No abstract

SUMMARY: Recent changes in the audit and financial reporting environment have resulted in longer audit report lags and have increased the importance of identifying factors associated with a timely audit. We examine timeliness implications of office-specific attributes of the audit firm. Specifically, we examine whether office-specific industry expertise, office size, and the importance of the client to the local office are associated with audit delay (i.e., the time between fiscal year-end and the audit report date). We explore the sensitivity of our results to various measures and consider the impact of earnings quality. We examine two types of industry expertise and whether the aforementioned audit firm attributes are associated with a propensity to issue an early earnings announcement. We find that office-specific industry expertise is negatively associated with audit delay (for all but the largest quartile of firm offices) while office size and client importance are both positively associated with audit delay; however, the most important clients are associated with a more timely audit. Office-specific industry expertise is positively associated with the propensity to announce earnings substantially early and such expertise garnered via a product-specialist strategy is positively associated with audit delay relative to a low-cost specialist strategy. Our study provides further support for the importance of office-specific characteristics on audit and financial reporting outcomes and provides evidence of the benefit of office-specific industry expertise.

No abstract

No abstract

The PCAOB recently expressed concern regarding the sufficiency and effectiveness of review and supervision of audit fieldwork. For the audit review process to succeed as a quality control mechanism, any issues or questions identified by a reviewer must be adequately resolved and documented in the workpapers. If audit review fails to correct for errors/biases in the work of reviewees, there can be serious detrimental effects on audit quality and, in turn, financial statement quality. Our study extends the literature by examining the phase of the review process in which reviewees respond to (or "close") notes/comments provided by their reviewers. Utilizing an experiment, we find that certain contextual factors (review timeliness and review note frame) influence reviewee follow-through during this critical phase. Specifically, we find that a delayed review elicits significantly lower effort levels than a timely review. Review note frame (i.e., how the reviewer phrases the rationale given for the underlying directive of a review note) * significantly affects reviewee effort and performance when the review is timely. Through mediation analyses, we explore the mediating effect of effort on performance. In addition, we find that reviewer delay leads to greater over-documentation.

We investigate whether and how a "critical audit matter" (CAM) disclosure affects managers' real operating decisions in two contexts (issuing a loan that decreases versus increases the average risk profile of loan portfolios, or choosing to hedge versus speculate on commodity risk). We expect a CAM disclosure increases disclosure costs and implies expanded auditor support for both types of activities, but we expect implied auditor support to be valued more highly for risk-increasing than for risk-decreasing activities. As a result, we predict that a CAM disclosure decreases managers' risk-decreasing activities (due to increased disclosure costs) more than managers' risk-increasing activities (as the implied auditor support counteracts the increased disclosure costs). We find evidence consistent with our prediction across multiple experiments. Our study sheds light on unintended consequences of a CAM disclosure and provides insight to relevant parties as the new standard goes into effect.

Workpaper review is an important quality control mechanism in the audit environment. However, appropriately responding to review notes is not commonly taught. The Sprandel, Inc. case provides a hands-on learning experience for students to connect textbook audit knowledge through use of an activity regularly performed in audit practice: closing review notes. Through the process of closing review notes, students practice auditing accounts receivable, including performing audit procedures related to internal controls and substantive audit work. The case also provides students with an opportunity to use Excel to complete electronic workpapers and to document their audit procedures. Further, the case requires students to use critical-thinking skills and apply professional skepticism when performing audit procedures, evaluating audit evidence, and making decisions. Finally, this case helps students understand how auditing standards apply to the procedures performed during an audit of accounts receivable. The case is designed for auditing courses at the undergraduate or graduate level.

We explore potential effects of a new Public Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) rule that requires disclosure of the external audit partner's identity. By manipulating the presence or absence of audit partner disclosure (APD), we examine how investors might react to APD and the mechanism behind such reaction. We find that prospective investors are less likely to invest in a peer firm linked to a restating firm via APD than when the link is only through an audit firm and industry. This effect is mediated by investors' restatement likelihood assessments. Our study makes several contributions. First, we add empirical evidence to the emerging debate on the impact of APD to U.S. markets. Second, we experimentally demonstrate investor information contagion and provide support for one mechanism (speculated by archival-based literature) through which it works. Finally, we provide evidence that investors attribute more blame to partners for a negative outcome due to APD. JEL Classifications: M42; M48.