IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rbs/ijbrss/v9y2020i4p182-195.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Audit risk calibration: Extending the Non-GAAP SEC-Filter

Author

Listed:
  • Mohamed Gaber

    (School of Business and Economics, State University of New York:College at Plattsburgh,Plattsburgh, NY, USA)

  • Samy Garas

    (School of Business and Economics, State University of New York:College at Plattsburgh,Plattsburgh, NY, USA)

  • Edward Lusk

    (School of Business and Economics, State University of New York:College at Plattsburgh,Plattsburgh, NY, USA)

Abstract

AS5[v.Dec:2017] issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [PCAOB] requires the use of Analytical Procedures [AP] at the Planning and Substantive Phases of Assurance Audits for firms traded on active exchanges. We argue that one aspect of AP, relative to risk-setting, should be vetting the information that is produced/published by the audit client pertaining to Regulation G [v.SEC:2003] called: Non-GAAP information. In our research, we intend to leverage the longstanding Reg[G] requirements to extend the Non-GAAP information to firm performance profiles reported for the Environment, Social, and Governance[ESG]Platform on BloombergÒ. There are two research foci: (1) Offer an AP-Model that uses GAAP & ESG variables to contribute audit evidence useful in making the decision to launch an AP-Extended Procedures examination of the firm’s Enterprise Resource Planning & Control [ERP&C] protocols, and (2) Profile a random accrual-set of firms indexed on Bloomberg so as to offer population parameter estimates for refining the AP-Model. The AP-Model is based upon correlational associations for the ESG- & GAAP-variables from the: Income, Balance Sheet & Cash Flow Statements. If there seems to be a disconnect between the nature of these associations for the ESG-variables and those of the GAAP-variables, the auditor may use this as audit evidence in making the decision to conduct an Extended Procedures Examination of the firm’s [ERP&C] protocols. As for the other focus, we found that for the accrual of firms tested there is no inferential evidence that the ERP&C-protocols are consistent drivers for both the ESG- and the GAAP variable sets. Key Words: Analytical Procedures Bloomberg Terminals, ESG-Platform, Correlations, CAM

Suggested Citation

  • Mohamed Gaber & Samy Garas & Edward Lusk, 2020. "Audit risk calibration: Extending the Non-GAAP SEC-Filter," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 9(4), pages 182-195, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:4:p:182-195
    DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i4.742
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/742/620
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i4.742
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i4.742?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. Amir Michael & Rob Dixon, 2019. "Audit data analytics of unregulated voluntary disclosures and auditing expectations gap," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 16(4), pages 188-205, December.
    2. Jeffrey Cohen & Ganesh Krishnamoorthy & Arnold Wright, 2017. "Enterprise Risk Management and the Financial Reporting Process: The Experiences of Audit Committee Members, CFOs, and External Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 1178-1209, 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. Su, Kun & Zhang, Miaomiao & Liu, Chengyun, 2022. "Financial derivatives, analyst forecasts, and stock price synchronicity: Evidence from an emerging market," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Raden Roro Widya Ningtyas Soeprajitno & Sri Ningsih & Iman Harymawan & Bablu Kumar Dhar & Suham Cahyono, 2023. "The School-ties Between Top Management Executive and Audit Partner: Exploring From Earnings Management in Indonesia," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    3. Ben Kajwang, 2022. "Theoretical review of enterprise risk management culture drivers for insurance firms in Kenya," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(5), pages 210-217, July.
    4. Jianxiong Chen & Chung-Cheng Yang, 2021. "Competitive Revenue Strategies in the Medical Consumables Industry: Evidence from Human Resources, Research and Development Expenses and Industry Life Cycle," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Johnston, Joseph & Soileau, Jared, 2020. "Enterprise risk management and accruals estimation error," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    6. Bryan K. Church & Narisa Tianjing Dai & Xi (Jason) Kuang & Xuejiao Liu, 2020. "The Role of Auditor Narcissism in Auditor–Client Negotiations: Evidence from China," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1756-1787, September.
    7. Grygoriy Shamborovskyi & Yuliia Nehoda & Nataliya Demidova & Volodymyr Tarashchenko & Svitlana Breus, 2021. "Modeling Study on Risk Identification in the Process of Anti-Crisis Enterprise Management," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Nguyen, Quang Khai, 2022. "Determinants of bank risk governance structure: A cross-country analysis," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    9. Steven DeSimone & Giuseppe D’Onza & Gerrit Sarens, 2018. "Correlates of Sustainability Audits by Internal Auditors," Working Papers 1803, College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics.
    10. Peter Blokland & Genserik Reniers, 2019. "An Ontological and Semantic Foundation for Safety and Security Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-25, October.
    11. Dan Dacian Cuzdriorean, 2018. "Auditing Research: A Review Of Recent Research Advances," Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance, Eurasian Publications, vol. 6(4), pages 14-26.
    12. Green, Wendy J. & Cheng, Mandy M., 2019. "Materiality judgments in an integrated reporting setting: The effect of strategic relevance and strategy map," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-14.
    13. Bojan Obrenovic & Jianguo Du & Danijela Godinic & Diana Tsoy & Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan & Ilimdorjon Jakhongirov, 2020. "Sustaining Enterprise Operations and Productivity during the COVID-19 Pandemic: “Enterprise Effectiveness and Sustainability Model”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-27, July.
    14. Deniz Appelbaum, 2019. "Commentary on this special issue of Advances in Audit Analytics," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 16(4), pages 161-162, December.
    15. Krieger, Felix & Drews, Paul & Velte, Patrick, 2021. "Explaining the (non-) adoption of advanced data analytics in auditing: A process theory," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    16. Mojca Marc & Marika Arena & Darja Peljhan, 2023. "The role of interactive style of use in improving risk management effectiveness," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 25(2), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Sorin Gabriel Anton & Anca Elena Afloarei Nucu, 2020. "Enterprise Risk Management: A Literature Review and Agenda for Future Research," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-22, November.
    18. Ahmet Onay, 2020. "The Role of Internal Audit from New Enterprise Risk Management Frameworks Perspective: Research in Turkey," Istanbul Business Research, Istanbul University Business School, vol. 49(2), pages 177-200, November.
    19. Francesca Manes-Rossi & Giuseppe Nicolo & Rebecca Levy Orelli, 2017. "Reshaping Risk Disclosure through Integrated Reporting: Evidence from Italian Early Adopters," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(10), pages 1-11, September.
    20. Kenneth L. Bills & Christie Hayne & Sarah E. Stein & Richard C. Hatfield, 2021. "Collaborating with Competitors: How Do Small Firm Accounting Associations and Networks Successfully Manage Coopetitive Tensions?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 545-585, March.

    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:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:4:p:182-195. 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: Umit Hacioglu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbffea.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.