In this paper, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper ‘‘The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors’ Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Trade-Offs’’ (Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018). In that study, we investigate potential unintended consequences from current auditing guidance on risk assessments. Specifically, auditing standards recommend separate assessments of the likelihood and magnitude of risks (hereafter, LM decomposition) when auditors assess risk. Our study involved several experiments, including one with experienced auditors, where we found evidence that LM decomposition leads auditors to be less concerned about high-risk fraud schemes relative to auditors who make holistic risk assessments. Our other experiments involved nonauditing settings and replicated this finding while exploring potential explanations for it. After providing a summary of our study and its results, we offer concluding remarks on the potential implications of our findings.
在本文中，我们对我们的论文“判断分解对审计师欺诈风险评估的影响:一些权衡”(Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018)提供了从业者总结。在该研究中，我们调查了当前审计指南对风险评估的潜在意外后果。具体来说，审计准则建议在审计人员评估风险时对风险的可能性和程度进行单独评估(下文称为LM分解)。我们的研究涉及了几个实验，其中包括一个有经验的审计员，在那里我们发现了证据，LM分解导致审计员相对于进行整体风险评估的审计员更少关注高风险欺诈计划。我们的其他实验涉及非审计设置，并在探索其潜在解释的同时复制了这一发现。在总结了我们的研究及其结果之后，我们对我们的发现的潜在含义进行了总结。
{"title":"How Fraud Risk Decomposition Affects Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments","authors":"Chad A. Simon, Jason L. Smith, Mark F. Zimbelman","doi":"10.2308/ciia-52723","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-52723","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper ‘‘The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors’ Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Trade-Offs’’ (Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018). In that study, we investigate potential unintended consequences from current auditing guidance on risk assessments. Specifically, auditing standards recommend separate assessments of the likelihood and magnitude of risks (hereafter, LM decomposition) when auditors assess risk. Our study involved several experiments, including one with experienced auditors, where we found evidence that LM decomposition leads auditors to be less concerned about high-risk fraud schemes relative to auditors who make holistic risk assessments. Our other experiments involved nonauditing settings and replicated this finding while exploring potential explanations for it. After providing a summary of our study and its results, we offer concluding remarks on the potential implications of our findings.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":"14 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46842881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nathan H. Cannon, David N. Herda, Thomas M. Puffer
This article summarizes a recently published academic study (Cannon, Herda, and Puffer 2019) that examines factors associated with Big 4 alumni's proclivity to benefit their former firm by recommending the firm to others as a potential service provider or employer (i.e., post-employment citizenship). Based on social exchange theory, our study predicts and finds that alumni who perceive their firm treated them fairly and supported them during their time with the firm are more committed to the firm, and therefore more likely to engage in post-employment citizenship. Although we find that firm commitment decreases after individuals exit the firm, our results suggest that the firm's alumni outreach efforts (both formal and informal) can help soften this decline. Practical implications for audit firms are discussed.
本文总结了最近发表的一项学术研究(Cannon, Herda, and Puffer 2019)，该研究调查了与四大校友倾向相关的因素，即通过向他人推荐公司作为潜在的服务提供商或雇主(即离职后的公民身份)，从而使他们的前公司受益。基于社会交换理论，我们的研究预测并发现，那些认为公司在他们任职期间公平对待和支持他们的校友对公司更忠诚，因此更有可能从事离职后的公民活动。尽管我们发现，在个人离开公司后，公司的忠诚度会下降，但我们的研究结果表明，公司的校友拓展工作(包括正式的和非正式的)可以帮助缓和这种下降。讨论了对审计事务所的实际影响。
{"title":"Big 4 Alumni's Attitudes and Behavior Toward their Former Firm","authors":"Nathan H. Cannon, David N. Herda, Thomas M. Puffer","doi":"10.2308/ciia-52642","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-52642","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article summarizes a recently published academic study (Cannon, Herda, and Puffer 2019) that examines factors associated with Big 4 alumni's proclivity to benefit their former firm by recommending the firm to others as a potential service provider or employer (i.e., post-employment citizenship). Based on social exchange theory, our study predicts and finds that alumni who perceive their firm treated them fairly and supported them during their time with the firm are more committed to the firm, and therefore more likely to engage in post-employment citizenship. Although we find that firm commitment decreases after individuals exit the firm, our results suggest that the firm's alumni outreach efforts (both formal and informal) can help soften this decline. Practical implications for audit firms are discussed.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/ciia-52642","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43376881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines the pressure on bank audit fees during the height of the financial crisis. I employ a prior year benchmark audit fee method and compare it to the actual audit fee to determine the amount of fee pressure applied in a year. Results show a significant amount of fee pressure exerted upon bank auditors during 2008, more so than that found in studies of other industries. This study also investigates a bank specific fee model during the crisis finding differences in determinants of fees for those banks that did apply fee pressure. JEL Classifications: M42.
