Jerry L. Turner

Does Increased Audit Partner Tenure Reduce Audit Quality

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires the lead audit or coordinating partner and the reviewing partner to rotate off the audit every five years so the engagement can be viewed “with fresh and skeptical eyes.” Using data obtained from actual audits by multiple U.S. offices of three large international audit firms, we examine whether there is a relationship between evidence of reduced audit quality, measured by estimated discretionary accruals, and audit partner tenure with a specific client. We find that estimated discretionary accruals are significantly and negatively associated with the lead audit partners tenure with a specific client. Thus, audit quality appears to increase with increased partner tenure. After controlling for client size and engagement risk, we find audit partner tenure significantly and negatively associated with estimated discretionary accruals only for small clients with partner tenure of greater than seven years, regardless of risk level. We also find that tenure is not significantly associated with estimated discretionary accruals for large clients. This suggests that as partner tenure increases, auditors of small client firms become less willing to accept more aggressive financial statement assertions by managers, and that partner tenure does not affect audit quality for large clients or for shorter-tenure smaller clients. Our results relating to audit partner tenure are consistent with the conclusions about audit firm tenure by Geiger and Raghunandan (2002); Johnson, Khurana, and Reynolds (2002);Myers, Myers, and Omer (2003); and Nagy (2005) and extend their findings by focusing on individual audit partners rather than on audit firms.

The Impact of Materiality Decisions on Financial Ratios: A Computer Simulation

This study examines the extent to which immaterial uncorrected errors may combine to affect specific financial ratios. A simulation is performed in which three balance sheet accounts and three related income statement accounts are seeded with immaterial errors. The magnitudes of the errors are controlled so the financial statement account balances are materially correct both individually and in the aggregate. The study examines six materiality heuristics for each of three industry classifications and three different error distribution patterns. For each heuristic/industry combination and error distribution pattern, a 95 percent confidence interval is generated for nine financial ratios. Results indicate that immaterial errors may combine to create substantial variances in some ratios. Profitability ratios based on income statement accounts display wide confidence intervals, while solvency ratios based on balance sheet accounts display relatively narrow intervals. Comparison between a standard normal distribution and a nonsymmetrical error distribution indicates that ratio variances are substantial and sensitive to error patterns even when errors are immaterial. Tests for equality of variances identify significant differences between heuristic methods and between industries. When making the decision regarding requiring entry or waiving discovered errors, the auditor should consider the impact of such errors not only on financial statement balances, but on the ways users may combine those balances.

Bayesian and Belief-Functions Formulas for Auditor Independence Risk Assessment

This paper illustrates two formulas for assessing independence risk based on the Bayesian and belief-functions frameworks. These formulas can be used to assess the role of threats to auditor independence as well as the role of threat-mitigating safeguards. Also, these formulas provide a basis for evaluation of an audit firms independence risk and a framework to educate stakeholders about the threats faced by the audit firm and the role of effective safeguards in mitigating these risks. The formulas also provide a means for regulators and lawmakers to evaluate whether they have effective safeguards in place given the existence of threats and for auditors to signal to various stakeholders that they have identified significant threats and have effective safeguards in place. To show the potential usefulness of these analytical models, several illustrations addressing increased transparency and the potential impact of regulations are presented.

The Association of Pre-Audit Engagement Risk with Discretionary Accruals

In an archival study of audits by multiple offices of three international audit firms, we examine whether preaudit engagement risk assessments made by the auditor are associated with estimated postaudit discretionary accruals. We find that preaudit engagement risk is significantly and positively associated with the estimated level of discretionary accruals reported in audited financial statements. As higher levels of discretionary accruals have been shown to be associated with higher risk of post-audit litigation, it appears that rather than taking actions that result in higher-risk clients reporting less aggressive discretionary accruals, auditors instead are accepting a higher postaudit risk for these clients.

Issues and Opportunities in Archival Audit Research

This paper encourages audit researchers to consider archival research methodologies and assists in designing an effective research project. Archival research offers many benefits and presents many challenges not existing in other forms of research as actual audit workpapers provide a rich depiction of the actual audit process. Differences in audit methodologies and workpapers, however, create issues such as the measurement of variables and definitional inconsistency. Other issues with archival studies include relatively less control over the research process, confidentiality of data, and difficulty in obtaining audit firm cooperation. Suggestions for resolving these issues are offered and analysis of three successful archival studies is provided to demonstrate how archival research designs were adapted to the needs of the project.