Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
DISCLOSURES OF KEY AUDIT MATTERS TO CURB
INFORMATION ASYMMETRY
Lee Wei Min1
Phua Lian Kee2
1,2 School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia. (E-mail: [email protected])
Accepted date: 22-11-2019
Published date: 10-12-2019
To cite this document: Lee, W. M., & Phua, L. K. (2019). Disclosures of key audit matters
to curb information asymmetry. International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business,
4(24), 1-12. __________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: This study aims to examine whether the disclosure of key audit matters by the
independent auditors serves to enhance communicative values of the audit’s report by reducing
information asymmetry arises from the agency problem between the managers and
shareholders. This study uses two major secondary sources for data collection. Data pertaining
to key audit matters were collected from the independent auditor’s report published in the
annual reports of the public companies listed on Bursa Malaysia main market using content
analysis. The financial data for computation of financial ratios (performance indicators) are
gathered from the Datastream database. The data of year 2017 is used in this study. A content
analysis was conducted on the “Key Audit Matters” section in the independent auditor’s report
to measure the key audit matters of each company. Key audit matters are identified and
categorised based on related accounts in the financial statements. Independent samples T-test
is done to analyse the different in mean of financial ratios between the groups. From the
findings, we found that the key audit matter section in the independent auditor’s report is not
always in line with the outcomes of the ratio analysis derived from information provided in the
financial statements. This finding support the MIA’s concern that the discussion of key audit
matters in the auditor’s report tends to contradict with the financial performance as reported
in the financial statements and causes confusion for the users. Thus, clear explanation about
the reason of determination of key audit matter must be communicated in the independent
auditor’s report to avoid confusion. The financial statements are the historical financial
information of the company, however the key audit matters may disclose the risks and the future
cash flows of the company. In conclusion, disclosure of key audit matters enhances
communicative values of the auditor’s report.
Keywords: Audit Reporting, Key Audit Matters, Audit Report Disclosure
___________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Published financial statements are the most credible source of financial information available
to external users for evaluation of financial performance and financial position of corporations.
Nevertheless, the credibility of published financial statements can be compromised due to
Volume: 4 Issues: 24[December, 2019] pp.1-12] International Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business (IJAFB)
eISSN: 0128 - 1844
Journal Website: www.ijafb.com
2
agency problem. The agency relationship exists when one party act as the principal and another
party acts as agent (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). This condition corresponds with the separation
of ownership and management in corporations in which the management team are professionals
that act on behalf of the shareholders to manage the business. Information asymmetry arises
from agency problem when the management team possess more information than the
shareholders (Scott, 2000). Due to information asymmetry, the communication process is
interrupted and the market becomes less efficient as the users do not access to the information
for informed judgement and decision making (Ghani, Mohd Azemi, & Puspitasari, 2017).
Consequently, the external auditor, as a third party professional is employed to provide
assurance to the financial statements and to increase the reliability of the information. The
external auditor would issue an independent auditor’s report to communicate the outcome of
the audit work to the users of the audited financial statements. (International Auditing and
Assurance Standards Board, 2013). The content of the independent auditor’s report is an
important source for the shareholders to understand the issues faced by the company and to
evaluate the company performance. Hence, the communication between the external auditor
and the shareholders shall reduce the information asymmetry between the management and the
shareholders.
Nevertheless, the global financial crisis in the year 2008 has brought out the significance of the
quality of financial reporting (International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, 2011).
Investors demand for more reliable and relevance information from the financial reporting and
clearer justification on “true and fair view” auditor opinion with regards to financial condition
of companies. The appropriateness of the pass-fail auditor opinion was being questioned.
Following that, the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) published a consultation
paper about enhancing the value of audit reporting and exploring the possible options for
change in the year 2011.
In 2013, an exposure draft emphasized on enhancing the communicative value of the
independent auditor’s report and providing more transparency about the audit process was
published by IFAC. The most significant change to improve the communicative value of
auditor’s report reflected on Proposed ISA 701, communicating key audit matters in the
independent auditor’s report. The Proposed ISA 701 established the requirements to
communicate the key audit matters with those charged with governance and disclose in
auditor’s report (International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, 2013).
