This study examines SOX 404 reports with fiscal year-ends between 2004 and 2014 to determine their readability as measured by the FOG Index. We investigate the association between readability and company characteristics, auditor type, opinion type, time period, report content, and report length. We find that the sign and significance of certain associations depend on whether the reports contain material weaknesses. Overall, results show that management's reports are more readable than auditor's reports; longer reports are more readable—contrary to findings for other corporate communications such as 10-Ks; reports of Big 6 firms are less readable than non-Big 6 reports. Interestingly, the Big 4 firms differed in the readability of their reports. Data Availability: Data are available from sources identified in the text.
SUMMARY: Experimental studies concerning fraud (or ''red flag'') checklists often are interpreted as providing evidence that checklists are dysfunctional because their use yields results inferior to unaided judgments (Hogan et al. 2008). However, some of the criticisms leveled against checklists are directed at generic checklists applied by individual auditors who combine the cues using their own judgment. Based on a review and synthesis of the literature on the use of checklists in auditing and other fields, we offer a framework for effective use of checklists that incorporates the nature of the audit task, checklist design, checklist application, and contextual factors. Our analysis of checklist research in auditing suggests that improvements to checklist design and to checklist application methods can make checklists more effective. In particular, with regard to fraud risk assessments, customizing checklists to fit both client circumstances and the characteristics of the fraud risk assessment task, along with auditor reliance on formal cue-combination models rather than on judgmental cue combinations, could make fraud checklists more effective than extant research implies.
Evidence from prior research is mixed about whether accounting estimate changes are strategically motivated, on average, or whether they reflect new or updated information. To interpret this difference, we investigate, by category of material changes in accounting estimates, the association between estimate changes and subsequent restatements.We also explore the determinants of both income-increasing and income-decreasing estimate changes for different categories of estimate changes. We find that the motivations for and the determinants of estimate changes depend on the type of change and on whether the changes in estimates are income-increasing or income-decreasing. Overall, we conclude that when companies are motivated to bias earnings and they cannot do so by manipulating other within generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) accruals, they sometimes resort to using estimate changes. Our more detailed investigation of estimate changes at the account level suggests a more nuanced view of the determinants of changes in accounting estimates. We develop a more complete model of the determinants of changes in accounting estimates than those used in this emerging literature, which should be of interest to accounting academics, regulators, audit practitioners and audit committee members.
Using verbal protocol analysis, this study examines how 21 experienced auditors from four different firms assess the seven key inputs in a discounted cash flow (DCF) model used by management to value goodwill. The analysis compares the auditors’ processes against a theoretical model derived from an analysis of accounting and auditing standards and authoritative sources of valuation methodology and identifies systematic omissions and inaccurate applications of key audit steps. It also relates those issues to audit outcomes at the individual input and the overall goodwill evaluation levels. The study’s findings can help regulators, practitioners and academics to better understand the limitations of auditors’ competencies so that they can design strategies for mitigating them.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.