SYNOPSIS: Since 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken steps toward requiring eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) to be used in its filings, including a voluntary filing program. “Tagging” financial information using XBRL creates documents that are computer readable and searchable. Once XBRL is required, investors are likely to demand assurance on the tagging process. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) has issued guidance on attest engagements regarding XBRL financial information furnished under the SEC’s current voluntary filer program, which relies on the auditor “agreeing” a paper version of the XBRL-related documents to the information in the official EDGAR filing. This approach may be adequate for the current paper-oriented reporting paradigm. However, once filing in XBRL becomes required, the power of XBRL to allow individual financial datum to be extracted from the SEC’s financial database will be realized. This “data-centric” idea is a crucial extension of the traditional reporting paradigm that will alter the way financial and nonfinancial data can be used. The current audit focus on reconciling only the XBRL output with the paper submissions does not address this paradigm shift. In this commentary, we discuss the SEC’s efforts to incorporate XBRL into its filing process and provide a brief overview of the technical aspects of XBRL. The commentary’s principal focus is on several important questions that assurance guidance must address in a data-centric reporting environment, such as, what constitutes an error, or what does materiality mean when individual pieces of financial data will be used outside the context of the financial statements? It also describes some XBRL-related areas where academic research can help guide XBRL-document assurance efforts.
Auditors are faced with the dilemma of inferring materiality based, in part, on whether a given level of financial misstatement will affect the decisions of statement users. Misstatements in accounting information that are below the materiality threshold are not expected to change users' assessments of a company's economic condition. While the auditing profession accepts materiality in concept, its application in practice is more controversial. In certain settings, the nature of a misstatement, such as changing a small profit into a loss, may affect an auditor's materiality judgment. However, in many cases the magnitude of the misstatement is a critical factor in judging materiality. We focus solely on the issue of magnitude and examine whether financial misstatements that are at or below commonly applied materiality thresholds result in market prices that differ from those resulting from correctly stated information. We conduct a series of 12 experimental asset markets each consisting of 12 independent three-minute trading periods with six traders in each market. We then compare prices for companies generated by markets that are provided either correctly stated information, information containing misstatements that would typically be considered immaterial, or information containing material misstatements. Results indicate that undisclosed misstatements within materiality thresholds that are consistent with current audit practice do not affect market prices, while misstatements well above these thresholds do.
SYNOPSIS: In 2005, an ad hoc committee appointed by the American Accounting Association (AAA) documented a crisis-level shortage of accounting Ph.D.s and recommended significant structural changes to doctoral programs (Kachelmeier, Madeo, Plumlee, Pratt, and Krull 2005). However, subsequent studies show that the shortage continues and the cumulative costs grow (e.g., Fogarty and Holder 2012; Brink, Glasscock, and Wier 2012). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) recently called for renewed attention to the problem (AACSB 2013b). We contribute to the literature by providing updated information regarding responses by doctoral programs and, from the eyes of potential candidates, of continuing impediments to solving the doctoral shortage. In this paper, we present information gathered through surveys of program administrators and master's and Accounting Doctoral Scholars Program (ADS) students. We explore (1) the cumulative impact of the Ph.D. shortage as of 2013, including its impact on accounting faculty composition, across different types of institutions, (2) negative student perceptions of Ph.D. programs and academic accounting careers, which discourage applicants from pursuing Ph.D. programs, and (3) impediments facing institutions in expanding doctoral programs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.