IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausact/v27y2017i4p348-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Changing Face of the Auditor's Report: Implications for Suppliers and Users of Financial Statements

Author

Listed:
  • Pranil Prasad
  • Parmod Chand

Abstract

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) recently finalised several significant and controversial reforms of the audit reporting model. The reforms are in response to long†standing criticisms about the form and content of the existing audit report. This study critically examines the current audit report reforms and their implications. In particular, we investigate the perceptions of prominent stakeholders in respect of these reforms and then evaluate the implications of the reforms on the informational value of the audit report, audit quality and audit costs. The findings suggest that the changes to the audit report are of significant informational value to users, while the implications for audit quality are unclear. Indeed, the changes would increase audit costs and potentially the legal liability of auditors. This appraisal is timely given the efforts made by the IAASB in commissioning these reforms to enhance the relevance and informational value of the audit report.

Suggested Citation

  • Pranil Prasad & Parmod Chand, 2017. "The Changing Face of the Auditor's Report: Implications for Suppliers and Users of Financial Statements," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 348-367, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausact:v:27:y:2017:i:4:p:348-367
    DOI: 10.1111/auar.12137
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12137
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/auar.12137?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. Alan Kilgore & Renee Radich & Graeme Harrison, 2011. "The Relative Importance of Audit Quality Attributes," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 253-265, September.
    2. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    3. John E. McEnroe & Stanley C. Martens, 1998. "Individual Investors' Perceptions Regarding the Meaning of US and UK Audit Report Terminology: 'Present Fairly in Conformity with GAAP' and 'Give a True and Fair View'," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3&4), pages 289-307.
    4. Francis, Jere R., 1987. "Lobbying against proposed accounting standards: The case of employers' pension accounting," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 35-57.
    5. Renata Stenka & Peter Taylor, 2010. "Setting UK standards on the concept of control: An analysis of lobbying behaviour," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 109-130.
    6. Schneider, Arnold & Church, Bryan K., 2008. "The effect of auditors' internal control opinions on loan decisions," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-18.
    7. Keith A. Houghton & Michael Kend & Christine Jubb, 2013. "The CLERP 9 Audit Reforms: Benefits and Costs Through the Eyes of Regulators, Standard Setters and Audit Service Suppliers," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 49(2), pages 139-160, June.
    8. Puro, M, 1984. "Audit Firm Lobbying Before The Financial Accounting Standards Board - An Empirical-Study," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(2), pages 624-646.
    9. George Georgiou, 2005. "Investigating corporate management lobbying in the U.K. accounting standard‐setting process: a multi‐issue/multi‐period approach," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 41(3), pages 323-347, October.
    10. Wally Smieliauskas & Russell Craig & Joel Amernic, 2008. "A Proposal to Replace ‘True and Fair View’ With ‘Acceptable Risk of Material Misstatement’," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(3), pages 225-250, September.
    11. Lindahl, Frederick W., 1987. "Accounting standards and Olson's theory of collective action," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 59-72.
    12. Rajib Doogar & Stephen P. Rowe & Padmakumar Sivadasan, 2015. "Asleep at the Wheel (Again)? Bank Audits During the Lead†Up to the Financial Crisis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 358-391, March.
    13. Sutton, Timothy G., 1984. "Lobbying of accounting standard-setting bodies in the U.K. and the U.S.A.: A Downsian analysis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 81-95, January.
    14. W. Robert Knechel & Ann Vanstraelen & Mikko Zerni, 2015. "Does the Identity of Engagement Partners Matter? An Analysis of Audit Partner Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 1443-1478, December.
    15. Philip Brown & John Preiato & Ann Tarca, 2014. "Measuring Country Differences in Enforcement of Accounting Standards: An Audit and Enforcement Proxy," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1-2), pages 1-52, January.
    16. Paul J. Coram & Theodore J. Mock & Jerry L. Turner & Glen L. Gray, 2011. "The Communicative Value of the Auditor's Report," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 21(3), pages 235-252, September.
    17. Alan Kilgore & Graeme Harrison & Renee Radich, 2014. "Audit quality: what’s important to users of audit services," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 29(9), pages 776-799, September.
    18. Yen, Sin-Hui & Chang, Yu-Shan & Chen, Hui-Ling, 2013. "Does the signature of a CPA matter? Evidence from Taiwan," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 230-235.
    19. Peter Schelluch & Grant Gay, 2006. "Assurance provided by auditors’ reports on prospective financial information: implications for the expectation gap," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 46(4), pages 653-676, December.
    20. Ann Vanstraelen & Caren Schelleman & Roger Meuwissen & Isabell Hofmann, 2012. "The Audit Reporting Debate: Seemingly Intractable Problems and Feasible Solutions," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(2), pages 193-215, August.
    21. Marion Davis & David Hay, 2012. "An Analysis of Submissions on Proposed Regulations for Audit and Assurance in New Zealand," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 22(3), pages 303-316, September.
    22. Paul A. Griffin & David H. Lont & Yuan Sun, 2009. "Governance regulatory changes, International Financial Reporting Standards adoption, and New Zealand audit and non‐audit fees: empirical evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 697-724, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Guo, Mengmeng & Su, Yun & Zhao, Rui, 2024. "The effect of expanded audit report on IPO underpricing: Evidence from China," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. Duboisée de Ricquebourg, Alan & Maroun, Warren, 2023. "How do auditor rotations affect key audit matters? Archival evidence from South African audits," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).
    3. Oana-Marina BATAE, 2019. "Expanded Audit Reports and Audit Fees – A Content Analysis on the Romanian Banking Sector," The Audit Financiar journal, Chamber of Financial Auditors of Romania, vol. 17(156), pages 653-653.

