数字背后:对大型审计事务所抽样政策的洞察

Brant E. Christensen, Randal J. Elder, Steven M. Glover
{"title":"数字背后:对大型审计事务所抽样政策的洞察","authors":"Brant E. Christensen, Randal J. Elder, Steven M. Glover","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2298632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Changes in the audit industry after Sarbanes-Oxley have potentially changed the nature and extent of audit sampling in the largest accounting firms. However, little academic evidence exists on current audit sampling policies in place at the largest accounting firms (Elder et al. 2013). As such, we administer an extensive, open-ended survey to the national office of the Big 4 and two other international accounting firms regarding their firm’s audit sampling policies. We find variation among the largest auditing firms’ policies in their use of statistical and nonstatistical sampling methods and in inputs used in the sampling applications that could result in different sample sizes. Sampling experts’ internal reviews indicate that responding to and resolving identified misstatements is one of the biggest difficulties that audit engagement teams face when using sampling techniques. Finally, we present evidence that some firms have significantly changed their approach to revenue testing due to PCAOB inspections. This evidence provides important insights into current sampling policies and presents opportunities for future research.","PeriodicalId":125760,"journal":{"name":"Texas A&M University Mays Business School Research Paper Series","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Behind the Numbers: Insights into Large Audit Firm Sampling Policies\",\"authors\":\"Brant E. Christensen, Randal J. Elder, Steven M. Glover\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2298632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Changes in the audit industry after Sarbanes-Oxley have potentially changed the nature and extent of audit sampling in the largest accounting firms. However, little academic evidence exists on current audit sampling policies in place at the largest accounting firms (Elder et al. 2013). As such, we administer an extensive, open-ended survey to the national office of the Big 4 and two other international accounting firms regarding their firm’s audit sampling policies. We find variation among the largest auditing firms’ policies in their use of statistical and nonstatistical sampling methods and in inputs used in the sampling applications that could result in different sample sizes. Sampling experts’ internal reviews indicate that responding to and resolving identified misstatements is one of the biggest difficulties that audit engagement teams face when using sampling techniques. Finally, we present evidence that some firms have significantly changed their approach to revenue testing due to PCAOB inspections. This evidence provides important insights into current sampling policies and presents opportunities for future research.\",\"PeriodicalId\":125760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Texas A&M University Mays Business School Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Texas A&M University Mays Business School Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298632\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Texas A&M University Mays Business School Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2298632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(Sarbanes-Oxley)出台后,审计行业的变化可能改变了大型会计师事务所审计抽样的性质和范围。然而,关于目前大型会计师事务所的审计抽样政策的学术证据很少(Elder et al. 2013)。因此,我们对四大会计师事务所和其他两家国际会计师事务所的国家办事处进行了广泛的开放式调查,调查内容涉及其审计抽样政策。我们发现最大的审计公司在使用统计和非统计抽样方法以及在抽样应用中使用的输入方面的政策存在差异,这可能导致不同的样本量。抽样专家的内部审查表明,应对和解决已发现的错报是审计项目组在使用抽样技术时面临的最大困难之一。最后,我们提供的证据表明,由于PCAOB的检查,一些公司已经显著改变了他们的收入测试方法。这一证据为当前的抽样政策提供了重要的见解,并为未来的研究提供了机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Behind the Numbers: Insights into Large Audit Firm Sampling Policies
Changes in the audit industry after Sarbanes-Oxley have potentially changed the nature and extent of audit sampling in the largest accounting firms. However, little academic evidence exists on current audit sampling policies in place at the largest accounting firms (Elder et al. 2013). As such, we administer an extensive, open-ended survey to the national office of the Big 4 and two other international accounting firms regarding their firm’s audit sampling policies. We find variation among the largest auditing firms’ policies in their use of statistical and nonstatistical sampling methods and in inputs used in the sampling applications that could result in different sample sizes. Sampling experts’ internal reviews indicate that responding to and resolving identified misstatements is one of the biggest difficulties that audit engagement teams face when using sampling techniques. Finally, we present evidence that some firms have significantly changed their approach to revenue testing due to PCAOB inspections. This evidence provides important insights into current sampling policies and presents opportunities for future research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信