Key audit matters are defined in the ISA 701, communicating key audit matters in the
independent auditor’s report on April 2015 (Malaysian Institute of Accountants, 2015) as
“those matters that, in the auditor’s professional judgement, were of most importance in the
audit of the financial statements of the current period” (International Auditing and Assurance
Standards Board, 2013). Key audit matters are chosen from the matters communicated between
the external auditor and those charged with governance to be disclosed in the independent
auditor’s report.
However, before the issuance of ISA 701, the Malaysia Institute of Accountants (MIA)
responded to the exposure draft with some specific comments on the challenges in disclosing
the key audit matters in independent auditor’s report (Idris, 2013). MIA concerned that the
disclosure of key audit matters may breach the auditor confidentiality when the matters are
considered as sensitive information from those charged with governance. Furthermore, the
3
auditor may face forceful opposition from those charged with governance to disclose the
matters to the public.
On the other hand, MIA also predicted that the discussion of key audit matters tends to
contradict with the disclosures in the financial statements and causes confusion for the users
(Idris, 2013). In practices, the key audit matters need significant judgement from the auditor,
even though the ISA 701 provides guidelines for the determination of key audit matters, MIA
believes that there will be inconsistency. Such condition may causes more communication
issues and fail to meet the purpose of improving the communicative values of auditor’s report.
In view of the move by the standard setters towards enhancing communicative values of
independent auditor’s report by enforcing mandatory disclosure of key audit matters and the
concerns raised by MIA (a statutory body that regulate and develop the accountancy
profession) with regards to the potential adverse effect of mandatory disclosure of key audit
matters, it is timely to gain further insights about these two contradictory views by examining
some empirical evidence from the auditor’s report and the audited financial statements.
In this study, we attempt to examine whether the disclosure of key audit matters by the
independent auditors serves to enhance communicative values of the audit’s report by reducing
information asymmetry arises from the agency problem between the managers and
shareholders. Firstly, the most frequently cited key audit matters raised by the independent
auditors among the sample companies were identified through a content analysis. Then, a
comparative analysis is conducted by matching the types of key audit matters identified with
relevant financial indicators computed based on information derived from the financial
statements to determine whether the disclosure of key audit matters enhance the
communicative values of the auditor’s report and thus reduce the information asymmetry gap.
Literature Review
Information asymmetry happened when the management team possess more information than
the shareholders. This condition places the shareholders at a disadvantage position because the
shareholders cannot access to the information for them to make better decisions. Thus, the
shareholders employ third party professional to provide assurance on the financial statements.
Jensen and Meckling (1976) indicated that the cost of reducing information asymmetry and
agency problem is lowest when owners are engaged in managing the company. However, most
of the public listed companies have separate management and ownership. Thus, a better way
to solve the information asymmetry and agency problem is through third party’s assurance
service. Assurance service provided by third party professional is being valued because it is
independent and perceived as being unbiased with respect to the information examined (Arens,
et al., 2003). Moreover, previous researchers indicate that auditing regulation can continually
reduce the long-run information asymmetry in the capital markets (Zhou, 2007).
New ISA standards on audit reporting are implemented on or after 15 December 2016 in
Malaysia. The new auditing regulation has an increase requirement on the disclosure in the
auditor’s report. ISA 701 provides the guidance for the auditor to determine and communicate
the key audit matters with those charged with governance and disclose in the independent
auditor’s report (Malaysian Institute of Accountants, 2015). Increased disclosures should bring
down the level of information asymmetry (Leuz & Verrecchia, 2000). The requirement to
disclose key audit matter as the additional information in the auditor’s report turns the private
information into public information, it reduces the information asymmetry between
management and shareholders by communicating the risks and issues faced by the firms in the
4
current period. The purpose of key audit matter is to improve the communicative value of the
auditor’s report (Arnold & McGeachy, 2017).
Key audit matters are defined in ISA 701 as those matters that are most significant in the
process of audit of the financial statements of the current period (Malaysian Institute of
Accountants, 2015). Key audit matters normally involve issues that required significant
judgements by the auditors in areas of higher assessed risk of material misstatement, areas
involving significant management judgement due to high estimation uncertainty as well as
significant events and transactions occurred in the current period (Malaysian Institute of
Accountants, 2015). Further, the disclosure of key audit matters will provide a view on whether
the disclosures provided by the management are biased from the real situation (Cordoş &
Fülöp, 2015). The new standards require auditors to express their viewpoints regarding issues
faced by the firm, which are not demanded in the previous practice.
