Twenty-five years of audit deregulation and re-regulation: What does it mean for 2005 and beyond?

Auditing

Volumn 24, Issue SUPPL., 2005, Pages 89-109

  Kinney Jr , William R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Audit history; Audit regulation; Political economy; Professional standards; Sarbanes Oxley Act; Self regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645748601     PISSN: 02780380     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.supplement.89     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (59)

1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). 1993. The Expectation Gap Standards: Progress, Implementation Issues, Research Opportunities. New York, NY: AICPA.
2. _. 1994. Improving Business Reporting - A Customer Focus: Meeting the Information Needs of Investors and Creditors. New York, NY: AICPA.
3. _. 1996. Report of the Special Committee on Assurance Services. New York, NY: AICPA CD-ROM.
4. _. 1999. CPA Vision Project-2011 and Beyond. New York, NY: AICPA CD-ROM.
5. Ashton, R., ed. 1984. Some Early Contributions to the Study of Audit Judgment. (Kinney, W. and B. Ritts. 1973. Auditors' sampling behavior: An empirical study. University of Iowa working paper: 139-156). Garland Publishing, Inc. New York, NY.
6. Banner, S. 1997. What causes new securities regulation? 300 years of evidence. Washington University Law Review Quarterly 15 (2): 849-856.
7. Barton, J., and G. Waymire. 2004. Investor protection under unregulated financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 38 (December): 65-116.
8. BDO Seidman LLP, Crow Chizek and Company LLC, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, Grant Thornton LLP, Harbinger PLC, KPMG LLP, McGladrey & Pullen LLP, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and W. Messier. 2004. A framework for evaluating process/transaction-level and information technology general control exceptions and deficiencies. Version 3, December 20.
9. Bowsher, C. 2002. Statement of the Hon. Charles A. Bowsher Chairman, Public Oversight Board before the Senate Banking Committee. Public Oversight Board. Available at: http://www.publicoversightboard.org/news_03_ 19_02.htm.
10. Carmichael, D. 2004a. The PCAOB and the social responsibility of the independent auditor. Speech to the AAA Auditing Section Midyear Meeting, January 15. Clearwater, FL.
11. _. 2004b. The accounting and auditing connection. Third Annual Financial Reporting Conference CUNY-Baruch College, New York. April 29.
12. Clarke, T. 2004. Cycles of crisis and regulation: The enduring agency and stewardship problems of corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review 12 (2): 153-61.
13. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 1992. Internal Control-Integrated Framework. COSO. Harborside, N.J.: AICPA.
14. Davis, A. 1999. SEC and W. R. Grace are near accord over alleged earnings manipulation. Wall Street Journal. (June 25): B5.
15. Dopuch, N., and S. Sunder. 1980. FASB's statements on objectives and elements of financial accounting: A review. The Accounting Review 55 (1): 1-21.
16. Gregory, W. 1980. Letter to AICPA members attending the special meeting on July 11, 1980. The AICPA Letter 60 (July): 3-6.
17. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). 2004. Materiality in the Identification and Evaluation of Misstatements. Proposed International Standard on Auditing (ISA) 320 (Revised). New York, NY: IAASB.
18. Kinney, W., and B. Ritts. 1973. Auditors' sampling behavior: An empirical study. Working paper, University of Iowa. In Some Early Contributions to the Study of Audit Judgment, edited by R. Ashton, 139-156 (1984). New York, NY: Garland Publishing, Inc.
19. _. 1986. Audit technology and preferences for auditing standards. Journal of Accounting and Economics 8 (1): 73-89.
20. _, and R. Martin. 1994. Does auditing reduce bias in financial reporting? A review of auditrelated adjustment studies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. (Spring): 149-156.
21. _. 2000. Research opportunities in internal control quality and quality assurance. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Supplement): 83-90.
22. _, D. Burgstahler, and R. Martin. 2002. Earnings surprise "materiality" as measured by stock returns. The Journal of Accounting Research 40 (5): 1297-1329.
23. _, Z. Palmrose, and S. Scholz. 2004. Auditor independence, non-audit services, and restatements: Was the U.S. government right? The Journal of Accounting Research 42 (3): 561-588.
24. _. 2005. The auditor as gatekeeper: A perilous expectations gap. In Restoring Trust in American Business, edited by J. Lorsch, L. Berlowitz, and A. Zellekey, 99-107. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences/MIT Press.
25. Levitt, A. 1998. The numbers game. Remarks delivered at the NYU Center for Law and Business. New York, NY (September, 28).
26. Libby, R., and W. Kinney. 2000. Does mandated audit communication reduce opportunistic corrections to manage earnings to forecasts? The Accounting Review 75 (3): 383-404.
