Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How Do Look-Back Analyses and Evidence Specificity
Affect Auditors’ Planning Judgments?
Ann Backof University of Virginia
Roger MartinUniversity of Virginia
Jane ThayerUniversity of Virginia
Research QuestionHow does the direction of a prior period estimation inaccuracy in a forward-looking assumption underlying a complex estimate and the specificity of the evidence provided by management to support that prior period assumption affect auditors’ planning decisions regarding the current period audit of complex estimates?
Motivation• Complex estimates play an increasingly important role in
financial reporting (e.g., Bratten et al. 2013; Lev et al. 2010).
• Audit planning is a crucial step in the completion of an effective audit (Mock and Wright 1993).
• Relatively little is known about the factors that affect auditors’ planning for the audit of complex estimates.
ContributionsCharacteristics of
management-provided evidence
Contributions• Influence of auditors’ ex post review of evidence obtained
and evaluated as part of a prior period audit on the current period audit.
Evidence Specificity
Auditors’ Assessments of the Reliability of Management's
Estimation Process
Consistency of Estimation Inaccuracy with Mangement’s
Incentives
Auditor’s Planning Judgment’s
Contributions• Extend the research examining the auditing of complex
estimates (e.g., Cannon and Bedard 2014; Griffith et al. 2015a, 2015b) by identifying two factors that affect auditors’ planning for the current period audit of complex estimates.
• Complex estimates enhance the relevance of information provided to financial statement users (Lundholm 1999), but management has the ability to opportunistically manage those estimates (Hodder et al. 2006; Dechow et al. 2010).
• The reliability of the information reported in the financial statements hinges on the effectiveness of the audit of these estimates (Griffith et al. 2015a).
Theoretical Model
Specificity of Prior Period Evidence
Management Competence
Management Credibility
Reliability of Management's
Estimation Process
+
+
ManagementTrustworthiness
+
+
Tversky and Kahneman (1994) Sloman et al. (2004)Hamilton (1998)Slater and Rouner (1996)
Estimation Inaccuracy Direction
-
Hypothesis 1
MORE Specific Prior Period
Evidence
Management Competence
Management Credibility
+
UNDERstatedPrior Period Assumption
ManagementTrustworthiness
+
+
+
H1:Auditors’ assessments of the reliability of management’s estimation process will be highest when prior period evidence is more specific and the direction of the prior period estimation inaccuracy is a potential understatement of firm book value.
+
Reliability of Management's
Estimation Process
Hypothesis 2
MORE Specific Prior Period
Evidence
Management Competence
Management Credibility
Reliability of Management’s
Estimation Process
+
+
OVERstated Prior Period
Assumption
ManagementTrustworthiness
+
+
-
H2:Auditors’ assessments of the reliability of management’s estimation process will be lowest when prior period evidence is more specific and the direction of the prior period estimation inaccuracy is a potential overstatement of firm book value.
PCAOB (2010, 2012)AS No. 14 ¶ 27
Hypothesis 3
Reliability of Management’s
Estimation Process
Risk of Material Misstatement in Current Period
Estimate
Planned Audit Effort
-
+
H3: Lower (higher) reliability assessments of management’s estimation process will lead to higher (lower) risk assessments of material misstatement in the current period estimate and more (less) allocation of planned audit effort.
AS No. 13 ¶ 6
AS No. 13 ¶37
Research Method• 117 audit seniors* from 8 accounting firms
• Planning audit of impairment analysis of trademark• Look-back analysis• Actual year-to-date results for current year
• 2 x 2 between-subjects design• Specificity of prior period evidence• Estimation inaccuracy direction
• Dependent Variables• Reliability of management’s estimation process • ROMM in current period estimation• Likelihood of changing hours allocated for current prior audit
PRIOR YEAR WORKPAPER
KEY ASSUMPTION #2 Revenue Growth Rate Management’s Assumption: 8% annual growth in revenues by location through 2018, 3% thereafter. Management-provided justification for this assumption: When we acquired the Chatsworth Cheddar trademark in 2003, the average revenues (per store) from sales of Chatsworth Cheddar was $21,390. In 2013, the average revenues (per store) from sales of Chatsworth Cheddar was $42,074. We expect revenues (per store) from sales of Chatsworth Cheddar to grow annually at 8% through 2018 and 3% (average inflation rate) thereafter. The 8% growth rate is consistent with the projected average industry growth rate which the company has historically met. We plan to achieve our expected growth by:
• Increasing sales prices – We intend to increase prices in the 3% to 5% range each year, which is
consistent with historical pricing practices of the company and our competitors. Results of recent market research indicate that price increases can be maintained and marketing plans are in place to educate both our distributors and our consumers on the rationale for price increases.