The new standards intend to increase the transparency of audit performed by the external
auditor and make the auditor’s report to be more relevant to the users of audited financial
statements (International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, 2013). However, there is
always an expectation gap exists between the auditor competencies and the investors’
expectation. Many users misunderstand the nature of the attest function and tend to mis-
interpret the judgement of the auditor in issuing an opinion (McEnroe & Martens, 2001). Under
the same perception, there is possibility that the investors misunderstand the purpose and
content of key audit matters. Information from the financial statements is historical
information, but the auditor’s discussion might include the possible risk and prediction of the
future financial impacts and future cash flows. Therefore, the users’ understanding from
information in the financial statements might be different from information disclose by the
auditor in the key audit matters. It is argued that such condition will cause more confusion to
the users.
The key audit matters are considered as useful information only if the auditor determines the
right key audit matters, meaning that “the cause of loss should have been identified as a key
audit matter” (KPMG, LLP, 2013). This means that determination of the right key audit matters
should point out the unsatisfactory performance of the company. The new disclosure may be
uninformative if it fails to reflect the real risk faced by the company or if the risk reported is
already known by the investors (Lennox, Schmidt, & Thompson, 2018). In addition, the key
audit matters should bring more relevance information and not to cause confusion to the user.
In other words, the new disclosures may be uninformative if the practice does not serve its
purpose. If the key audit matter does not bring benefit to the user, resources are wasted on
preparing the additional information.
Research Methodology
Data Source and Sampling
The unit of analysis for this study is defined as individual public company listed on Bursa
Malaysia main market. This study uses two major secondary sources for data collection. Data
pertaining to key audit matters were collected from the independent auditor’s report published
in the annual reports of the public companies listed on Bursa Malaysia main market using
content analysis. The financial data for computation of financial ratios (performance indicators)
are gathered from the Datastream database. Since the implementation of new ISAs were
effective on or after December 15, 2016, the data of year 2017 is used in this study to ensure
the fairness on the data sampling. However, companies from financial service, real estate
investment trust (REIT), special purpose acquisition companies (SPAC) and closed-fund
5
industries are excluded from this study due to the different requirements on financial reporting.
A total of 150 companies is chosen by simple random sampling for the data analysis of this
study.
Measurement of Variables
The key audit matters are disclosed in the independent auditor’s report in accordance with the
ISAs. Key audit matters are identified and categorised based on related accounts in the
financial statements. Components or types of key audit matters include: revenue recognition,
trade receivables, property, plant and equipment, investment, goodwill, investment, goodwill,
investment properties, intangible assets, employee benefits, borrowings, tax, foreign
components, liquidity and others. These components are not mutually exclusive, this means a
company may be associated with more than one type of key audit matters. A content analysis
was conducted on the “Key Audit Matters” section in the independent auditor’s report to
measure the key audit matters of each company.
In this study, firm’s performance is measured by six financial ratios classified according to
liquidity, activity, efficiency, leverage, and profitability ratios. The formula for each of the ratio
is shown below:
Table 1: Formula to Calculate the Financial Ratios
Financial ratios Formulas
Current ratio Current assets / Current liabilities
Inventory turnover Cost of goods sold / Inventory
Average collection period Accounts receivable / Average sales per day
Total asset turnover Sales / Total assets
Debt ratio Total liabilities / Total assets
Operating profit margin Operating profits / Sales
In addition, the following variables are used for measurement of firm characteristics.
Table 2: Formula to Calculate the Firm Characteristics
Firm characteristics Formulas
Growth opportunities Market value / book value
Firm size Log total assets
Audit quality 1 denotes Big Four audit firms, 0 otherwise
Results and Discussion
Descriptive Analysis
The results of the content analysis reveal that the top three key audit matters disclosed in the
independent auditor’s report of the sample firms are related to revenue, trade receivables, and
inventory (details of the list is presented in Appendix 1). The results show that revenue
recognition issues was identified as the key audit matter in 41.33% of the sample companies,
trade receivables in 36.67% of the companies and inventory in 32.00% of the companies. Based
on this result, the companies are classified into six different groups as shown in Table 3 below:
6
Table 3: Classification and Frequency of Companies Based on Key Audit Matters
Group Classification Number of
companies
Percentage
(%)
1 Revenue recognition is not identified as key audit
matter
88 58.67
2 Revenue recognition is identified as key audit matter 62 41.33
3 Trade receivables is not identified as key audit
matter
95 63.33
4 Trade recievables is identified as key audit matter 55 36.67
5 Inventory is not identified as key audit matter 102 68.00
6 Inventory is identified as key audit matter 48 32.00
For a more meaningful discussion, we analyse these three key audit matters by industry as
depicted in Table 4.
