Search results

This paper aims to examine the effect of audit quality of consolidated financial statements on the accuracy of analysts’ earnings forecasts from the viewpoint of users of financial statements.

This paper investigates the effect of dependence on the work of other auditors on error in analysts’ earnings forecasts based on samples from 2011 to 2012 (the period since implementation of the International Financial Reporting Standards in Korea). In addition, this paper examines the effects of use of Big 4 auditors, use of auditors with industry expertise and the proportion of overseas subsidiaries in relation to all subsidiaries on the association between dependence on the work of other auditors and error in analysts’ earnings forecasts.

This paper finds a positive relation between dependence on the work of other auditors and error in analysts’ earnings forecasts, suggesting that more dependence on the work of other auditors decreases the quality of the audit of consolidated financial statements; thus, to the extent that low-quality audits decrease reporting reliability, analysts’ forecasts are less likely to be accurate. This paper also finds that the positive relationship between dependence on the work of other auditors and error in analysts’ earnings forecasts is weakened when the principal auditor is a Big 4 auditor or one with industry expertise, because such auditors provide higher-quality audit services. However, the positive relationship between dependence on the work of other auditors and error in analysts’ earnings forecasts is further strengthened in cases where the proportion of overseas subsidiaries to all subsidiaries is higher. These results suggest that the complexity of the consolidation process increases as the proportion of overseas subsidiaries increases.

The findings are useful in analyzing the effects of adoption of the New ISA, implemented in 2014, which does not allow the division of audit responsibilities between principal auditors and other auditors. This paper also provides insights for regulators and practitioners to improve the auditor appointment system in the future.

This paper aims to examine the extent to which two commonly recommended information sharing and communication interventions, direct reporting lines between the internal audit function (IAF) and the audit committee (AC) and their joint reviews of internal audit standards and procedures, improve the internal audit in the continuous audit control and monitoring efforts.

This study uses data from the Audit Intelligence Suite-Benchmarking (AIS) Report for the years 2007 to 2016 published by the Institute of Internal Auditors. The authors test the research hypotheses using the ordinary least squares regression method.

Functional reporting lines from the IAF to the AC positively impact the internal audit, but administrative lines have a negative impact. Reviews conducted jointly between the IAF and the AC positively influence the internal audit. The impacts of reporting lines and joint reviews are also associated with accounting complexity within a given industry, organizational control structure, organizational scope and the level of IAF’s responsibilities over internal control environment to comply with Sarbanes–Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002.

Because the study uses AIS data, operationalization of variables is constrained to items in the given data set. Future studies, including field studies, may identify other variables and measures using diverse data sources. This study expands the knowledge of effective means of information sharing and communication to enhance interactions between the IAF and the AC.

The results suggest that the use of reporting lines should correspond to accounting complexity, organizational control structure, organizational scope, and reliance on the IAF in handling SOX responsibilities. They also highlight the importance of joint reviews between the IAF and AC in ensuring a high-quality internal audit.

The authors envisioned reporting lines and joint reviews as an excellent tool to balance the relationship between the IAF and the AC for continuous internal auditing beyond generating internal audit reports according to the US Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission framework Principle 14.