IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/joares/v57y2019i5p1303-1351.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditors’ Quantitative Materiality Judgments: Properties and Implications for Financial Reporting Reliability

Author

Listed:
  • PREETI CHOUDHARY
  • KENNETH MERKLEY
  • KATHERINE SCHIPPER

Abstract

We analyze data made available through the PCAOB (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board) to provide descriptive evidence on the properties of auditors’ actual quantitative materiality judgments and the implications of those judgments for financial reporting. Auditors’ quantitative materiality judgments do not appear to result simply from applying conventional rules of thumb (e.g., 5% of pretax income), but instead are associated with size‐related financial statement outcomes (income, revenues, and assets), where the relative importance of the size‐related outcomes varies with client characteristics such as financial performance. Using the distribution of actual materiality amounts reported by auditors to the PCAOB as part of the audit‐inspection process, we construct a materiality‐judgment measure that locates a specific materiality amount within a normal range that is both comparable across varying client characteristics and supported by guidance in audit firm internal policy manuals. We find that looser materiality (an amount closer to the high end of a normal materiality range) is associated with fewer audit hours and lower audit fees, supporting the construct validity of this measure. We also find that looser materiality is associated with lower amounts of proposed audit adjustments and, in extreme cases, with a greater incidence of restatements, highlighting the importance of auditor materiality assessments for financial reporting reliability.

Suggested Citation

  • Preeti Choudhary & Kenneth Merkley & Katherine Schipper, 2019. "Auditors’ Quantitative Materiality Judgments: Properties and Implications for Financial Reporting Reliability," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(5), pages 1303-1351, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:57:y:2019:i:5:p:1303-1351
    DOI: 10.1111/1475-679X.12286
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12286
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1475-679X.12286?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aobdia, Daniel, 2019. "Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 144-174.
    2. Dechow, Patricia & Ge, Weili & Schrand, Catherine, 2010. "Understanding earnings quality: A review of the proxies, their determinants and their consequences," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2-3), pages 344-401, December.
    3. Dain C. Donelson, 2013. "The Potential for Catastrophic Auditor Litigation," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 333-380.
    4. Andrew A. Acito & Jeffrey J. Burks & W. Bruce Johnson, 2019. "The Materiality of Accounting Errors: Evidence from SEC Comment Letters†," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 839-868, June.
    5. Wei Chen & Paul Hribar & Samuel Melessa, 2018. "Incorrect Inferences When Using Residuals as Dependent Variables," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 751-796, June.
    6. Caramanis, Constantinos & Lennox, Clive, 2008. "Audit effort and earnings management," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 116-138, March.
    7. Kim, Irene & Skinner, Douglas J., 2012. "Measuring securities litigation risk," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 290-310.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christensen, Brant & Schmardebeck, Roy & Seidel, Timothy, 2022. "Do auditors’ incentives affect materiality assessments of prior-period misstatements?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Nicholas J. Hallman & Jaime J. Schmidt & Anne M. Thompson, 2022. "Audit Implications of Non‐GAAP Reporting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1947-1989, December.
    3. Preeti Choudhary & Kenneth Merkley & Katherine Schipper, 2022. "The Costs of Waiving Audit Adjustments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(5), pages 1813-1857, December.
    4. Raul David & Indra Abeysekera, 2021. "Auditor Judgements after Withdrawal of the Materiality Accounting Standard in Australia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Christensen, Brant E. & Eilifsen, Aasmund & Glover, Steven M. & Messier, William F., 2020. "The effect of audit materiality disclosures on investors’ decision making," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    6. Karen‐Ann M. Dwyer & Niamh M. Brennan & Collette E. Kirwan, 2023. "Auditor Materiality in Expanded Audit Reports: More (Disclosure) is Less," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 33(1), pages 31-45, March.
    7. Ege, Matthew S. & Stuber, Sarah B., 2022. "Are auditors rewarded for low audit quality? The case of auditor lenience in the insurance industry," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ege, Matthew S. & Stuber, Sarah B., 2022. "Are auditors rewarded for low audit quality? The case of auditor lenience in the insurance industry," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(1).
    2. Ionela Andreicovici & Nava Cohen & Silvia Ferramosca & Alessandro Ghio, 2021. "Two Wrongs Make a ‘Right’? Exploring the Ethical Calculus of Earnings Management Before Large Labor Dismissals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(2), pages 379-405, August.
    3. Badolato, Patrick G. & Donelson, Dain C. & Ege, Matthew, 2014. "Audit committee financial expertise and earnings management: The role of status," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 208-230.
    4. May Huaxi Zhang & Stanley Iat-Meng Ko & Andreas Karathanasopoulos & Chia Chun Lo, 2022. "A two-step quantile regression method for discretionary accounting," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 1-22, July.
    5. Jake Thomas & Wentao Yao & Frank Zhang & Wei Zhu, 2022. "Meet, beat, and pollute," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 1038-1078, September.
    6. Henry Jarva & Matthijs Lof, 2024. "Identifying accounting conservatism in the presence of skewness," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 62(2), pages 553-577, February.
    7. Matthias Breuer & Harm H. Schütt, 2023. "Accounting for uncertainty: an application of Bayesian methods to accruals models," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 726-768, June.
    8. Panagiotis Dimitropoulos, 2016. "Audit Selection in the European Football Industry under Union of European Football Associations Financial Fair Play," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 6(3), pages 901-906.
    9. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    10. Alex Young, 2018. "Do analysts affect bad news timeliness?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 171-189, February.
    11. Florian Kiy & Theresa Zick, 2020. "Effects of declining bank health on borrowers’ earnings quality: evidence from the European sovereign debt crisis," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(4), pages 615-673, May.
    12. Christensen, Brant & Schmardebeck, Roy & Seidel, Timothy, 2022. "Do auditors’ incentives affect materiality assessments of prior-period misstatements?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    13. Chyz, James A. & Eulerich, Marc & Fligge, Benjamin & Romney, Miles A., 2023. "Codetermination and aggressive reporting: Audit committee employee representation, tax aggressiveness, and earnings management," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    14. Xiong, Jiacai & Ouyang, Caiyue & Tong, Jamie Yixing & Zhang, Feida Frank, 2021. "Fraud commitment in a smaller world: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Elizabeth Carson & Roger Simnett & Ulrike Thürheimer & Ann Vanstraelen, 2022. "Involvement of Component Auditors in Multinational Group Audits: Determinants, Audit Quality, and Audit Fees," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(4), pages 1419-1462, September.
    16. Martin Walker, 2013. "How far can we trust earnings numbers? What research tells us about earnings management," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(4), pages 445-481, August.
    17. Anastassia Fedyk & James Hodson & Natalya Khimich & Tatiana Fedyk, 2022. "Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 938-985, September.
    18. Chy, Mahfuz & De Franco, Gus & Su, Barbara, 2021. "The effect of auditor litigation risk on clients' access to bank debt: Evidence from a quasi-experiment," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1).
    19. Demetris Christodoulou & Le Ma & Andrey Vasnev, 2018. "Inference†in†residuals as an Estimation Method for Earnings Management," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(2), pages 154-180, June.
    20. Pier Luigi Marchini & Tatiana Mazza & Alice Medioli, 2018. "The impact of related party transactions on earnings management: some insights from the Italian context," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(4), pages 981-1014, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:joares:v:57:y:2019:i:5:p:1303-1351. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8456 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.