Table 4: Top 3 Key Audit Matters by Industry
Industry Total by
industry
Revenue
recognition
Trade
receivables
Inventory
a b (%) a b (%) a b (%)
Consumer products and
services
50 12 24.00 11 22.00 23 46.00
Industrial products and
services
43 16 37.21 23 53.49 16 37.21
Property 14 10 71.43 3 21.43 1 7.14
Construction 10 9 90.00 7 70.00 1 10.00
Technology 7 4 57.14 2 28.57 0 0.00
Transportation and
logistics
7 3 42.86 4 57.14 0 0.00
Energy 7 5 71.43 2 28.57 1 14.29
Telecommunications and
media
3 1 33.33 1 33.33 1 33.33
Health care 3 0 0.00 1 33.33 3 100.00
Plantation 3 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33
Utilities 3 1 33.33 1 33.33 0 0.00
Total 150 61 55 47
Notes:
a: Total number of companies disclosed the key audit matter
b: Percentage of companies in the industry disclosed the key audit matter
From the table, it shows that revenue recognition issues were identified as the key audit matters
among 90% of the companies in the construction sector. This is followed by property industry
with 71.43%. From the content analysis, the reason revenue recognition was identified as key
audit matter was mainly due to construction contracts accounting that need specific audit
consideration and significant judgement from both the management and the external auditor.
This happens obviously in construction and property industries. Besides, other reasons for
revenue recognition being identified as key audit matter are voluminous transaction, significant
revenue amount and risk of overstate the revenue. These may give raise to material
misstatement.
7
The industrial products and services sector has higher percentage in reporting trade receivables
as key audit matter as compared to consumer products and services sector, which are 53.49%
and 22.00% respectively. The trade receivables issue was identified as key audit matter because
of the impairment of the trade receivables. From the results, the companies in industrial
products and services industry faced higher impairment of trade receivables issue than the
consumer products and services industry. Construction industry recorded the highest
percentage in trade receivables because of the recoverability of trade receivables and amount
owing by customers under construction contracts. Lastly, consumer products and services
industry faced more inventory valuation and impairment issues as compared to other industries,
which recorded the highest percentage 46.00% for inventory valuation and impairment issues.
Univariate Analysis
Table 5: Univariate tests between groups with revenue recognition issues and otherwise
Group 1 Group 1 Group 2 Group 2 Difference Test
Mean Standard
Deviation
(SD)
Mean SD Mean
Current ratio 2.7011 2.8169 2.6548 2.6903 0.0463
Inventory turnover 17.7750 64.3770 75.6504 440.8203 -57.8754
Average collection
period
121.9872 157.4374 197.8916 314.0161 -75.9044**
Total asset turnover 0.8140 0.6377 .8572 0.6798 -0.0432
Debt ratio 19.8367 16.5306 15.7997 13.1663 4.0370*
Operating profit
margin
-0.0328 0.3083 0.0366 0.2690 -0.0694*
Other firm
characteristics
Growth opportunities 1.6117 3.0021 3.0346 9.7659 -1.4229*
Audit Quality 0.4607 0.5013 0.4590 0.5025 0.0017
Logged total assets 8.6868 0.7214 8.8665 0.5824 -0.1797*
Notes: The difference test is independent samples t-test for mean difference.
Group 1: Revenue recognition is not identified as key audit matter.
Group 2: Revenue recognition is identified as key audit matter.
SD denotes standard deviations.
* Significant at the 90% confidence interval
** Significant at the 95% confidence interval
*** Significant at the 99% confidence interval
The independent samples t-test was performed between Group 2 that was identified to have
revenue recognition as key audit matter and Group 1 that was not. Table 5 provides the results
of the univariate test of the difference in mean values of financial performance variables
between the two groups.