• Increasing customer demand – Brand recognition of Chatsworth Cheddar as a consistent and high quality cheese has led to increased sales volume each year since 2003. Our new marketing campaigns, third party endorsements, and prime retail space are expected to increase awareness of the Chatsworth Cheddar brand in future periods.
CURRENT YEAR LOOK-BACK ANALYSIS
KEY ASSUMPTION #2
Revenue Growth Rate In planning for the audit of the year ending December 31, 2014, you are asked to perform a look-back analysis of the assumptions used to derive the valuation of the trademark as part of the impairment analysis for the year ending December 31, 2013. The estimated fair value as of December 31, 2013 was calculated using a discounted cash flow model based on three key assumptions, including management’s revenue growth rate assumption. Below is a chart showing management’s revenue growth rate assumption used in the 2013 estimate, as well as the actual revenue growth since the prior year estimate was made.
Management’s key
assumption (as of 12/31/2013):
8% annual growth rate through 2018; 3% annual growth rate thereafter
Update since prior year
estimate (as of 8/31/2014):
Revenues per store have grown 9% compared to the same time period in the prior year.
Sensitivity analysis: If a 9% (instead of 8%) growth rate had been used in the prior year estimate, the fair value estimate of the trademark increases to $3.343 million which is $278,000 above the book value. See the attached revised DCF calculation for this computation, as well as the results of the look-back analysis for the estimated fair value as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
Additional information gathered as part of look-back analysis:
Conversations with management indicate that actual growth differed from predicted growth due to a few factors. In particular, the projected price increase and new branding of the cheese went into effect sooner than anticipated, positively impacting actual growth. However, management attributes the majority of the difference between expected and actual revenue growth in the current year to a new fermentation process that the company’s main competitor implemented this year on a trial basis…
Updated Original 12/31/2012 12/31/2011
Fair value estimate 3,343$ 3,205$ 3,284$ 3,265$
Book value 3,065 3,065 3,065 3,065
Fair value is in excess of book value 278$ 140$ 219$ 200$
Projected Net Cash Flow ($ in 000s)
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20202021 into Pertuity
(1) No. of Stores Selling
Chatsworth Cheddar during the year 77 84 91 98 105 112 119 120(Assumption: 7 new stores each year up to cap of 120 stores)
(2) Projected Average Sales per store 45.86 49.99 54.49 59.39 64.74 66.68 68.68 70.74 (Assumption: Revenue growth of 9% per store through 2018, 3% thereafter)
(3) Projected Royalties 141.25 167.96 198.33 232.81 271.89 298.71 326.90 339.54 (Contractual: 4% of sales)
(4b) Projected Royalties 2021 into Perpetuity:
(4) Projected Net Cash Flow 141.25 167.96 198.33 232.81 271.89 298.71 326.90 4,850.59
(5) Present Value of Projected Net Cash Flows 128.41 138.81 149.01 159.01 168.82 168.62 167.75 2262.84(Assumption: 10% Discount Rate )
141.2488 167.957664 198.3300082 232.8089174 271.8875571 298.713796 326.9049105 4850.593871
Summed Present value of net cash flows 3,343$
(1) No. of Stores Selling Chatsworth Cheddar = No. of Stores in Prior Year + 7. Maximum number of stores = 120.
