Exploring the Role of Technology in Auditing: Opportunities and Challenges From Stakeholder Perspectives

SYNOPSIS To inform its standard setting approach and agenda, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Auditing Standards Board (ASB) collaborated with three accounting academics to survey 276 U.S. auditors about the challenges and potential standard setting solutions associated with audits of less complex entities (LCEs). This study reports the results from this survey. Respondents described significant challenges associated with these audits. Most preferred the ASB issue additional guidance on scaling or modifying existing generally accepted auditing standards rather than issue a standalone LCE audit standard to converge with the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s approach. Consistent with practitioner preferences, the ASB declined to issue a standalone LCE audit standard. This paper discusses whether this decision portends a fracturing of the convergence ideal or merely involves an exceptional case driven by jurisdictional differences that negate the need for a standalone standard. It concludes with suggestions for future standard setting research. Data Availability: Survey data are available upon request. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M42; M48.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) implemented new auditing standards which became effective on December 15, 2016, which require auditors to disclose Key Audit Matters (KAM) in their reports. KAM was initiated by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) as an international auditing standard setting body, which aims to increase the transparency of audited financial reports. This study uses qualitative and quantitative methods which use secondary data sources. The secondary data used in this study is in the form of financial reports obtained from the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) via the internet. Based on the results of data analysis of the financial statements of PT Bank Amar Indonesia Tbk Q2 of 2022, in the independent auditor's report, the main audit item disclosed is the allowance for impairment losses on loans. Based on data obtained from the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX), the share price per share at the end of the fourth quarter of 2021 and the share price on June 30, 2022, has fluctuated. It was concluded that in the period following the issuance of the Q2 2022 financial statements with the existence of an independent auditor's report disclosing key audit matters facilitated the flow of company-specific information to the market.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine and evaluate the internationalisation of Australian auditing standards by analysing the submissions to the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board's (AUASB) strategic directions paper (SDP) and comparing the proposed and approved strategic directions frameworks of the AUASB.Design/methodology/approachA content analysis of the submissions to the SDP is conducted to identify the extent of support, and arguments for and against the proposed strategic directions. This study attempts to find a link, if any, between the proposed strategic directions, the views expressed by the stakeholders, and the final set of strategic directions issued by Australia's Financial Reporting Council.FindingsOverall, the final set of strategic directions released in April 2005 are consistent with the views expressed in the submissions, which support minimal divergence from International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) and using the ISAs as the base for developing Australian auditing standards. Major changes from the SDP include a requirement for the AUASB to undertake research and monitor auditing standards issued by national standard setters. However, the AUASB is no longer obliged to contribute to the international standard arena and need only have regard to any program initiated by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.Research limitations/implicationsThe findings of this study provide an insight into the future of Australia's role in the international arena and increase awareness of stakeholders' views on the international harmonisation of auditing standards.Originality/valueWhile there have been several studies examining the international harmonisation of accounting standards, there is comparatively little research on the international harmonisation of auditing standards. This paper attempts to address this void, in part, and contribute to the literature on the convergence of auditing standards with ISAs.

PurposeThe 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/approachThe 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.FindingsContrary 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/implicationsThe research is limited both by the small sample size and the small number of risk factors investigated.Practical implicationsIf auditors presume a level of controls in assessing inherent risk, they may reduce audit effectiveness by estimating a lower RMM than is appropriate.Originality/valueThis 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.

This paper traces the establishment of the reconstituted Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) as a result of the CLERP (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004, and its progress in developing auditing standards that are “in the public interest”. The paper canvasses the composition of the AUASB, its transparency and due process, its relationship with the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and the Financial Reporting Council, and its resourcing and attitude to researching issues of importance in auditing. The paper discusses methods that might be used to provide evidence of the efficacy of the reforms to auditing standard‐setting.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued for public comment Proposed International Standard on Auditing for Audits of Financial Statements of Less Complex Entities (ISA for LCE). The Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB) also called for comments. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee of the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ) prepared a submission, based on the findings reported in extant research, informing a number of the questions asked by the IAASB (and AUASB/NZAuASB). This commentary presents the formal submission made to the IAASB.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued for public comment Proposed International Standard on Auditing 600 (Revised) ‘Special Considerations – Audits of Group Financial Statements (Including the Work of Component Auditors) (ED 600). The Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB) also called for comments. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee of AFAANZ prepared a submission, based on the findings reported in extant research, responding to a number of the questions asked by the IAASB (and AUASB/NZAuASB). This commentary presents the formal submission made to the IAASB (and AUASB/NZAuASB).

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued for public comment Proposed International Standard on Auditing 500 (Revised) Audit Evidence. The Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB) also called for comments. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee of AFAANZ prepared a submission, based on the findings reported in extant research, responding to a number of the questions asked by the IAASB (and AUASB/NZAuASB). This technical note presents the formal submission made to the IAASB.

