PCAOB Inspections: Public Accounting Firms on Trial

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Westermann, Kimberly D.; Cohen, Jeffrey; Trompeter, Greg
• 署名单位: California State University System; California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo; Boston College; State University System of Florida; University of Central Florida
• 刊物名称: CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTING RESEARCH
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0823-9150
• DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12454
• 发表日期: 2019
• 页码: 694-731
• 关键词: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; professional skepticism; Impression management; Audit quality; field; exploration; ACCOUNTABILITY; perceptions; JUDGMENT; insights

摘要

The objective of our article is to obtain a better understanding of how auditors anticipate the potential for PCAOB inspection, experience the inspection, cope with the consequences of the inspection, and understand the PCAOB's influence within the context of professionalism. We use a qualitative approach that uses both surveys (55) and interviews (20) of auditors (of varying rank and firm) across a five-year period (2012-2017). Respondents suggest that PCAOB inspectors are powerful, representing the prosecution, judge, and jury of the auditing profession. We therefore use a structural metaphor of the PCAOB inspection as a judicial trial. By controlling the criteria used to evaluate performance, inspectors have the power to repeatedly subpoena, interrogate, and return a verdict on the firm (auditor); those judged as guilty require supervised probation. This process is perceived as having improved audit quality but at a cost. Passing an inspection is so important that auditors (firms) have resorted to impression management strategies and functionally stupid work practices (e.g., excessive documentation, a decrease in critical thinking as a result of a box ticking approach to auditing). Furthermore, some respondents believe that being a good auditor has come at the expense of being a good accountant; the emphasis on audit process and concurrent de-emphasis on technical accounting could ultimately lead to audits themselves falling short. In addition, it is evident that inspectors and auditors differ in their perceptions of risk, likely manifesting because inspectors are standards-focused while auditors (firms) are methodology-focused. Finally, the inspection process has created excessive stress and tension, beyond budget and fee pressures, which some auditors perceive as affecting the pool of talented auditors that firms may be able to attract and retain in the future.