To improve audit effectiveness, public accounting firms have organized their practices to include hierarchical review by teams organized along industry lines. We examine how industry specialized auditor teams detect errors, using a sophisticated experimental design. Our analysis of nominal teams created from seniors and managers working individually shows that seniors add value to the team by detecting more mechanical errors while managers detect more conceptual errors. Working within specialization, managers and seniors both contribute in a nonredundant way to the team’s overall effectiveness. We also find that the nominal teams outperform real teams in the detection of mechanical but not conceptual errors. These results only hold when the auditors work within in their industry specialization. Out of specialization the auditors are not effective at detecting errors, and real teams perform below the nominal team benchmark in the detection of both mechanical and conceptual errors.

There has been a renewed interest in the concept of materiality motivated by concerns at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the Auditing Standards Board and International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board issuance of proposed standards on materiality. This paper: (1) reviews and integrates the empirical research on materiality since 1982, and (2) suggests some implications of this research for audit practice and research. The review indicates that while many issues related to materiality have been addressed by prior research, a number of new and important areas are in need of further examination.

This study examines how using the internal audit function (IAF) as a management training ground (MTG) affects external audit fees and the external auditors' perceptions of the IAF. Over half of all companies that have an IAF specifically hire internal auditors with the purpose of rotating them into management positions (or cycle current employees into the IAF for a short stint before promoting them into management positions). Using archival data, we find that external auditors charge higher fees to companies that use the IAF as a MTG. Using an experiment, we provide evidence as to why fees are higher. Specifically, we find that external auditors perceive internal auditors employed in an IAF used as a MTG to be less objective but not less competent than internal auditors employed in an IAF not used as a MTG. These results have important implications for the many companies that use their IAF as a MTG. Data Availability: Contact the authors. Data provided by the Institute of Internal Auditors Research Foundation are subject to restrictions.

SUMMARY This paper examines the materiality guidance for eight of the largest U.S. public accounting firms. Knowledge of how materiality guidance is integrated into a firm's methodology is important for accounting and auditing researchers as well as for practitioners, regulators, and educators. Our results show a high level of consistency across the firms in terms of the quantitative benchmarks (e.g., income before taxes, total assets or revenues, and total equity) used to determine overall materiality, the related percentages applied to those benchmarks, the percentages applied to overall materiality for determining tolerable misstatement, and what constitutes a clearly trivial misstatement. We also find that the firms' guidance for evaluating detected misstatements, including qualitative factors and firm guidance for group audits, is consistent across firms. However, there are differences in how the firms consider the possibility of undetected misstatements when evaluating detected misstatements. The results of this study provide important insights into implementation of standards and valuable information for future research and education. Data Availability: The data used are proprietary to the firms and are not available for distribution.