IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v60y2020i4p4121-4146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impacts of the timing of the discovery of a subsequent event on the auditors’ approach to subsequent events

Author

Listed:
  • Soon‐Yeow Phang

Abstract

This study investigates the underlying causes affecting auditors’ approaches to subsequent events. As auditors are required to perform the majority of subsequent events procedures near the due date of the audit report, I examine whether auditors are less likely to make adjustments or disclosures regarding subsequent events that occur after the audit completion, but before issuing the audit report. Results indicate that auditors were less likely to adjust Type I events that occurred after audit completion when the risk was low, but not when the risk was high. This was not the case for Type II events, which only require disclosure.

Suggested Citation

  • Soon‐Yeow Phang, 2020. "Impacts of the timing of the discovery of a subsequent event on the auditors’ approach to subsequent events," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4121-4146, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:60:y:2020:i:4:p:4121-4146
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.12526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12526
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.12526?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gendron, Yves, 2002. "On the role of the organization in auditors' client-acceptance decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 659-684, October.
    2. Steven E. Salterio, 2012. "Fifteen years in the trenches: Auditor–client negotiations exposed and explored," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 52, pages 233-286, October.
    3. Marietta Peytcheva & Peter R. Gillett, 2012. "Auditor perceptions of prior involvement and reputation threats as antecedents of quality threatening audit behavior," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 27(9), pages 796-820, October.
    4. Messier, William F. & Quick, Linda A. & Vandervelde, Scott D., 2014. "The influence of process accountability and accounting standard type on auditor usage of a status quo heuristic," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 59-74.
    5. Bryan K. Church, 1991. "An examination of the effect that commitment to a hypothesis has on auditors' evaluations of confirming and disconfirming evidence," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 513-534, March.
    6. Shana M. Clor‐Proell & Laureen A. Maines, 2014. "The Impact of Recognition Versus Disclosure on Financial Information: A Preparer's Perspective," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(3), pages 671-701, June.
    7. Libby, R, 1985. "Availability And The Generation Of Hypotheses In Analytical Review," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 648-667.
    8. Timothy B. Bell & Rajib Doogar & Ira Solomon, 2008. "Audit Labor Usage and Fees under Business Risk Auditing," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 729-760, September.
    9. Luc Quadackers & Tom Groot & Arnold Wright, 2014. "Auditors’ Professional Skepticism: Neutrality versus Presumptive Doubt," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(3), pages 639-657, September.
    10. Kanodia, C & Bushman, R & Dickhaut, J, 1989. "Escalation Errors And The Sunk Cost Effect - An Explanation Based On Reputation And Information Asymmetries," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 59-77.
    11. Hirshleifer, David & Teoh, Siew Hong, 2003. "Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1-3), pages 337-386, December.
    12. Jeremy Michels, 2017. "Disclosure Versus Recognition: Inferences from Subsequent Events," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-34, March.
    13. Robert Libby & Scott A. Emett, 2014. "Earnings presentation effects on manager reporting choices and investor decisions," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(4), pages 410-438, August.
    14. Phillips, F, 1999. "Auditor attention to and judgments of aggressive financial reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 167-189.
    15. Tan, Ht, 1995. "Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 113-135.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Koonce, Lisa & Mongold, Cassie & Quaid, Laura & White, Brian J., 2024. "Experimental research on standard-setting issues in financial reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    2. Kusano, Masaki, 2018. "Effect of capitalizing operating leases on credit ratings: Evidence from Japan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 45-56.
    3. Libby, Robert & Rennekamp, Kristina M. & Seybert, Nicholas, 2015. "Regulation and the interdependent roles of managers, auditors, and directors in earnings management and accounting choice," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 25-42.
    4. Salterio, Steven, 1996. "The effects of precedents and client position on auditors' financial accounting policy judgment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 467-486, July.
    5. Kusano, Masaki, 2020. "Does recognition versus disclosure affect risk relevance? Evidence from finance leases in Japan," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    6. Blankespoor, Elizabeth & deHaan, Ed & Marinovic, Iván, 2020. "Disclosure processing costs, investors’ information choice, and equity market outcomes: A review," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    7. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    8. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.
    9. Emett, Scott A. & Nelson, Mark W., 2017. "Reporting accounting changes and their multi-period effects," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 52-72.
    10. Bryan K. Church & Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Xuejiao Liu, 2020. "The Role of Auditor Narcissism in Auditor–Client Negotiations: Evidence from China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1756-1787, September.
    11. Bin Miao & Siew Hong Teoh & Zinan Zhu, 2016. "Limited attention, statement of cash flow disclosure, and the valuation of accruals," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 473-515, June.
    12. Ulfert Gronewold & Anna Gold & Steven Salterio, 2013. "Reporting Self-Made Errors: The Impact of Organizational Error-Management Climate and Error Type," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(1), pages 189-208, September.
    13. D. Eric Hirst & Lisa Koonce, 1996. "Audit Analytical Procedures: A Field Investigation," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 457-486, September.
    14. Kathryn Kadous & Lisa M. Sedor, 2004. "The Efficacy of Third†Party Consultation in Preventing Managerial Escalation of Commitment: The Role of Mental Representations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 55-82, March.
    15. Wang, Yang & Ashton, John K. & Jaafar, Aziz, 2019. "Money shouts! How effective are punishments for accounting fraud?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(5).
    16. Robert Bloomfield & Mark W. Nelson & Eugene Soltes, 2016. "Gathering Data for Archival, Field, Survey, and Experimental Accounting Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 341-395, May.
    17. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    18. Novak Aleš, 2016. "Issues in the Recognition versus Disclosure of Financial Information Debate," Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy, Sciendo, vol. 62(4), pages 52-61, December.
    19. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    20. Christensen, Brant & Schmardebeck, Roy & Seidel, Timothy, 2022. "Do auditors’ incentives affect materiality assessments of prior-period misstatements?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:60:y:2020:i:4:p:4121-4146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.