MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283580161 · doi:10.1108/jfc-05-2022-0103

The effectiveness of the auditor’s opinion on the internal controls over financial reporting

2022· article· en· W4283580161 on OpenAlexaff
Camélia Radu, Aline Segalin Zanella

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Crime · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAuditing, Earnings Management, Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisrepresentationAccountingAuditAuditor's reportBusinessNoticeExternal auditorFinancial AuditControl (management)Going concernActuarial scienceFinanceInternal auditEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Recent studies have concluded that auditors underreport existing internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) weaknesses. This study aims to assess how effective external auditors are, as independent third parties, at disclosing reliable opinions to the public on the ICFR. Design/methodology/approach Using a logistic regression, the authors analyzed a sample of 106 US companies classified as large accelerated filers or accelerated filers consisting in 53 companies which restated their financial statements and a control group of 53 companies having “clean financial statements” at any given moment during the research period, between 2005 and 2018. Findings The results indicate that only 34% of companies with financial statements deemed unreliable have received an adverse ICFR opinion issued by the external auditor during the misrepresentation period or its prior year. The authors also notice that external auditors are somewhat effective in identifying and disclosing red flags to the public that certain companies have internal control (IC) material weaknesses. The results also indicate that the average presence of an adverse IC opinion issued by the external auditor during the misrepresentation period or its prior year for companies with unreliable financial statements is higher than for companies with financial statements deemed reliable. Practical implications This study tests if an increase in efforts and disbursements with audit fees are justifiable by external auditors’ issuing effective, reliable opinions and reinforcing a more transparent and ethical capital markets environment, that is, an environment where accurate information is available for stakeholders. If external auditors are negligent in providing a qualitative and independent opinion to stakeholders, the increase of disbursements made with audit fees is less justifiable. Thus, the research has practical implication for auditors as well as standard setters. Originality/value This study extends the literature on ICFR by empirically testing whether the public can rely on external auditors’ opinions expressed on Sarbanes–Oxley Section 404 reports.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Financial CrimeSame topicAuditing, Earnings Management, GovernanceFrench-language works237,207