IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/brc/journl/v55y2022i1p134-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Exemplification Analysis Of Materiality Computation Based On The Client'S Specifics

Author

Listed:
  • Teodora-Cezara Porumbacean

    (UBB, FSEGA, Cluj-Napoca, Romania)

Abstract

The study aims to assess the benchmark selection for the materiality level computation based on the auditee's specifics. The paper conducts an exemplification comparison analysis suggesting an appropriate benchmark for selecting the quantitative materiality level measurement of two entities that operate in different fields, have different business goals and are of interest for different categories of stakeholders. The paper exemplifies the rationale for selecting a benchmark based on the analysed companies' profile; one being profitoriented, the most appropriate benchmark suggested is a blend between total revenue and profit before tax, while in the second case of a cost center company, a more relevant benchmark suggested is represented by the total expenses. After assessing the benchmark, the paper proposes the rule of thumb based on the suggested literature by considering that none of the entities is of public interest. The topic proposed in this study is of interest not only to the users of the financial statements and implicitly audit reports but also to the practitioners who could benefit from a deeper understanding of the rationale behind the materiality level benchmark selection. Moreover, this paper also contributes and expands the materiality literature about underlying materiality judgment.

Suggested Citation

  • Teodora-Cezara Porumbacean, 2022. "An Exemplification Analysis Of Materiality Computation Based On The Client'S Specifics," Management Strategies Journal, Constantin Brancoveanu University, vol. 55(1), pages 134-143.
  • Handle: RePEc:brc:journl:v:55:y:2022:i:1:p:134-143
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.strategiimanageriale.ro/papers/220106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hanmei Chen & Kurt Pany & Jian Zhang, 2008. "An analysis of the relationship between accounting restatements and quantitative benchmarks of audit planning materiality," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(3), pages 236-251, August.
    2. Audrius Masiulevičius & Vaclovas Lakis, 2018. "Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs," Post-Print hal-02121042, HAL.
    3. Audrius Masiulevičius & Vaclovas Lakis, 2018. "Differentiation of performance materiality in audit based on business needs," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(1), pages 115-124, September.
    4. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Viktoriya Valeryevna Manuylenko & Marina Aleksandrovna Loktionova & Nina Vladimirovna Lipchiu & Natalia Vladimirovna Sobchenko & Tatyana Andreyevna Sadovskaya, 2018. "Options simulation toolkit for strategic evaluation of corporations' financial potential," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(2), pages 871-889, December.
    2. Keith A. Houghton & Christine Jubb & Michael Kend, 2011. "Materiality in the context of audit: the real expectations gap," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 26(6), pages 482-500, June.
    3. Paul Olojede & Olayinka Erin & Osariemen Asiriuwa & Momoh Usman, 2020. "Audit expectation gap: an empirical analysis," Future Business Journal, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Pranil Prasad & Parmod Chand, 2017. "The Changing Face of the Auditor's Report: Implications for Suppliers and Users of Financial Statements," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 348-367, December.
    5. 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.
    6. Eilifsen, Aasmund & Hamilton, Erin L. & Messier, William F., 2021. "The importance of quantifying uncertainty: Examining the effects of quantitative sensitivity analysis and audit materiality disclosures on investors’ judgments and decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    7. Javier Montoya del Corte & Francisco Javier Martínez García & Ana Fernández Laviada, 2010. "Effective use of qualitative materiality factors: evidence from Spain," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(5), pages 458-483, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Prerana Agrawal & Jacqueline Birt & Lyndie Bayne & Nikki Schonfeldt, 2022. "The use of case studies in developing students’ understanding of the concept ‘material misstatement’," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1307-1338, April.
    10. Hazim Alghazali M., 2018. "The Extent of Internal Audit Efficiency to Limit the Practices of Immoral Accountant (From the Point of view of Auditors in Baghdad)," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 5-11:5.
    11. Michael Kend & IIias Basioudis, 2018. "Reforms to the Market for Audit and Assurance Services in the Period after the Global Financial Crisis: Evidence from the UK," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 589-597, December.
    12. Veronica Grosu & Dorel Mateș & Monica-Laura Zlati & Svetlana Mihaila & Marian Socoliuc & Marius-Sorin Ciubotariu & Simona-Maria Tanasă, 2020. "Econometric Model for Readjusting Significance Threshold Levels through Quick Audit Tests Used on Sustainable Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-32, October.
    13. Rob Boterenbrood, 2017. "The Audit Expectation Gap between Companies and Their Auditors: An Exploratory Study," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 18(5), pages 1124-1133, October.
    14. Shao-Huai Liang & Yu-Ting Hsieh & Hsuan-Chu Lin & Hui-Yu Hsiao, 2023. "What underlies key audit matters? Evidence from Taiwan," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 1243-1258, April.
    15. 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).
    16. George Silviu CORDOŞ & Melinda Timea FÜLÖP, 2020. "Debates In The Literature Regarding Audit Reporting," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(22), pages 1-4.
    17. Mohammed Moin Uddin Reza & Md. Rezaul Karim, 2018. "Audit Expectation Gap – Evidence in 21st Century," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 2(4), pages 748-756.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Audit; Materiality; Financial Statements; Reporting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:brc:journl:v:55:y:2022:i:1:p:134-143. 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: Dan MICUDA (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.univcb.ro/ .

    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.