What Do We Know About Audit Quality?

The audit profession is a relative new comer to the accounting world. The Industrial Revolution, with the growing business sector, was the spark that resulted in auditing techniques being sought out and utilized. Initially, audit techniques and methods were adopted by companies to control costs and detect fraud, which is more closely aligned with internal auditing. However, the need for mandatory oversight of public companies was recognized after the great stock market crash of 1929 (Byrnes, et al., 2012). This brought about the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At that point, the SEC was tasked with

However, the application of SOX has brought on regulations that public companies must put in place and follow to prohibit these unethical occurrences. One major advantage for associated with SOX is that more thorough audits are being conducted by auditing firms. Audits being conducted more thoroughly will provide accuracy and an increased reliability of financial data. This will affect taxes in a positive way and provide firms with an advantage. Causholli, Chambers, and Payne (2014) suggest that prior to the implementation of SOX in 2002, “an auditor’s opportunity to sell additional non-audit services in the subsequent year, coupled with the client’s willingness to buy services, intensified the economic bond between auditor and client, in turn reducing auditor independence and the quality of financial reporting” (p.681). The regulation of auditor provided non-audit tax services has increased the reliability of tax and financial reporting within companies. Seetharaman, Sun, and Wang (2011) explain that “in a post-Sarbanes-Oxley environment, the benefits of auditor-provided non-audit tax services (NATS) seem to manifest themselves in higher quality tax-related financial statement management assertions” (p. 677).

JPMorgan Chase Bank is a publicly traded company and uses an external-independent auditing firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, to provide an annual audit. JPMorgan

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.

Hogan, Rezaee, Riley, and Velury (2008) noted the development of the auditing standards created due to the financial scandals that have occurred over the years. However, the authors note even with the development of SOX and SAS No. 99 there still does not appear to be a decline in financial statement fraud (232).

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.

Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2006). Auditing and Assurance Services (11th Ed.). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prestice

Under the Security Act of 1933 and 1944, any individual that willfully filed untrue statements should be penalized. Auditors acting behalf of the public’s interest should make sure the company’s financial statements are not misleading. All the testing and auditing procedures are to verify that the number on the financial statements, and audit testing should be supported by substantial evidence. When auditors took their responsibility for and but did not show their competence for work, they should be heavily fined because their carelessness resulted the investors making a bad decision. Furthermore, if the auditors did not take their responsibility and showed no work to support their opinions should be charged as gross negligence with a heavy fine and license taken away. If it comes down to fraud, auditors should definitely face criminal charges along with their auditing company, and their license should be taken away

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established as a result of corporate scandals that led to the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This paper will explore the circumstances that led to the creation of the PCAOB. I will then go on to discuss the roles and responsibilities of the PCAOB, and suggestions for improvement of the PCAOB auditing process.

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,

This case study was developed as a joint effort by the Center for Audit Quality,

To enhance the perceived value of financial report audits, the IAASB has set out the public issuance of Key Audit Matters (KAM) or audit commentaries in the Proposed New Audit Report. Although some investors have expressed receptiveness to this proposal, reactions from auditors and their clients have been mixed. I personally believe that there are merits to the disclosure of KAM given the auditor’s strong understanding of the entity’s business, however it is debatable whether the benefits outweigh the costs of auditors potentially overstepping independence requirements and clients risking to face increased audit fees.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of external auditing in promoting good corporate governance. The role of auditors has been emphasized after the pass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a response to the accounting scandal of Enron. Even though auditors are hired and paid by the company, their role is not to represent or act in favor of the company, but to watch and investigate the company’s financials to protect the public from any material misstatements that can affect their decisions. As part of this role, the auditors assess the level of the company’s adherence to its own code of ethics.

The general topic covered is the Center for Audit Quality’s (CAQ) proposal for developing audit quality indicators, for the purpose of improved discussions between auditors and audit committees in the hopes to pilot test for feedback (Brooke, 2014). The article provides an overview of Audit Quality Indicators (AQIs). It was noted that any information presented is not rigid but a fluid body of thought, subject to feedback and market changes (Brooke, 2014).

Through the study carried out by Ge and McVay, the relationship between firm size and material weaknesses is revealed. For purposes of this study, the term ‘large audit firm’ refers to the Big 6 accounting firms of: BDO Seidman, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton, KPMG, and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ge and McVay reasoned that larger audit firms are expected to have more expertise and higher exposure to legal liability than smaller firms (Ge et al., 151). The research findings validated this hypothesis, proving large accounting firms to be positively correlated with internal control deficiencies. This asserts to the fact that larger firms have a greater depth of resources and are subjected to greater oversight, as exemplified by the PCAOB’s annual reviews (Ge et al., 153).