(2) Projected Average Sales per Store = Average Sales per Store in Prior Year * (1+.09) Years 2014-2018
= Average Sales per Store in Prior Year * (1+.03) Years after 2018
(3) Projected Royalties = [Projected Average Sales per Store for Current Year * 4%] * No. of Stores Selling Chatsworth Cheddar in Current Year Note: Royalties paid are based on a contractual rate of 4% of per store sales of Chatsworth Cheddar.
(4a) Projected Net Cash Flow = Projected Royalties
(4b) Projected Royalties 2021 into Perpetuity {Gordon-Growth Model} = Projected Net Cash Flow in 2021 / (.10 - .03) (5) PV of Projected Net Cash Flows = Projected Net Cash Flows / (1+.10)No. of years to discount
Assumptions:
9% revenue growth through 2018
3% steady growth rate after 2018
4% royalty rate
7 new stores opening each year up to a maximum of 120 stores
10.0% discount rate (WACC)
12/31/2013
Current Year Sensitivity AnalysisManagement-Prepared Impairment Analysis for Chatsworth Cheddar Trademark
(Amounts in 000s)
Understated Overstated
Less Specific
7.37(1.39)n=27
A
7.62(1.18)n=29
B
7.50(1.28)n=56
More specific
7.73(1.19)n=26
C
7.17(1.47)n=29
D
7.43(1.36)n=55
7.55(1.29)n=53
7.40(1.34)n=58
df MS FTwo-tailed
p-value
Big 4 1 12.35 7.61 0.007Specificity 1 0.01 0.01 0.956Direction of Inaccuracy 1 1.11 0.68 0.410Specificity * Direction 1 5.91 3.64 0.059
Auditors’ Assessments of the Reliability of Management’s Estimation Process
H1 supported (F1,106 = 2.28, one-tailed p = 0.067)
H2 supported (F1,106 = 2.68, one-tailed p = 0.052)
Auditors’ Planning Judgments• H3: Lower (higher) reliability assessments of management’s
estimation process will lead to higher (lower) risk assessments of material misstatement in the current period estimate and more (less) allocation of planned audit effort.
• H3: ROMM b = -0.26 one-tailed p = 0.036Effort b = -0.24 one-tailed p = 0.021
H3 supported
Additional AnalysesSpecificity of Prior Period Evidence
Management Competence
Management Credibility
Estimation Inaccuracy Direction
ManagementTrustworthiness
Reliability of Management's Estimation Process
ROMM
Planned Audit Effort
Interaction
Big 4
0.609(0.041)
0.725(<0.001)
-0.612(0.014)
0.709(<0.001)
0.640(<0.001)
-0.261(0.033)
0.903(0.027)
More Specific
Management Competence
Management Credibility
ManagementTrustworthiness
Reliability of Management's Estimation Process
ROMM
Planned Audit Effort
Big 4
0.700(<0.001)
-0.762(0.031)
0.629(<0.001)
0.792(0.002)
-0.212(0.096)
1.090(0.065)
Estimation Inaccuracy Direction
Evidence Bias
-0.490(0.060) -0.675
(0.077)
0.104(0.172)
Less Specific
Management Competence
Management Credibility
ManagementTrustworthiness
Reliability of Management's Estimation Process
ROMM
Planned Audit Effort
Big 4
0.809(<0.001)
-0.587(0.058)
0.726(<0.001)
0.472(0.004)
-0.189(0.136)
0.803(<0.001)
Estimation Inaccuracy Direction
Evidence Bias
0.204(0.252) 0.972
(0.019)
0.452(0.001)
Conclusions• Auditors reviewing more specific evidence when the prior
period estimation inaccuracy is inconsistent (consistent)with management’s incentives provide the highest (lowest) reliability assessments of management’s estimation process.
• These effects then flow through to auditors’ planning judgments, with higher (lower) reliability assessments leading to lower (higher) risk assessments and planned audit effort.
• The way in which the direction of the estimation inaccuracy impacts auditors’ planning judgments (i.e., perceptions of estimation process or evidence bias) depends on the specificity of prior period evidence.
Thank you!