{"title":"Bank Audit Fee Pressure During the Financial Crisis","authors":"C. Porter","doi":"10.2308/ciia-52643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-52643","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examines the pressure on bank audit fees during the height of the financial crisis. I employ a prior year benchmark audit fee method and compare it to the actual audit fee to determine the amount of fee pressure applied in a year. Results show a significant amount of fee pressure exerted upon bank auditors during 2008, more so than that found in studies of other industries. This study also investigates a bank specific fee model during the crisis finding differences in determinants of fees for those banks that did apply fee pressure.\u0000 JEL Classifications: M42.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/ciia-52643","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41979999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. O. Brown, Jonathan H. Grenier, Jonathan S. Pyzoha, Andrew Reffett, Natalie Zielinski
This article summarizes “The Effects of Specialist Type and Estimate Aggressiveness on Juror Judgments of Auditor Negligence” (Brown, Grenier, Pyzoha, and Reffett 2019), which examines two critical factors auditors consider when auditing complex estimates: type of specialist to engage and relative estimate aggressiveness. In an experiment involving an alleged audit failure, jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with a valuation specialist, but only when managements' estimate was more aggressive. The study does not find similar litigation benefits of using a specialist for a less aggressive estimate. A second experiment extended these results by demonstrating that jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with an external rather than an internal specialist. Further, the benefits of using an external specialist extended to auditors who initially engaged an internal specialist and brought in an external specialist to review the internal specialist's work.
{"title":"When Does Utilizing Valuation Specialists Reduce Auditors' Litigation Risk?","authors":"J. O. Brown, Jonathan H. Grenier, Jonathan S. Pyzoha, Andrew Reffett, Natalie Zielinski","doi":"10.2308/ciia-52674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-52674","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article summarizes “The Effects of Specialist Type and Estimate Aggressiveness on Juror Judgments of Auditor Negligence” (Brown, Grenier, Pyzoha, and Reffett 2019), which examines two critical factors auditors consider when auditing complex estimates: type of specialist to engage and relative estimate aggressiveness. In an experiment involving an alleged audit failure, jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with a valuation specialist, but only when managements' estimate was more aggressive. The study does not find similar litigation benefits of using a specialist for a less aggressive estimate. A second experiment extended these results by demonstrating that jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with an external rather than an internal specialist. Further, the benefits of using an external specialist extended to auditors who initially engaged an internal specialist and brought in an external specialist to review the internal specialist's work.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43295648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper "The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Tradeoffs" (Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018). In th...
{"title":"PRACTITIONER SUMMARY How Fraud Risk Decomposition Affects Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments","authors":"Chad A. Simon, Jason L. Smith, Mark F. Zimbelman","doi":"10.2308/ciia-19-015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-19-015","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we provide a practitioner summary of our paper \"The Influence of Judgment Decomposition on Auditors' Fraud Risk Assessments: Some Tradeoffs\" (Simon, Smith, and Zimbelman 2018). In th...","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":"1 1","pages":"0000-0000"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/ciia-19-015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49217637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This case utilizes a real-world example of a U.S. public company that fell victim to a Business Email Compromise (BEC) scheme in which an employee inadvertently wired millions of dollars to fraudulent accounts based upon email instructions purportedly sent by a company executive and external legal counsel. This is a timely issue to examine given its rising prevalence and magnitude in the corporate world. The case allows students to examine a topic (phishing techniques and email scams) that they are likely to be familiar with on a conceptual level, through the lens of internal controls and external auditing. Examining the case information, SEC filings, and auditing guidance, students will gain an understanding of internal control issues related to BEC and critically think of ways to remediate or implement controls to reduce cybersecurity risk, as well as consider the external auditor's growing responsibilities related to technology and its associated risks.
