left audit firms a longer period of time ago. In addition, the presence of AFA on ACs does not seem to affect audit fees. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate time-dependent AFA effects related to ACs.