27. Lorsch, J., L. Berlowitz, and A. Zellekey (eds.). 2005. Restoring Trust in American Business. Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences/MIT Press.
28. McCubbins, M. 1984. The legislative design of regulatory structure. American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 721-748.
29. McGrath, S., A Siegel, T. Dunfee, A. Glazer, and H. Jaenicke. 2001. A framework for auditor independence. Available at: http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/ jofa/jan2001/mcgrath.htm.
30. McMullen, D., A. Raghunandan, and K. Rama. 1996. Internal control reports and financial reporting problems. Accounting Horizons 10 (4): 67-75.
31. Messier, W., N. Martinov-Bennie, and A. Eilifsen. 2005. A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 24 (2): 153-187.
32. Monks, R. A. G., and N. Minnow. 2004. Corporate Governance. 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
33. National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting (NCFFR) (the Treadway Commission). 1987. Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34. Nelson, M., J. Elliott, and R. Tarpley. 2002. Evidence from auditors about managers' and auditors' earnings management decisions. The Accounting Review 11 (Supplement): 175-202.
35. _, S. Smith, and Z. Palmrose. 2005. The effect of quantitative materiality approach on auditors' adjustment decision. The Accounting Review 80 (3): 897-920.
36. _. 2006. Ameliorating conflicts of interest in auditing: Effects of recent reforms on auditors and their clients. Academy of Management Review 31 (1).
37. New York Stock Exchange/National Association of Securities, Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees. 1999. Report and Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee on Improving the Effectiveness of Corporate Audit Committees. New York, NY: New York Stock Exchange/National Association of Securities Dealers.
38. Palmrose, Z-V. 2005. The Future Role of Auditors as Financial Gatekeepers. Nomura-Brookings Seminar. After the Horses Have Left the Barn: The Future Role of Financial Gatekeepers. Washington, D.C. (September).
39. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). 2004. An Audit of Internal Control over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements. Auditing Standard (AS) No. 2. Stamford, CT: PCAOB.
40. _. 2005. Questions and Answers - Auditing Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Stamford, CT: PCAOB.
41. Public Oversight Board (POB). 2000. Panel on Audit Effectiveness Report and Recommendations. Stamford, CT: POB.
42. Taub, S. 2004. Speech by U.S. SEC Staff: Remarks at the University of Southern California Leventhal School of Accounting. U.S. SEC and Financial Reporting Conference. Available at: http://www.sec.gov.
43. Turnbull Review Group. 2005. Review of the Turnbull guidance on internal control (consultation paper). London: Financial Reporting Council (U.K.). June 16.
44. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services. 1977. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. Public Law No. 95-213. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
45. _. 1991. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991. Public Law No. 102-242. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
46. _. 1993. Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA). 1993. Public Law No. 103-66.
47. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
48. _. 1995. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) of 1995. Public Law No. 104-67.
49. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
50. _. 2002. Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002. Public Law No. 107-204. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
51. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (U.S. SEC). 1978a. Disclosure of Relationships with Independent Public Accountants. Accounting Series Release No. 250. Washington, D.C.: U.S. SEC. June 29.
52. _. 1978b. Securities and Exchange Commission Report to Congress on the Accounting Profession and the Commission's Oversight Role. Washington, D.C.: U.S. SEC. July.
53. _. 1999. Materiality. Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99. Washington, D.C.: U.S. SEC. August 12.
54. _. 2004. 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. Available at: http://www.sec.gov/ about/secstratplan0409.pdf.
55. Wallison, P. 2005. Rein in the public company accounting oversight board: Guest article. Available at: http://www.AccountingWEB.com.
56. Warren, C., and R. Elliott. 1983. Materiality. Working paper, University of Georgia.
57. Weil, J. 2004. Missing numbers - Behind wave of corporate fraud: A change in how auditors work"Risk based" model narrowed focus of their procedures, leaving room for trouble - A $239 million sticky note. Wall Street Journal (March 25). A1.
58. Zeff, S. 2003a. How the U.S. accounting profession got where it is today: Part I. Accounting Horizons 17 (3): 189-205.
59. _. 2003b. How the U.S. accounting profession got where it is today: Part II. Accounting Horizons 17 (4): 267-286.