IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02121042.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs

Author

Listed:
  • Audrius Masiulevičius

    (Vilnius University [Vilnius])

  • Vaclovas Lakis

    (Vilnius University [Vilnius])

Abstract

Companies are exposed to various risks. Failure to identify and eliminate them may aggravate the development of companies, some of which may be forced to cease operation. Audit can help in revealing the majority of risks. The auditor has an unlimited access to the information, operational strategy, and in some cases even to commercial secrets, of the auditee. Auditor collects a large amount of different information about the company, but it is used only as much as necessary for formulating a conclusion about financial statements. Upon a closer cooperation of the auditor with the persons in charge of the governance of the audited entity, the client needs can be identified and, once the audit plan is slightly revised, the areas that are within the interest of the client can be analysed in more detail. This article aims to investigate the determination of performance materiality in audit to separate classes of transactions based on the principal areas of importance identified by the business undergoing audit. Based on the data collected during the study, a modified model for determining performance materiality in audit was created which can help to identify better the current and potential risks of the distinguished areas. The application of this model enables carrying out an audit in the areas which are of the highest importance to the users of the audit results more effectively and providing them with more detailed information in the management letter. This would help to identify the substantial risks of the auditee in more detail and on time.

Suggested Citation

  • Audrius Masiulevičius & Vaclovas Lakis, 2018. "Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs," Post-Print hal-02121042, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02121042
    DOI: 10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(9)
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02121042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02121042/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(9)?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. Takiah Mohd Iskandar & Errol R Iselin, 1999. "A review of materiality research," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 209-239, September.
    2. Craig Emby & Nicola Pecchiari, 2013. "An Empirical Investigation of the Influence of Qualitative Risk Factors on Canadian Auditors’ Determination of Performance Materiality," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 281-299, 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. Teodora-Cezara Porumbacean, 2022. "An Exemplification Analysis Of Materiality Computation Based On The Client'S Specifics," Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 55(1), pages 134-143.
    2. Viktoriya Valeryevna Manuylenko & Marina Aleksandrovna Loktionova & Nina Vladimirovna Lipchiu & Natalia Vladimirovna Sobchenko & Tatyana Andreyevna Sadovskaya, 2018. "Options simulation toolkit for strategic evaluation of corporations' financial potential," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 871-889, December.

    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. Audrius Masiulevičius & Vaclovas Lakis, 2018. "Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(1), pages 115-124, September.
    2. Julia Baldauf & Marcel Steller & Rudolf Steckel, 2015. "The Influence of Audit Risk and Materiality Guidelines on Auditors’ Planning Materiality Assessment," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 4(4), pages 1-97, November.
    3. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    4. Stefano Azzali & Tatiana Mazza & Luca Fornaciari & Laura Trinchera, 2021. "Effects of Materiality Assessment on Internal Controls over Financial Reporting Maturity," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Saher Aqel, 2011. "Auditors’ Assessments of Materiality Between Professional Judgment and Subjectivity," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 4(4), pages 72-88, August.
    6. Raul David & Indra Abeysekera, 2021. "Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    7. Prerana Agrawal & Jacqueline Birt & Lyndie Bayne & Nikki Schonfeldt, 2022. "The use of case studies in developing students’ understanding of the concept ‘material misstatement’," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1307-1338, April.
    8. Gullkvist, Benita & Jokipii, Annukka, 2013. "Perceived importance of red flags across fraud types," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 44-61.
    9. Edgley, Carla & Jones, Michael J. & Atkins, Jill, 2015. "The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 1-18.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    materiality; audit; risks; tolerable error; management letter;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-02121042. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.