IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/aosoci/v71y2018icp57-72.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments

Author

Listed:
  • Emett, Scott A.
  • Libby, Robert
  • Nelson, Mark W.

Abstract

Investments that are classified as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy account for approximately 92 percent of US banks' fair value assets. We report an experiment that examines how experienced auditors apply current PCAOB guidance when auditing portfolios of these assets. We hypothesize and find that, depending on how overstatement is distributed within a portfolio, current PCAOB guidance leads auditors to make adjustments that are predictably larger or smaller than the aggregate overstatement in the portfolio. Auditors are more likely to follow PCAOB guidance when doing so leads to lower audit adjustments and higher client income. We also predict and find that auditors identify some patterns of overstatement as indicative of management bias, but not others. However, management-bias assessments do not affect auditors' adjustment decisions as standards imply they should, even when auditors are prompted to consider management bias. Together, these results highlight a potential deficiency in current auditing guidance that managers could exploit by strategically locating overstatements within securities with larger book values or by spreading those overstatements across many securities within a portfolio. We suggest changes to current PCAOB guidance which may reduce these effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Emett, Scott A. & Libby, Robert & Nelson, Mark W., 2018. "PCAOB guidance and audits of fair values for Level 2 investments," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 57-72.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:aosoci:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:57-72
    DOI: 10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0361368218303040
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.aos.2018.05.011?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    2. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous & Donald Young, 2015. "Auditor Mindsets and Audits of Complex Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 49-77, March.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Alba, Joseph W, et al, 1994. "The Influence of Prior Beliefs, Frequency Cues, and Magnitude Cues on Consumers' Perceptions of Comparative Price Data," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(2), pages 219-235, September.
    5. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    6. Emily E. Griffith & Jacqueline S. Hammersley & Kathryn Kadous, 2015. "Audits of Complex Estimates as Verification of Management Numbers: How Institutional Pressures Shape Practice," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 833-863, September.
    7. Mary Barth, 2006. "Including estimates of the future in today's financial statements," BIS Working Papers 208, Bank for International Settlements.
    8. Libby, Robert & Luft, Joan, 1993. "Determinants of judgment performance in accounting settings: Ability, knowledge, motivation, and environment," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 425-450, July.
    9. Hodder, Leslie & Hopkins, Patrick & Schipper, Katherine, 2014. "Fair Value Measurement in Financial Reporting," Foundations and Trends(R) in Accounting, now publishers, vol. 8(3-4), pages 143-270, December.
    10. Lisa Koonce & Marlys Gascho Lipe, 2017. "Firms with Inconsistently Signed Earnings Surprises: Do Potential Investors Use a Counting Heuristic?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(1), pages 292-313, March.
    11. Alba, Joseph W, et al, 1999. "The Effect of Discount Frequency and Depth on Consumer Price Judgments," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 26(2), pages 99-114, September.
    12. Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2003. "Experimental judgment and decision research in auditing: the first 25 years of AOS," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 395-412, May.
    13. Laux, Christian & Leuz, Christian, 2009. "The crisis of fair-value accounting: Making sense of the recent debate," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 826-834, August.
    14. Jeremy B. Griffin, 2014. "The Effects of Uncertainty and Disclosure on Auditors' Fair Value Materiality Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1165-1193, December.
    15. Humphrey, Christopher & Loft, Anne & Woods, Margaret, 2009. "The global audit profession and the international financial architecture: Understanding regulatory relationships at a time of financial crisis," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(6-7), pages 810-825, August.
    16. Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
    17. Barker, Richard & Schulte, Sebastian, 2017. "Representing the market perspective: Fair value measurement for non-financial assets," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 55-67.
    18. Rasso, Jason Tyler, 2015. "Construal instructions and professional skepticism in evaluating complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 44-55.
    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. Madher E. Hamdallah & Salem Al-N’eimat & Anan F. Srouji & Manaf Al-Okaily & Khaldoon Albitar, 2022. "The Effect of Apparent and Intellectual Sustainability Independence on the Credibility Gap of the Accounting Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-22, November.
    2. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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. Kathryn Kadous & Yuepin (Daniel) Zhou, 2019. "How Does Intrinsic Motivation Improve Auditor Judgment in Complex Audit Tasks?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 108-131, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Yoon Ju Kang & M. David Piercey & Andrew Trotman, 2020. "Does an Audit Judgment Rule Increase or Decrease Auditors' Use of Innovative Audit Procedures?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 297-321, March.
    4. Ma, Jin & Coram, Paul & Troshani, Indrit, 2024. "The effect of key audit matters and management disclosures on auditors’ judgements and decisions: An exploratory study," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    5. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    6. Steven M. Glover & Mark H. Taylor & Yi‐Jing Wu & Ken T. Trotman, 2019. "Mind the Gap: Why Do Experts Have Differences of Opinion Regarding the Sufficiency of Audit Evidence Supporting Complex Fair Value Measurements?†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 1417-1460, September.
    7. Van Landuyt, Ben W., 2021. "Does emphasizing management bias decrease auditors’ sensitivity to measurement imprecision?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Hayoun, Shaul, 2019. "How fair value is both market-based and entity-specific: The irreducibility of value constellations to market prices," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 68-82.
    9. Aaron Saiewitz & Elaine (Ying) Wang, 2020. "Using Cultural Mindsets to Reduce Cross‐National Auditor Judgment Differences," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1854-1881, September.
    10. Ryan McDonough & Argyro Panaretou & Catherine Shakespeare, 2020. "Fair value accounting: Current practice and perspectives for future research," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3-4), pages 303-332, March.
    11. Vera-Muñoz, Sandra C., 2015. "Commentary on “The effect of an audit judgment rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates” (Kang, Trotman, and Trotman)," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 77-80.
    12. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    13. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Cross-country evidence on the importance of Big Four auditors to equity pricing: The mediating role of legal institutions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 60-81.
    14. Raghubir, Priya, 2006. "An information processing review of the subjective value of money and prices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1053-1062, October.
    15. Elshiewy, Ossama & Peschel, Anne O., 2022. "Internal reference price response across store formats," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 496-509.
    16. Steven J. Kachelmeier & Ben W. Van Landuyt, 2017. "Prompting the Benefit of the Doubt: The Joint Effect of Auditor‐Client Social Bonds and Measurement Uncertainty on Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(4), pages 963-994, September.
    17. Lillian L. Cheng & Kent B. Monroe, 2013. "Some reflections on an appraisal of behavioral price research (part 1)," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(3), pages 155-159, September.
    18. Dierynck, Bart & Kadous, Kathryn & Peters, Christian P. H., 2024. "Learning in the auditing profession: A framework and future directions," Other publications TiSEM eb74c8e4-bc4a-4b71-b88a-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:aosoci:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:57-72. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/aos .

    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.