An analytic framework is provided for incorporating different user perspectives on materiality into the audit process. The framework serves as a tool for disaggregating materiality to specific accounts based on materiality criteria for accounts and account combinations. To improve audit efficiency, the planning method incorporates the relative cost of auditing various account balances. It extends existing models of audit risk and materiality by considering explicitly the materiality of account combinations (sums and ratios) to enhance audit effectiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AICPA. 1981. Statemem of Auditing Standards No. 39: Audit Sampling. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
2.
AICPA. 1983. Statement of Auditing Standards No. 47: Audit Risk and Materiality in Conducting an Audit. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
3.
AICPA. 1994. Special Committee on Financial Reporting. Improving Business Reporting—A Customer Focus. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
4.
Ameribank Investor's Group. 1992Annual Report for the Year Ended December 31, 1991.
5.
American Savings Bank. 1992. Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1991.
6.
BellT. B.WrightA. M.. 1995. Auditing Practice, Research and Education: A Productive Collaboration. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
7.
Collins Industries, Inc.1993Form 8 Amendment to Annual Report Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended October 31, 1992. Securities and Exchange Commission (March 25).
8.
CushingB. E.SearfossD. G.RandallR. H.. 1979. “Materiality Allocation in Audit Planning: A Feasibility Study.”Journal of Accounting Research17 (Supplement): 172–216.
9.
DuttaS. K.SrivastavaR. P.. 1993. “Aggregation of Evidence in Auditing: A Likelihood Perspective.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory12 (Supplement): 137–160.
10.
ElliottR. K.RogersJ. R.. 1972. “Relating Statistical Sampling to Audit Objectives.”Journal of Accountancy134 (July): 46–55.
11.
FASB. 1977. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 19: Financial Accounting and Reporting by Oil and Gas Producing Companies. Stamford, Conn.: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
12.
FASB. 1980. Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2: Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information. Stamford, Conn.: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
13.
FASB. 1990. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 105: Disclosure of Information about Financial Instruments with Off-Balance-Sheet Risk and Financial Instruments with Concentrations of Credit Risk. Norwalk, Conn.: Financial Accounting Standards Board.
IcermanR. C.HillisonW. A.. 1991. “Disposition of Audit Detected Errors: Some Evidence on Evaluative Materiality.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory10 (1): 22–34.
16.
KinneyW. R.Jr.1989. “Achieved Audit Risk and the Audit Outcome Space.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory8 (Supplement): 67–84.
17.
LeslieD. A.TeitlebaumA. D.AndersonR. J.. 1979. Dollar Unit Sampling. Toronto: Copp, Clark and Pitman.
18.
Live Entertainment, Inc.1992. Annual Report for the Year Ending December 31, 1991.
19.
NeterJ.KimH. S.GrahamL. E.. 1984. “On Combining Stringer Bounds for Independent Monetary Unit Samples from Several Populations.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory4 (1): 74–88.
20.
NielsenO. E. B.CoxD. R.. 1989. Asymptotic Techniques for Use in Statistics. London: Chapman and Hall.
21.
PanyK.WheelerS.. 1989a. “Auditing: A Comparison of Various Materiality Rules of Thumb.”CPA Journal59 (June): 62–63.
22.
PanyK.WheelerS.. 1989b. “Materiality: An Inter-industry Comparison of the Magnitudes and Stabilities of Various Quantitative Measures.”Accounting Horizons3 (4): 71–78.
23.
PressE.WeintropJ.. 1990. “Accounting Based Constraints in Public and Private Debt Agreements: Their Association with Leverage and Impact on Accounting Choice.”Journal of Accounting and Economics12: 65–95.
24.
SmieliauskasW.1986. “A Simulation Analysis of the Power Characteristics of Some Popular Estimators under Different Risk and Materiality Levels.”Journal of Accounting Research24 (1): 217–230.
SteinbartP. J.1987. “The Construction of Rule-Based Expert System as a Method for Studying Materiality Judgments.”The Accounting Review62 (1): 97–116.
27.
SweeneyA. P.1994. “Debt Covenant Violations and Managers' Accounting Response.”Journal of Accounting and Economics17: 281–308.
28.
TurnerJ. L.1997. “The Impact of Materiality Decisions on Financial Ratios: A Computer Simulation.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance12 (1): 125–147.
29.
WillinghamJ. J.RibarG. S.. 1987. “Development of an Expert Audit System for Loan Loss Estimation.”Proceedings of the Arthur Young Professor's Roundtable, pp. 171–184. New York: Arthur Young.
30.
ZuberG.ElliottR. K.KinneyW. R.LeisenringJ. J.. 1983. “Using Materiality in Audit Planning.”Journal of Accountancy155 (March): 42–44.
