IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/majpps/02686901211227931.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do auditors assess inherent risk as if there are no controls?

Author

Listed:
  • Timothy C. Miller
  • Michael Cipriano
  • Robert J. Ramsay

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine whether auditors interpret the risk of material misstatement (RMM) in accordance with current standards' definition of inherent risk (IR). It is argued that controls should not be presumed when assessing inherent risk and that inherent risk should be considered separate from and prior to control risk when it is practical to do so. Because auditing standards explicitly require auditors to assess IR without consideration of internal controls (i.e. control risk (CR)), RMM should not be adjusted upward for control deficiencies. Design/methodology/approach - The authors survey and interview practicing auditors to gain an understanding of current risk assessment practice. They then evaluate whether their understanding of risk assessment is in line with current standards. Findings - Contrary to auditing standards' definition of inherent risk, it appears that auditors presume some level of expected control effectiveness when assessing IR and they may increase RMM in response to internal control deficiencies. Such a presumption is inconsistent with the definition of inherent risk from the Auditing Standards Board (SAS No. 107), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (AS 8), and International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (ISA 200). Such misinterpretation may be an inadvertent result of guidance provided by standard setters in the form of SAS No. 109 from the ASB, AS 12 from the PCAOB and ISA 315 from the IAASB, which suggest combining IR and CR into RMM. Research limitations/implications - The research is limited both by the small sample size and the small number of risk factors investigated. Practical implications - If auditors presume a level of controls in assessing inherent risk, they may reduce audit effectiveness by estimating a lower RMM than is appropriate. Originality/value - This study presents insights on the interpretation and assessment of audit risk in audit environments where inherent risk is no longer automatically set to be at the maximum. Namely that due to the definition of inherent risk, control information should have a unidirectional downward effect on the risk of material misstatement.

Suggested Citation

  • Timothy C. Miller & Michael Cipriano & Robert J. Ramsay, 2012. "Do auditors assess inherent risk as if there are no controls?," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 27(5), pages 448-461, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:02686901211227931
    DOI: 10.1108/02686901211227931
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686901211227931/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02686901211227931/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/02686901211227931?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.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Arianna Pinello & Ara Volkan & Adam McCord, 2023. "Statement On Auditing Standards 145: Was Stakeholder Feedback Incorporated In The Final Standard?," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 15(2), pages 15-29.

    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:eme:majpps:02686901211227931. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.