{"title":"Something Phish-y is Going On Here: A Teaching Case on Business Email Compromise","authors":"Kathleen M. Bakarich, Devon Baranek","doi":"10.2308/ciia-19-018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-19-018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This case utilizes a real-world example of a U.S. public company that fell victim to a Business Email Compromise (BEC) scheme in which an employee inadvertently wired millions of dollars to fraudulent accounts based upon email instructions purportedly sent by a company executive and external legal counsel. This is a timely issue to examine given its rising prevalence and magnitude in the corporate world. The case allows students to examine a topic (phishing techniques and email scams) that they are likely to be familiar with on a conceptual level, through the lens of internal controls and external auditing. Examining the case information, SEC filings, and auditing guidance, students will gain an understanding of internal control issues related to BEC and critically think of ways to remediate or implement controls to reduce cybersecurity risk, as well as consider the external auditor's growing responsibilities related to technology and its associated risks.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/ciia-19-018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43057674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The novelty, ambiguity, and the lack of official guidance surrounding cryptocurrency transactions impose additional audit risks that should be considered during client-acceptance and retention and planning audit procedures. We develop a four-quadrant model to assist auditors in client-acceptance and continuance decisions and identify cryptocurrency risks that should be considered during audit planning and audit evidence gathering.
{"title":"Challenges when Auditing Cryptocurrencies","authors":"N. Vincent, Anne M. Wilkins","doi":"10.2308/ciia-19-025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-19-025","url":null,"abstract":"The novelty, ambiguity, and the lack of official guidance surrounding cryptocurrency transactions impose additional audit risks that should be considered during client-acceptance and retention and planning audit procedures. We develop a four-quadrant model to assist auditors in client-acceptance and continuance decisions and identify cryptocurrency risks that should be considered during audit planning and audit evidence gathering.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/ciia-19-025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44360471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. O. Brown, Jonathan H. Grenier, Jonathan S. Pyzoha, Andrew Reffett, Natalie Zielinski
This article summarizes "The effects of specialist type and estimate aggressiveness on juror judgments of auditor negligence" (Brown, Grenier, Pyzoha, and Reffett 2019), which examines two critical factors auditors consider when auditing complex estimates: the type of specialist to engage and the relative aggressiveness of the estimate. In an experiment involving an alleged audit failure, jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with a valuation specialist, but only when managements' estimate was deemed to be more aggressive. The study does not find similar litigation benefits of using a specialist for a less aggressive estimate. A second experiment extended these results by demonstrating jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with an external rather than an internal specialist, because jurors perceived external specialists as having greater independence from the client. Further, the litigation benefits of using an external specialist extended to circumstances when auditors who initially engaged an internal specialist also brought in an external specialist to review the internal specialist's work. The study concludes that utilizing external specialists, to either test management estimates or to review internal specialists' work, can limit auditors' litigation exposure, especially when auditing aggressive management estimates.
{"title":"PRACTITIONER SUMMARY When does utilizing valuation specialists reduce auditors' litigation risk?","authors":"J. O. Brown, Jonathan H. Grenier, Jonathan S. Pyzoha, Andrew Reffett, Natalie Zielinski","doi":"10.2308/ciia-19-008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-19-008","url":null,"abstract":"This article summarizes \"The effects of specialist type and estimate aggressiveness on juror judgments of auditor negligence\" (Brown, Grenier, Pyzoha, and Reffett 2019), which examines two critical factors auditors consider when auditing complex estimates: the type of specialist to engage and the relative aggressiveness of the estimate. In an experiment involving an alleged audit failure, jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with a valuation specialist, but only when managements' estimate was deemed to be more aggressive. The study does not find similar litigation benefits of using a specialist for a less aggressive estimate. A second experiment extended these results by demonstrating jurors were less likely to find auditors negligent when the auditors consulted with an external rather than an internal specialist, because jurors perceived external specialists as having greater independence from the client. Further, the litigation benefits of using an external specialist extended to circumstances when auditors who initially engaged an internal specialist also brought in an external specialist to review the internal specialist's work. The study concludes that utilizing external specialists, to either test management estimates or to review internal specialists' work, can limit auditors' litigation exposure, especially when auditing aggressive management estimates.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/ciia-19-008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44760178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Veena L. Brown, Sean A. Dennis, Denise Dickins, J. Higgs, Tammie J. Schaefer
In February 2019, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (the Board or IAASB) issued a request for comment on its Exposure Draft, Proposed International Standard on Auditing 220 (Revised): Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements (ED-220). ED-220 explicitly requires the engagement partner to demonstrate sufficient and appropriate involvement in all phases of the audit, it describes certain activities that must be performed by the audit engagement partner, and it explicitly acknowledges the role of audit firm-level policies and procedures and the changing complexity of audit engagement teams. The comment period ended on July 1, 2019. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions posed by the IAASB. Data Availability: ED-220, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/exposure-draft-international-standard-auditing-220-revised-quality-management.
