Auditing, Probability assessment, Prior probability distributions, Group decision making

This paper presents an analysis of the audit risk consequences of PPD ex- tremeness deficiencies and miscalibration.While there is empirical evidence that auditors, like many other decision makers, assess miscalibrated PPDs , the attendant inferential risk consequences of such deficiencies have not been addressed in the extant literature.The comparative statics analysis performed in this study indicates that the risk effects of miscalibration and extremeness deficiencies on the auditor's (substantive testing) evaluation decision are complex and cannot be predicted from an examination of the planning (sampling size) decision.

Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8456%28199921%2937%3A1%3C191%3AWDIAK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-FJournal of Accounting Research is currently published by The Institute of Professional Accounting, Graduate School ofBusiness, University of Chicago.Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/grad-uchicago.html.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]://www.jstor.orgFri Jan 4 16:36:17 2008

Auditing, Auditor hypothesis testing, Diagnostic inference, Incentives

The replacement of Auditing Standard No. 2 (AS2) by Auditing Standard No. 5 (AS5) creates a natural experiment that sheds light on (1) potential inefficiencies caused by regulatory responses to a political crisis and (2) audit efficiency and effectiveness improvements resulting from the risk‐based approach embodied in AS5. We study these effects by examining the impact of AS5 on audit fees. We find that AS5 audit fees are aligned with auditee fraud risk, but not AS2 audit fees. Second, relative to AS2 benchmark levels, AS5 audit fees are, on average, lower for all auditees. Third, relative to AS2 benchmarks, AS5 fees are lower for lower‐fraud‐risk auditees but greater for higher‐fraud‐risk auditees. Overall, the evidence is consistent with (1) initial overregulation (via AS2) followed by reform (via AS5) and (2) auditors deploying a risk‐based audit approach to obtain both efficiency and potential effectiveness gains in audit production.

The adoption of business risk audit (BRA) approaches during the 1990s by several leading audit firms has been the subject of considerable scrutiny and commentary. Under BRA, the auditor responds to the increasing complexity of auditee financial reports by acquiring a deep and comprehensive understanding of the auditee's industry, strategy, business models, and processes—tasks best accomplished by higher‐ranked labor—and by employing this understanding to make audit labor allocations. Using proprietary data for 165 audits conducted in 2002, we investigate three propositions about audit labor use under BRA. First, relative to pre‐BRA benchmarks for the same auditor, we expect BRA audits to use a greater proportion of higher‐ranked labor. Second, we expect engagements with high assessed auditor business risk (ABR), a summary risk assessment that reflects the BRA auditor's rich understanding of the auditee, to be allocated more labor and more higher‐ranked labor than pre‐BRA benchmarks. Third, at all ranks of labor, we expect a positive association between assessed ABR and levels of labor use. We find empirical evidence consistent with these propositions. We also find that total labor use in our sample is only modestly lower than pre‐BRA norms. Analysis of fee data from these engagements suggests that audit fees in 2002 are substantially less than would be expected under pre‐BRA benchmarks. After controlling for audit labor use, both total fees and fees per hour increase with assessed ABR for first‐year auditees but not for continuing auditees. Overall, our results provide evidence on the impact of the BRA audit regime and speak to the likely impact of BRA on audit effectiveness and efficiency.