No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Carries out a study which empirically examines both internal and external auditors in New Zealand to determine the extent to which 21 audit supervisory tools were used in audit practice. In addition to determining how frequently each of the supervisory techniques was used, the study tested two hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that the statistical variance for the number of audit supervisory techniques used on internal audits is greater than that for external audits. The second hypothesis was that the average number of audit supervisory techniques used on external audits is greater than that for internal audits, suggesting that external audits are more closely supervised than are internal audits. Both hypotheses were supported by the study data. In addition, supervisory profiles were constructed for both internal and external audits. The profiles indicated that while external audits appear to use more supervisory techniques during the course of the audit due to greater liability and competitive pressure, internal audits are more likely to require closer supervision of the release of audit reports and audit follow‐up.

This study uses repeated‐measures ANOVA design to examine linear trends in audit fees of US companies. Audit fee trends are analyzed across the effects of regulatory oversight, accelerated or non‐accelerated SOX filing status, and time (2002–2009). Accelerated filers showed stronger positive linear trends than did non‐accelerated filers for the entire eight‐year period. However, non‐accelerated companies showed stronger positive linear trends than did accelerated companies during the latter four‐year period (2006–2009). We attribute this result to additional audit work required in the earlier four‐year period (2002–2005) by accelerated companies to meet the requirements of SOX 404 during the earlier period. We attribute the slowing trend in the latter four‐year period to the increasing maturity of the internal control systems for accelerated companies as well as changes in auditing standards that allowed auditors to more efficiently allocate auditing resources based on audit risk for these accelerated firms.