This study observes that Group 2 had significantly, at 0.10, higher operation profit margin than
Group 1 by a mean difference of 0.06%. This means companies identified by external auditors
for having revenue recognition issue as key audit matter actually performed better as shown by
their operating profit margin, one of the key profitability ratios. Such contradiction may
confuse the users of financial statements. To explain the contradiction between the financial
indicator and auditor discussion in key audit matter, we have to look at the reason for the
8
determination of the key audit matter. From the content analysis, the main reason for revenue
recognition being identified as key audit matter are the construction contract accounting and
significant revenue amount and voluminous transaction. The possible logic behind the
contradict situation is the voluminous transaction and significant revenue amount increase that
increase the audit risk. In the other words, when companies achieved high revenue, it led to
higher profit margin and at the same time high revenue increased the risk of material
misstatement. Thus, the auditor identified revenue as the key audit matter in this case.
Besides, this study observes that Group 2 had significant, at 0.05, longer on average collection
period. Average collection period is the number of days needed to collect the amount receivable
from the debtors. The companies with revenue recognition as key audit matter found to need
longer average collection period than those companies in Group 1. This shows that the Group
2 has unsatisfactory firm performance in term of account receivable aging issue. However, the
results are not significant for the two activity ratios, inventory turnover and total asset turnover.
Group 2 had significantly, at 0.10, lower debt ratio than Group 1. This mean that the companies
in Group 2 have less debt in their capital structure, the default risk for Group 2 companies is
lower as compared to Group 1. Lower debt ratio means lower risk to shareholders, given that
creditors get priority in settlement of their accounts.
The T-test result shows that Group 1 and Group 2 do not have significant difference on the
mean values for current ratio. In comparison of the firm characteristics, Group 2 were larger in
size and have better growth opportunities than Group 1.
Table 6: Univariate tests between group with trade receivables as key audit matter and
otherwise
Group 3 Group 3 Group 4 Group 4 Difference Test
Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Current ratio 2.8213 3.2179 2.4421 1.6900 0.3792
Inventory turnover 17.2039 59.1256 83.2152 465.6836 -66.0113*
Average collection
period
103.8279 99.0292 237.5381 353.8546 -133.7102***
Total asset turnover 0.8893 0.7163 0.7319 0.5179 0.1574*
Debt ratio 18.2178 15.9312 18.1555 14.3891 0.0623
Operating profit
margin
0.0152 0.2658 -0.0387 0.3372 0.0539
Other firm
characteristics
Growth opportunities 2.8531 8.2684 1.0456 0.9484 1.8074*
Audit Quality 0.6000 0.4925 0.2182 0.4168 0.3818***
Logged total assets 8.8832 0.6731 8.5468 0.6204 0.3364***
Notes: The difference test is independent samples t-test for mean difference.
Group 3: Trade receivables is not identified as key audit matter.
Group 4: Trade receivables is identified as key audit matter.
SD denotes standard deviations.
* Significant at the 90% confidence interval
** Significant at the 95% confidence interval
*** Significant at the 99% confidence interval
9
In Table 6, independent samples t-test was performed by comparing the mean of financial ratios
for companies having trade receivables reported as key audit matter and otherwise. In
consistent with the expectation, Group 4 had significant, at 0.01, longer average collection
period than Group 3. The average collection period of the two groups is different by 133.7 days.
From the content analysis, the main reason for trade receivables being identified as key audit
matter is because of the impairment and recoverability issues. Thus, the audit discussion in key
audit matter is consistence with the financial ratio. Longer average collection period means that
the companies in Group 4 are not effective in collecting the amount receivable from the
customers. The companies are not enforcing the credit terms strictly. The long aging trade
receivables should be written off. Based on the financial ratio, Group 4 is unsatisfactory as
compared to Group 3, which indicates that the auditor judgement is supported by the financial
ratio.
However, Group 4 is marginally significant, at 0.1, for having higher inventory turnover than
Group 3. Inventory turnover ratio is to measure the number of times the average inventory is
sold during the financial period. In other words, it is to measure the liquidity of the inventory.
Group 4 that faced trade receivables issue has 66 times better than Group 3. Higher inventory
turnover implies that the companies are fast to sell out the inventory, also lead to higher sales
and higher trade receivables. The high volume of sales transactions requires the management
team to make more significant judgements on yearly impairment review on trade receivables,
the credit term and assessed the recoverability of the debts.
