Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse stakeholders’ perceptions on the accounting of crypto-assets. They also look at the need to amend/clarify existing accounting standards or develop new accounting standards. Design/methodology/approach The authors use a qualitative approach featuring interviews with four stakeholder groups including academics, professional bodies, standard setters and accounting practitioners. Interview recordings are transcribed and then analysed through NVivo. Findings The interviewees identify various issues in the application of current accounting standards to crypto-assets. The interviewees perceive that the rapid development of crypto-assets and fluidity hinder the development of accounting guidance. Hence, continuous monitoring by standard-setters is required. The general consensus is that unless there are crypto-assets with economic characteristics and functionality that are pervasive enough to warrant a new accounting standard, principles of current accounting standards are robust to address gaps in accounting requirements for crypto-assets. Originality/value This study adds to the discussion on harmonising the current practices in accounting of crypto-assets. By examining perceptions of multiple stakeholder groups, this study provides insights into the applicability of current accounting standards to the classification, measurement and disclosure of crypto-assets. The findings will inform standard setters and aid their efforts towards providing formal guidance on the accounting of crypto-assets.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has concerns that auditors are not adequately evaluating the reliability of the work of management's experts (MEs). We interviewed nine experienced auditors to understand how auditors evaluate MEs. We observe that some factors specified by auditing standards, such as an ME's competency in accounting standards, geographical location of the subject matter or the ME, and the sourcing of an ME play a minor role in an auditor's evaluation of an ME's credibility. In contrast, the reputation of an ME's firm is a key determinant. Auditors corroborate information from multiple sources, but verify only the ME's professional qualification. We identify three potential reasons for the ASIC's concerns: "Experts are considered cognitive authorities,""Documentation is the key," and "Move from a risk-based approach to a checklist approach."

No abstract

No abstract

This study examines the impact of an early‐stage conversation with a management's expert on auditors' decisions within the context of auditor–client relationships. We conducted a 2 × 2 between‐subjects experiment with 69 experienced auditors in Australia. Our results suggest that an early‐stage conversation can adversely affect perceived client flexibility towards proposed audit adjustments, particularly under contentious client conditions. Our results further indicate that an early‐stage conversation results in auditors relaxing, which otherwise might be a more contentious approach towards difficult clients. While we do not find direct evidence that auditors succumb to pressure and accept the work of the management's expert without any changes, our results suggest that auditors are willing to propose an adjustment that meets the interests of both auditor and client.