Financial audit
Mohammad Ali Hazegh; Rouhollah Bayat; Abbas Ali Daryaei; Mohammad Hossein Ghaemi
Abstract
1. IntroductionManuscripts Given the economic conditions of Iran, which due to sanctions has been experiencing severe inflationary pressures, systematic risks in the market have increased and uncertainty about the future has intensified. In such an environment, investors require reliable information ...
Read More
1. IntroductionManuscripts Given the economic conditions of Iran, which due to sanctions has been experiencing severe inflationary pressures, systematic risks in the market have increased and uncertainty about the future has intensified. In such an environment, investors require reliable information beyond financial statements in order to make informed decisions regarding participation in the capital market. Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) represents one of the appropriate reporting tools through which an adequate level of transparency can be established in the capital market, thereby facilitating the channeling of liquidity toward this market. In this regard, auditing MD&A is of particular importance for enhancing its reliability. However, the inherent complexity and the qualitative and interpretive nature of MD&A pose significant challenges for auditors. One of the main challenges in auditing MD&A is the absence of clear and globally accepted auditing frameworks and standards. At present, independent auditors do not provide any assurance on MD&A and merely read these reports for the purpose of identifying potential material inconsistencies with the financial statements. Consequently, under the existing practice, the manner in which credibility is attributed to MD&A is ambiguous, and it is unclear who would be held accountable in the event of material misstatements in these reports. Accordingly, the present study first seeks to identify the existing ambiguities in the current practice of auditing MD&A and the consequences arising from these ambiguities. In the next stage, it aims to identify appropriate strategies, as well as the necessary infrastructures, to eliminate the existing ambiguities and their associated consequences. The research questions addressed in this study are as follows:• What ambiguities exist in the current practice of auditing MD&A?• What are the consequences of the existing ambiguities in the current practice of auditing MD&A?• What strategies can be adopted to resolve the ambiguities in the current practice of auditing MD&A?• What infrastructures are required to improve the process of auditing MD&A by independent auditors?2. Literature ReviewOverall, prior studies conducted in the area of auditing Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) have primarily emphasized the importance of auditing MD&A in enhancing the credibility of these reports, users’ demand for auditors’ opinions and assurance on MD&A, as well as the influence of auditors on the tone of MD&A. In addition, several studies have examined the relationship between the quality of MD&A and auditors’ efforts in auditing these reports, as well as auditor fees. Moreover, some studies have focused on the role of the audit committee in the preparation of MD&A and have concluded that the presence of a knowledgeable and expert audit committee contributes to improving the quality of MD&A auditing.3. MethodologyHere The present study was conducted using the grounded theory methodology through interviews with 24 experts from the auditing profession, capital market analysts, managers of listed companies, and specialists from the regulatory authority. The initial interviewee was selected through theoretical sampling, based on their recognized contributions and viewpoints in the subject area of the study. Subsequently, the sample was expanded for later interviews using the snowball sampling technique. The research data were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding. This process resulted in the development of a coherent and applicable theory regarding the existing ambiguities in the practice of auditing Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) in Iran and the strategies for addressing them, which can be utilized in both academic and practical contexts.4. ResultsBased on the research findings, the ambiguities identified in the current practice of auditing Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) include the level of the auditor’s responsibility with respect to MD&A, the auditor’s opinion on MD&A in the context of interim financial statements, and the auditor’s examination of forward-looking information disclosed in MD&A. The principal strategies identified to address these ambiguities include: eliminating forward-looking information from MD&A; entering into a separate engagement and paying a distinct audit fee to the auditor for providing an opinion on MD&A; refraining from expressing an auditor’s opinion on MD&A in relation to interim financial statements or, alternatively, expressing an opinion in accordance with the procedures applied in review engagements; and providing assurance on the forward-looking information disclosed in MD&A in accordance with Auditing Standard 3400.5. Discussion With respect to the auditor’s responsibility for Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and the corresponding strategies, two distinct perspectives emerged among the experts. One group of interviewees believes that the auditor bears no responsibility for MD&A or for any potential material