IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v11y2022i1p1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta Analysis of Materiality Studies

Author

Listed:
  • David E. Vance

Abstract

The Supreme Court and the Public Company Accounting Oversite Board (PCAOB) has said that an amount is material if there is a substantial likelihood it will influence a reasonable investor’s judgment. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has said that an amount is material if there is a substantial likelihood it will influence a reasonable user’s judgment. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has refused to define materiality. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has said that qualitative factors can make even small amounts material. Reasonable implies a consensus of opinion. This article is a meta-analysis of 31,155 materiality decisions made by 335 cohorts in 48 studies with the objective of defining what is reasonable. A cohort is a group of like individuals faced with a common materiality decision. Materiality in this study is measured as a percentage of net income. The mean threshold of materiality is 7.84% and the median is 6.81%. Both thresholds are substantially higher than the often-discussed threshold of 5.0%. A quarter of the participants in these studies set the threshold of materiality at 11.90% and the threshold for a statistically significant difference from the consensus is 17.51%. Ultimately, materiality will be decided through civil and criminal litigation. Finders of fact, usually jurors, will be asked to determine what a reasonable investor would conclude. Few jurors have the training and experience of investors, so without context, they can only guess what a reasonable investor would conclude. This study provides that context.

Suggested Citation

  • David E. Vance, 2022. "A Meta Analysis of Materiality Studies," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/21367/13185
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/21367
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Petroni, K & Beasley, M, 1996. "Errors in accounting estimates and their relation to audit firm type," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 151-171.
    2. Chewning, G & Pany, K & Wheeler, S, 1989. "Auditor Reporting Decisions Involving Accounting Principle Changes - Some Evidence On Materiality Thresholds," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 78-96.
    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. Wally Smieliauskas, 2012. "Principles‐Based Reasoning about Accounting Estimates," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(4), pages 259-296, December.
    2. Martin F. Grace & J. Tyler Leverty, 2010. "Political Cost Incentives for Managing the Property‐Liability Insurer Loss Reserve," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 21-49, March.
    3. Hung Chan, K. & Mo, Phyllis L. L., 1998. "Ownership effects on audit-detected error characteristics: An empirical study in an emerging economy," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 235-261.
    4. Lasse Niemi, 2004. "Auditor size and audit pricing: evidence from small audit firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 541-560.
    5. M. Martin Boyer & Elijah Brewer & Willie Reddic, 2019. "The Association between Complexity and Managerial Discretion in the Property and Casualty Insurance Industry," Quarterly Journal of Finance (QJF), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(03), pages 1-33, September.
    6. Edgley, Carla, 2014. "A genealogy of accounting materiality," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 255-271.
    7. Han, Sangyong & Lai, Gene C. & Ho, Chia-Ling, 2018. "Corporate transparency and reserve management: Evidence from US property-liability insurance companies," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 379-392.
    8. Jiang Cheng & Travis Chow & Tzu‐Ting Lin & Jeffrey Ng, 2022. "The effect of accounting for income tax uncertainty on tax‐deductible loss accruals for private insurers," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(2), pages 505-544, June.
    9. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    10. Jiang Cheng & Mary A. Weiss, 2012. "The Role of RBC, Hurricane Exposure, Bond Portfolio Duration, and Macroeconomic and Industry-wide Factors in Property–Liability Insolvency Prediction," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 79(3), pages 723-750, September.
    11. Sarah B. Stuber & Chris E. Hogan, 2021. "Do PCAOB Inspections Improve the Accuracy of Accounting Estimates?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 331-370, March.
    12. Giuseppe Iuliano & Gaetano Matonti, 2015. "Do big 4 audit companies detect earnings management and report it in the audit opinion? Empirical evidence from italian non-listed firms," ESPERIENZE D'IMPRESA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 5-43.
    13. David L. Eckles & Martin Halek, 2010. "Insurer Reserve Error and Executive Compensation," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 77(2), pages 329-346, June.
    14. Terence Bu†Peow NG & Hun†Tong Tan, 2007. "Effects of Qualitative Factor Salience, Expressed Client Concern, and Qualitative Materiality Thresholds on Auditors' Audit Adjustment Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 1171-1192, December.
    15. Tae G. Ryu & Chul-Young Roh, 2007. "The Auditor's Going-Concern Opinion Decision," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 6(2), pages 89-101, August.
    16. Gaver, Jennifer J. & Paterson, Jeffrey S., 2004. "Do insurers manipulate loss reserves to mask solvency problems?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 393-416, September.
    17. Yi-hsun Lai & Wen-chang Lin & Liang-wei Kuo, 2018. "Forestalling capital regulation or masking financial weakness? Evidence from loss reserve management in the property–liability insurance industry," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 481-518, February.
    18. K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
    19. Tom Van Caneghem, 2004. "The impact of audit quality on earnings rounding-up behaviour: some UK evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 771-786.
    20. Yen†Jung Lee & Kathy R. Petroni & Min Shen, 2006. "Cherry Picking, Disclosure Quality, and Comprehensive Income Reporting Choices: The Case of Property†Liability Insurers," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(3), pages 655-692, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:jfr:afr111:v:11:y:2022:i:1:p:1. 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: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.