{"title":"Comments of the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board Exposure Draft, Proposed International Standard on Auditing 220 (Revised): Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements","authors":"Veena L. Brown, Sean A. Dennis, Denise Dickins, J. Higgs, Tammie J. Schaefer","doi":"10.2308/CIIA-52493","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-52493","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In February 2019, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (the Board or IAASB) issued a request for comment on its Exposure Draft, Proposed International Standard on Auditing 220 (Revised): Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements (ED-220). ED-220 explicitly requires the engagement partner to demonstrate sufficient and appropriate involvement in all phases of the audit, it describes certain activities that must be performed by the audit engagement partner, and it explicitly acknowledges the role of audit firm-level policies and procedures and the changing complexity of audit engagement teams. The comment period ended on July 1, 2019. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions posed by the IAASB.\u0000 Data Availability: ED-220, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/exposure-draft-international-standard-auditing-220-revised-quality-management.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/CIIA-52493","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42694538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sean A. Dennis, Denise Dickins, Christine E. Earley, J. Higgs
In June 2019, the Auditing Standards Board (the Board) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants issued a request for comment on its Proposed Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements, Amendments to the Description of the Concept of Materiality (the Proposal), which seeks to change the criteria for determining whether omissions or misstatements rise to the level of materially misstating financial statements from those that could reasonably be expected to influence economic decisions of a user, to those where there is a substantial likelihood that they would influence the judgment of a reasonable user. The comment period ends August 5, 2019. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on feedback requested by the Board. Data Availability: The Proposal, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/exposuredrafts/accountingandauditing/downloadabledocuments/20190605a/20190605a-ed-sas-ssae-materiality.pdf.
2019年6月，美国注册会计师协会(American Institute of Certified Public Accountants)审计准则委员会(Board)就其建议的《鉴证业务准则声明》、《重要性概念描述的修订》(以下简称《建议》)、该准则旨在改变确定遗漏或错报是否上升到重大错报财务报表水平的标准，从那些可以合理预期会影响使用者经济决策的标准，转变为那些极有可能影响合理使用者判断的标准。评论期将于2019年8月5日结束。本评注总结了参与委员会成员对联委会要求的反馈意见的看法。数据可用性:该提案，包括针对受访者的问题，可在https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/exposuredrafts/accountingandauditing/downloadabledocuments/20190605a/20190605a-ed-sas-ssae-materiality.pdf上获得。
{"title":"Comments of the Auditing Standards Committee of the Auditing Section of the American Accounting Association on Proposed Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements, Amendments to the Description of the Concept of Materiality","authors":"Sean A. Dennis, Denise Dickins, Christine E. Earley, J. Higgs","doi":"10.2308/CIIA-52495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-52495","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In June 2019, the Auditing Standards Board (the Board) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants issued a request for comment on its Proposed Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements, Amendments to the Description of the Concept of Materiality (the Proposal), which seeks to change the criteria for determining whether omissions or misstatements rise to the level of materially misstating financial statements from those that could reasonably be expected to influence economic decisions of a user, to those where there is a substantial likelihood that they would influence the judgment of a reasonable user. The comment period ends August 5, 2019. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on feedback requested by the Board.\u0000 Data Availability: The Proposal, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/exposuredrafts/accountingandauditing/downloadabledocuments/20190605a/20190605a-ed-sas-ssae-materiality.pdf.","PeriodicalId":44019,"journal":{"name":"Current Issues in Auditing","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2308/CIIA-52495","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48358648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：