The International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued for public comment Proposed International Standard on Auditing 570 (Revised) Going Concern. The Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and New Zealand Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (NZAuASB) also called for comments. The Auditing and Assurance Standards Committee of AFAANZ prepared a submission, based on the findings reported in extant research, informing a number of the questions asked by the IAASB. This technical note presents the formal submission made to the IAASB.

SUMMARYOn January 15, 2013, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) solicited public comments on the exposure draft of its consultation paper entitled A Framework for Audit Quality (the Framework). The four-month comment period ended on May 15, 2013. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on this exposure draft (the exposure draft and related information are available at: http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/framework-audit-quality).This consultation paper makes great strides toward meeting the IAASB's strategy of “enhancing the quality of assurance” and “supporting global financial stability.” The three-by-three design (attributes of audit quality coupled with engagement, firm, and national levels; see page 24 of the Framework) and detailed outline of inputs, outputs, context, and interactions provides practitioners, regulators, and other stakeholders with a common audit-quality roadmap for implementation, communication, and research agendas. As financial systems continue to become more integrated, the Framework supports the global financial system and economic stability by providing worldwide coordination of the expectations of auditors, regulators, investors, and other stakeholders. We also believe that the Framework should be of great use to auditing academics and doctoral students, both as a teaching and research tool. Summarized below are our specific comments on specific issues raised in the consultation paper.

SUMMARYRecently, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) solicited public comments on its proposal to improve the current format of the auditor's report under International Auditing Standards. This commentary summarizes the contributors' views on the various alternatives proposed in the IAASB proposal, entitled, Improving the Auditor's Report. The invitation to comment (which invited comments through October 8, 2012), with links to the proposal, is available at: http://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/improving-auditor-s-report. Our comments submitted to the IAASB appear below.

This paper describes fraud risk factors identified by practicing auditors relative to their own clients, and the relationship of those factors to fraud risk assessments and audit planning decisions. When the U.S. Auditing Standards Board (ASB) developed SAS No. 82, a major concern was whether and how to incorporate specific fraud risk factors into the standard. This issue remains important, as the ASB and the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) continue to examine auditor's responsibilities for fraud detection. This paper contributes to the literature by providing evidence on the prevalence of certain types of fraud risk factors in audit practice and their impact on audit planning. To address these issues, we asked practicing Big 5 auditors to identify specific fraud risk factors of an actual client, assess the client's level of fraud risk, and plan audit tests to address fraud. We find that a high proportion of clients exhibit one or more fraud risk factors, most frequently related to industry/competitive position, management integrity, internal control system quality, financial condition, and pressure to meet financial targets. While fraud risk factors are often documented, fraud risk assessments are not well related to the number of those factors, overall or by individual type. All types of fraud risk factors are statistically associated with some form of audit testing response, but the nature of the audit test planned varies by risk factor type. Results of the study also show that the effect of fraud risk assessments on audit test planning varies according to the nature of the audit test planned.

Knowledge of initiatives and developments at the international level are important to the Australian auditing profession, which has adopted a policy of convergence with the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). To aid this knowledge, this paper provides a critical review of developments at the IAASB and their impact on Australia, drawing on insights gained by the author as a member of the IAASB from 2002 to 2005.

SUMMARYIn February 2019, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (the Board or IAASB) issued a request for comment on its Exposure Draft, Proposed International Standard on Auditing 220 (Revised): Quality Management for an Audit of Financial Statements (ED-220). ED-220 explicitly requires the engagement partner to demonstrate sufficient and appropriate involvement in all phases of the audit, it describes certain activities that must be performed by the audit engagement partner, and it explicitly acknowledges the role of audit firm-level policies and procedures and the changing complexity of audit engagement teams. The comment period ended on July 1, 2019. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions posed by the IAASB.Data Availability: ED-220, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/exposure-draft-international-standard-auditing-220-revised-quality-management.

SUMMARY On July 16, 2018, the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (the Board or IAASB) issued a request for comment on its Exposure Draft, Proposed International Standard on Auditing 315 (Revised): Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement and Proposed Consequential and Conforming Amendments to Other ISAs (ED-315). Major enhancements proposed include explicit recognition of the auditor's use of automated tools and techniques, requiring an understanding of an auditee's use of information technology relevant to financial reporting, acknowledging the influence of an entity's complexity on the audit plan, and increasing the emphasis on the need for professional skepticism. The comment period ended on November 2, 2018. This commentary summarizes the participating committee members' views on selected questions posed by the IAASB. Data Availability: ED-315, including questions for respondents, is available at: https://www.ifac.org/publications-resources/exposure-draft-isa-315-revised-identifying-and-assessing-risks-material.