Auditor’s Responsibilities in Fraud and Error Detection

Prior to 2002, financial statement reporting for publically traded companies within the United States was overseen with far less oversight in comparison to current reporting standards and procedures. Appropriate financial reporting is merely one element that was not occurring prior to 2002. An element of corporate dishonesty and deception existed within some the largest publically traded companies and this idea of deceitfulness was perpetuated by the executive staff of the businesses. Enron’s financial disintegration became the facilitator for the need of more rigid financial oversight, but they were not the only company that added to the idea of corporate fraud.

Prior to 2002, there was very little oversight of accounting procedures. Auditors were not always independent and corporate government procedures and disclosure provisions were inadequate. Sometimes, executive compensation was tied to the stock of the company which created an incentive to manipulate the stock price by using fraudulent accounting practices to make it look like companies were making more money than they actually were. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was introduced because of the collapse of several major corporations due to these practices. This paper will

Following these series of failures, SOX was enacted to restore investor’s confidence which was rattled and to prevent accounting frauds in the future with improved corporate governance and accountability which all public companies must comply. SOX was named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael G. Oxley, who were the main drafters of the Act. It was approved by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President George W. Bush on July 30, 2003. Lack of ethics and integrity seem to be the key factors that caused accounting fraud. SOX revised the framework for the public accounting and auditing profession, provided guidance for better corporate governance and created regulations to define how public companies are to comply with the law. Although many have questioned whether SOX is actually effective to prevent frauds like Enron and WorldCom in future, it is considered to be the most extensive legislation related to publicly- traded companies and external independent auditors since the 1930s. President Bush called it “the most far reaching reforms of American Business Practices since the time of Franklin Roosevelt” (BUMILLER, 2002). The purpose of this paper is to determine whether or not Sarbanes Oxley’s regulations will be effective in preventing another financial statement fraud like Enron and WorldCom.

In the early 2000s, corporate financial statement fraud was rampant, as companies such as Enron and WorldCom used shady accounting practices to inflate their revenues and hide losses. This led to the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the most extensive form of accounting reform legislation ever passed. It had many consequences for publicly traded companies and public accounting firms, some of which were positive, while others were detrimental. One of the detrimental impacts, the cost of compliance, was alleviated at least partially by the introduction of Auditing Standard Five in 2007. This paper will examine the time period leading up to the passage of the act, the different parts of the legislation, the introduction of Auditing Standard Five, and the impact on registrants and auditors.

“Outside auditors play a crucial role in our nation’s financial system. As the watchdogs of corporate accounting, they are supposed to protect investors” (Hilzenrath, 2010). The question is how effective are these outside auditors in protecting investors? When you think about the failures that have occurred: Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, and Global crossing to name a few, one would really question the effectiveness of these outside auditors. As a result of these failures, Congress pass the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. This act in turn created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to police the outside auditors and ensures they are protecting the investors.

To start, the agency assigned to oversee the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is the Securities and Exchanged Commission (SEC). It created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to monitor and evaluate auditing reports from accounting firms to ensure the quality of financial statements and that full corporate governance is being carried out. It sets a standard that all firms must follow closely. PCAOB is an independent organization whose primary role is to catch and recognize any suspicious and unethical activities in accounting firms and oversee that firms are following the compliances rules of SOX. A typical auditing report created by PCAOB is divided into two parts. According the Nagy (2014), the first part consists of a list of any flaws in compliance and auditing errors and the second part is quality control. The purpose of creating PCAOB is to promise investors and the general public that firms are following the strict compliance policy of SOX and that the SEC is aware of the financial situation of companies because it is keeping a close eye on monitoring business

In some particular case, the accounting standards exactly are the problems. The legislation fixed it though asking those special institution, such as the Securities and commission and the Financial Accounting Standards Board, to tighten the accounting standards. For instants, the “special purpose entities”, that is a institution created by non-profit company , used to treat some particular risk facing by the company during their operating. Nevertheless, in Enron’s case, such institution seems just like useless decorations for their fraud. As required in Sarbanes-Oxley, the capital of Financial Accounting Standard Board should come from itself or public companies. Have no benefit-based relationship with accountants. It ensure that the membership of Financial Accounting Standard Board was independent from accounting operation. The rise in accounting restatements and earnings manipulation suggested that the deeper issue was not with the accounting standards themselves, but rather with the enforcement of those standards through auditing (Bratton, 2003). The Sarbanes-Oxley created a new institution in the first section named Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(PCAOB).

An auditor’s role in an audit is very important. An auditor must be able to collect enough evidence to supports their finding, and also be on the lookout for fraud. Company’s may or may not know the law, but it is the job to know the law, and be able to educate and report findings properly. Since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there have been provisions that have directly affected auditors. This paper will include the details of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, how ethics and independence have affected auditors, as well implementation of new standards based on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Over the past decade the world has been taken by surprise by the numerous accounting scandals that have occurred, for example, Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Xerox, and Global Crossing (Suyanto, 2009, p. 118). Since those accounting scandals occurred the United States Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) to help improve a company’s corporate governance and help deter fraud (Chinniah, 2015, p.2). In addition to SOX, the Accounting Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) passed the Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99 (p. 118). Both of these new accounting laws help to deter financial statement fraud from occurring.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 marked a significant change in the world of business with relation to auditors and public companies. In this paper, I will discuss the causes that led to the creation of the Sarbanes Oxley Act as well as key sections of the act that impact auditors and their effect on public companies and investors. I will also address the impact of the auditing standard no. 5 and how it pertain to auditors and public accounting firms.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), implemented in 2002, was created to enhance U.S. public company’s auditing (Coates and Srinivasan 628). SOX had two core goals in its implementation, one was to “create a quasi-public institution to oversee and regulate auditing (PCAOB),” and the other was “to enlist auditors more extensively in the enforcement of existing laws against theft and fraud by corporate officers, pursuant to regulations from and enforced by PCAOB” (Coates and Srinivasan 628-629). To accomplish these core goals, “new rules concerning the relationship between public companies and their auditors” were created (Coates and Srinivasan 629). However, to fully understand the changes SOX has made, we must first look at the world before SOX.

Fraudulent, erroneous, and illegal acts committed by a public company, usually at a managerial or executive level, have been a very serious problem for many years and have prompted development of strict and updated regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, in an attempt to prevent these occurrences. Unfortunately, these new or updated regulations are not enough to prevent these acts from happening, thus not alleviating the auditors of their responsibility to detect fraud. Some methods that management and auditors can employ to prevent and detect fraud, errors, and illegal acts are: improving knowledge, improving skills,

Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

Since reliable financial information is essential for investors and other stakeholders to take adequate decisions, this reliability must be backed by independent review performed by independent and certified auditing firms, which are supposed to verify and certify financial statements issued by a company’s management. If the auditor is not competent and independent from management, the audit of the financial statements loses its credibility (Schelker, 2013, p.295). According to Impastato (2003), because of audit failures, accountants are to blame for investors losing billions of dollars in earnings in addition to market capitalization (as cited in Grubbs & Ethridge 2007).