Although the total asset turnover and inventory turnover are both activity ratios, but the result
are opposite. Group 4 had significantly, at 0.1, 0.15 times slower total asset turnover than
Group 3 based on the mean values. Total asset turnover is the financial performance indicator
that measures the efficiency of the company to utilize assets to generate revenue. Higher total
asset turnover indicates that the firm has higher ability to turn its assets into revenue. Based on
the financial ratio, Group 4 is unsatisfactory as compared to Group 3.
On the other hand, the result of the T-test shows that Group 3 and Group 4 do not have
significant different on the mean of the three other financial performance indicators i.e current
ratio, debt ratio and operating profit margin. The firms that were identified by the external
auditors to have trade receivables as key audit matter in this study were smaller in size, have
worsen growth opportunities and lower audit quality.
Table 7: Univariate tests between group with inventory identified as key audit matter
and otherwise
Group 5 Group 5 Group 6 Group 6 Difference Test
Mean SD Mean SD Mean
Current ratio 2.5800 2.9097 2.9063 2.4030 -0.3263
Inventory turnover 58.2843 343.1225 4.2371 3.6295 54.0472
Average collection
period
171.7651 274.9845 111.4136 101.6897 60.3516*
Total asset turnover 0.7626 0.6150 0.9827 0.7138 -0.2201**
Debt ratio 19.1635 16.1099 16.0724 13.3984 3.0911
Operating profit
margin
-0.0238 0.3419 0.0375 0.1350 -0.0613
Other firm
characteristics
10
Growth opportunities 2.6393 7.9709 1.2064 0.9551 1.4329 Audit Quality 0.5049 0.5024 0.3617 0.4857 0.1432**
Logged total assets 8.8581 0.7046 8.5445 0.5419 0.3135***
Notes: The difference test is independent samples t-test for mean difference.
Group 5: Inventory is not identified as key audit matter.
Group 6: Inventory is identified as key audit matter.
SD denotes standard deviations.
* Significant at the 90% confidence interval
** Significant at the 95% confidence interval
*** Significant at the 99% confidence interval
From the content analysis, the inventory was determined as key audit matter mainly because
of the valuation in determining the net realisable values of the inventories. This issue is not
reflected on the financial ratio. Table 7 shows the result of independent samples t-test by
comparing the mean financial ratio of firms reported to have inventory identified as key audit
matter and otherwise. This result shows that Group 6 has a statistically significant, at 0.05,
higher total asset turnover than Group 5 by a mean value difference of 0.22 times total asset
turnover rate. Based on the financial ratio, Group 6 performance is more satisfactory as
compared to Group 5. The firms that suffered from inventory issue performed better than those
firms that did not suffer from inventory issue, which indicates that the auditor judgement is not
supported by the financial performance indicator.
This shows that the auditor discussion is not always consistence with the financial performance
of the company. The auditor communicates about the risk of material misstatement on the
inventory valuation issue. The inventory valuation involves significant judgement and
estimation about future demand to measure the net realisable value. Furthermore, the review
and measurement have to be done periodically to determine the obsolete inventory value to be
write-down.
From the Table 5, Group 6 has a marginally significant, at 0.1, lower mean of average collection
period than Group 5. Based on the financial ratio, Group 6 performed better as compared to
Group 5. This indicates that firms that suffered from inventory issues performed better on
average collection period. The result is contradict to the expected outcome.
The result of the T-test shows that Group 5 and Group 6 do not have significant difference on
the mean of the other financial performance indicators, i.e. current ratio, inventory turnover,
debt ratio and operating profit margin. The firms that were identified by the external auditors
to have inventory as key audit matter in this study were smaller in size and lower audit quality.
Conclusion
This study attempted to examine whether the auditor discussion about key audit matters is
consistent with the financial indicators derived from the financial statements. The findings of
this study show that the key audit matters discussed in the independent auditor’s report are not
always in line and consistent with the outcomes of the ratio analysis derived from information
provided in the financial statements. This findings support the MIA’s concern that the
discussion of key audit matters in the auditor’s report tends to contradict with the financial
performance as reported in the financial statements and causes confusion for the users.