misstatements therein, and that the auditor’s role should be limited to reading MD&A solely in connection with the primary responsibility of auditing the financial statements and reconciling the information disclosed in MD&A with the financial statements. This group argues that, under the current circumstances, the appropriate strategy for auditing MD&A is for the independent auditor to refrain from accepting any responsibility with respect to these reports. Furthermore, independent auditors, according to this viewpoint, should neither enter into separate engagements nor receive separate fees for procedures related to MD&A. In contrast, another group of interviewees contends that, given the guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Organization regarding the auditing of MD&A and the paragraph included in the auditor’s report pursuant to such guidance, the independent auditor does bear responsibility for MD&A. This is because the auditor’s report is subject to public interpretation, and the inclusion of this paragraph leads users to infer that the auditor’s opinion on the financial statements extends to MD&A as well, thereby implying that assurance has also been provided on this report. Accordingly, the appropriate strategy from this perspective is for the independent auditor to become formally involved in the auditing of MD&A, to enter into separate audit engagements for MD&A, and to receive a separate fee for auditing these reports.6. ConclusionIt appears that, given the fact that the independent auditor’s report is closely examined by market stakeholders and users of financial information, the auditor bears responsibility for Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) through the paragraph included in the “Other Information” section of the auditor’s report. Moreover, pursuant to paragraph T-32 of Auditing Standard 720, specific responsibilities are assigned to the independent auditor in relation to other information, to the extent that, if the auditor is unable to conclude that no material inconsistency exists in the other information or that no material misstatement is present therein, withdrawal from the audit engagement—where permitted by laws or regulations—is recommended. In addition, the auditor’s ethical and professional responsibilities require that the auditor not remain indifferent to misstatements or deviations in financial reporting, including those in MD&A, that may mislead users of financial information, and that the auditor fulfill their credibility-enhancing role with respect to the information disclosed in such reports. Therefore, if—based on these arguments—the independent auditor’s responsibility for MD&A, as one of the key reports communicated to the market, is acknowledged, the auditor’s risk in fulfilling their assurance responsibilities over financial information increases. Consequently, it is reasonable to consider the execution of separate engagement contracts and the payment of separate audit fees to independent auditors for the examination of MD&A.
mohammad namazi; Hossein Rajabdoory
Abstract
This study is aimed to investigate the status of auditing ethics in Iran in the light of the published literature in this field. The statistical population includes all related articles published in research and non-research and non-accounting journals of Iran since the beginning of their operation until ...
Read More
This study is aimed to investigate the status of auditing ethics in Iran in the light of the published literature in this field. The statistical population includes all related articles published in research and non-research and non-accounting journals of Iran since the beginning of their operation until the end of summer 2016. At first, related articles were found by the archival approach, and then by "content analysis" and using quadruple structures of "sustainable development model of professional ethics of accounting" (Namazi et al. 2017), the priority of researcher’s topics was identified. Findings showed that in the field of professional ethics of auditing, 40 articles were only published in Iran’s publications until the end of September 2016. In that, 12 articles were published in the scientific research and accounting and financial journals, 15 articles in other accounting journals, and also 13 articles in non-accounting and financial journals. Content analysis of the articles also showed that there are 20 articles regarding individual ethics structure, 13 articles in social ethics structure, and 7 articles in organizational-economic ethics structure. So far, no article has been published in relation to auditing ethics in environmental ethics. The statistical findings of the independent T-test in comparison to the number of ethics articles published in the research journals and other accounting journals, and the comparison of the number of articles of audit ethics published in the research journals of accounting and other financial and accounting journals, did not confirm a significant difference. However, the chi-square test, which was used to examine the difference in the content of the four constituents of professional ethics of auditing, showed a significant difference. Findings of this study also showed revealed that ethics in auditing is not at a high priority by the researchers, and a little attention has been paid to it. Hence, this negligence can be an alarm for professional and academic society; therefore; this weakness should be compensated and managed appropriately in the future.