    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. Georgiou, George, 2010. "The IASB standard-setting process: Participation and perceptions of financial statement users," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 103-118.
    2. Merridee L. Bujaki & Bruce J. McConomy, 2007. "Income Tax Accounting Policy Choice: Exposure Draft Responses and the Early Adoption Decision by Canadian Companies," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, February.
    3. Beaumont, Stacey & Clarkson, Peter & Tutticci, Irene, 2018. "Identifying lobbying strategies: An analysis of public responses to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into executive remuneration in Australia," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 288-306.
    4. George Silviu CORDOŞ & Melinda Timea FÜLÖP, 2020. "Debates In The Literature Regarding Audit Reporting," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(22), pages 1-4.
    5. Renata Stenka & Peter Taylor, 2010. "Setting UK standards on the concept of control: An analysis of lobbying behaviour," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 109-130.
    6. Hervé Kohler & Anne Le Manh, 2014. "Etude Exploratoire De La Participation Au « Due Processus » De L'Iasb De L'Industrie Des Telecommunications, Dans Le Cadre Du Projet « Revenue Recognition »," Post-Print hal-01899618, HAL.
    7. Roland Königsgruber, 2013. "Expertise-based lobbying and accounting regulation," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 17(4), pages 1009-1025, November.
    8. Bamber, Matthew & McMeeking, Kevin, 2016. "An examination of international accounting standard-setting due process and the implications for legitimacy," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 59-73.
    9. Pornsit Jiraporn & Pandej Chintrakarn & Shenghui Tong & Sirimon Treepongkaruna, 2018. "Does board independence substitute for external audit quality? Evidence from an exogenous regulatory shock," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 43(1), pages 27-41, February.
    10. Shao-Huai Liang & Yu-Ting Hsieh & Hsuan-Chu Lin & Hui-Yu Hsiao, 2023. "What underlies key audit matters? Evidence from Taiwan," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 1243-1258, April.
    11. Gordon, Elizabeth A. & Gotti, Giorgio & Ho, Joanna H. & Mora, Araceli & Morris, Richard D., 2019. "Commentary: Where is International Accounting Research Going? Issues Needing Further Investigation," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    12. Huian Maria Carmen, 2013. "Analysis Of The Constituents’ Participation In The Development Of The 1st Phase Of Ifrs 9 Financial Instruments," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1, pages 209-216, February.
    13. Rey, Andrea & Maglio, Roberto & Rapone, Valerio, 2020. "Lobbying during IASB and FASB convergence due processes: Evidence from the IFRS 16 project on leases," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Millicent Chang & Andrew B. Jackson & Marvin Wee, 2018. "A review of research on regulation changes in the Asia‐Pacific region," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(3), pages 635-667, September.
    15. Georgiou, George & Roberts, Clare B., 2004. "Corporate lobbying in the UK: an analysis of attitudes towards the ASB's 1995 deferred taxation proposals," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 441-453.
    16. Urska Kosi & Antonia Reither, 2014. "Determinants of Corporate Participation in the IFRS 4 (Insurance Contracts) Replacement Process," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1), pages 89-112, June.
    17. Marius Gros & Daniel Worret, 2016. "Lobbying and Audit Regulation in the EU," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 381-403, September.
    18. Tarek Abdelfattah & Mohamed Elmahgoub & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2021. "Female Audit Partners and Extended Audit Reporting: UK Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 177-197, November.
    19. Sierra-García, Laura & Gambetta, Nicolás & García-Benau, María A. & Orta-Pérez, Manuel, 2019. "Understanding the determinants of the magnitude of entity-level risk and account-level risk key audit matters: The case of the United Kingdom," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 227-240.
    20. Estibaliz Goicoechea & Fernando Gómez-Bezares & José Vicente Ugarte, 2021. "Improving Audit Reports: A Consensus between Auditors and Users," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, April.

    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:ausact:v:27:y:2017:i:4:p:348-367. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1035-6908 .

    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.