The key audit matter should point out the division of the company that performed
unsatisfactory to make sure the information is useful for the users to make decisions. A
11
comment letter by KPMG to PCAOB stated that key audit matter will become value
information only if the auditor determines the right key audit matter, meaning that “the cause
of loss should have been identified as a key audit matter” (KPMG, LLP, 2013). The financial
statements are the historical financial information of the company, however the auditor
discussion may consider the risks and the future cash flows. The financial impact of the key
audit matters mention in the auditor’s report may reflect the future financial period if the matter
is not solved. Thus, key audit matters are contradict with the financial performance of the
company during the current period.
In conclusion, the auditor must provide the reason of determination of the key audit matter in
the independent auditor’s report as stated in ISA 701. This is to avoid the users to be confused
by the information in independent auditor’s report and the financial statements. The findings
of this research study provide evidence that the identified key audit matter supplies information
to financial analysts to better understand the issues faced by the firms. Finally, we suggest
future research to examine whether the communication of key audit matter minimize the
expectation gap between audit work done and the public expectation.
References
Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., Beasley, M. S., S. Susela Devi, Takiah Mohd. Iskandar, Shaari Isa,
& Hasnah Haron. (2003). Auditing and assurance services in Malaysia: An intergrated
approach. Petaling Jaya: Prentice Hall
Arnold, C., & McGeachy, D. (2017, December 13). Global Knowledge Gateway. Retrieved
from International Federation of Accountants: http://www.ifac.org/global-knowledge-
gateway/audit-assurance/discussion/auditor-reporting-standards-implementation-key
Cordoş, G.-S., & Fülöp, M.-T. (2015). Understanding audit reporting changes: introduction of
Key Audit Matters. Accounting and Management Information Systems, 14(1), 128-152
Ghani, E. K., Mohd Azemi, N., & Puspitasari, E. (2017). The effect of information asymmetry
and environmental uncertainty on earnings management practices among Malaysian
technology-based firms. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and
Management Sciences, 6(1), 178-194.
Idris, J. (2013). International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board ("IAASB") exposure
draft on reporting on audited financial statements: Proposed new and revised
International Standards on Aunditng (ISAs). Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Institute of
Accountants.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2011). Consultation paper, enhancing
the value of ausitor reporting: Exploring options for change. New York: International
Federation of Accountants.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2012). Invitation to comment,
improving the auditor's report. New York: International Federation of Accountants.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2013). Exposure drafts, reporting
onaudited financial statements: proposed new and revised international standards on
auditing (ISAs). New York: International Federation of Accountants.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency
costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
KPMG, LLP. (2013, December 11). Comments to the PCAOB Re: Proposed Auditing
Standards on the Auditor's Responsibilities Regarding Other Information and Related
Amendments, PCAOB Rulemaking Docket Matter No.34. Retrieved from Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board:
http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Pages/Docket034Comments.aspx
12
Lennox, C. S., Schmidt, J. J., & Thompson, A. M. (2018). Is the expanded model of audit
reporting informative to investors? Evidence from the U.K. Retrieved from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2619785
Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2000). The Economic Consequences of Increased Disclosure.
Journal of Accounting Research, 38 (Suppl.), 91–124.
Malaysian Institute of Accountants. (2015). ISA 701, Communicating key audit matters in the
independent auditor’s report. Malaysia: Malaysian Institute of Accountants.
McEnroe, J. E., & Martens, S. C. (2001). Auditors' and investors' perceptions of the
"Expectation gap". Accounting Horizon, 15(4), 345-358.
Scott, W. R. (2000). Financial accounting theory. Scarborough, Ontario: Prentica Hall Canada
Inc
Zhou, H. (2007). Auditing standards, increased accounting disclosure, and information
asymmetry: Evidence from an emerging market. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
26(2007), 584–620.
Appendix
Appendix 1: Frequency of Sample Companies Disclose Relate Key Audit Matters
Key Audit Matters Number of companies Percentage (%)
Revenue recognition 61 40.67
Trade receivables 55 36.67
Inventory 47 31.33
Property, plant and equipment 32 21.33
Investment 32 21.33
Goodwill 30 20.00
Investment properties 10 6.67
Tax 9 6.00
Intangible assets 9 6.00
Liquidity 4 2.67
Foreign component 2 1.33
Employee benefits 1 0.67
Borrowings 1 0.67
Others 24 16.00