The Accounting Policy & Practice Report ® provides financial accounting policy makers, advisors, and practitioners with the latest news, expert insights, and guidance on emerging, evolving,...
May 27 — Some Public Company Accounting Standards Board Standing Advisory Group members deliberated over whether materiality is a necessity of the critical audit matter section of an audit report.
Materiality is often defined as what a reasonable investor would consider important in making a decision.
The question becomes, should auditors be required by the PCAOB to discuss in the audit report what they specifically found to be “material” in the “tripartite test” of a critical audit matter (CAM)?
SAG members and PCAOB May 18 dissected the meaning and impact of “materiality” at a May 11 reproposal of the 2013 auditor's reporting model (09 APPR 695, 8/16/13), (10 APPR 301, 3/28/14).
SAG members praised the PCAOB for the reproposal, which they said was moving in the right direction, into alignment with other regulators including the International Auditing and Assurances Standards Board, the Financial Reporting Council in the U.K., and the E.U.
Sir David Tweedie, former IASB chairman, described the reporting model as the most important project that the PCAOB had ever done.
He described it as “shocking” that the previous reporting model hadn't been changed for 75 years.
The PCAOB's proposal was “terrific for auditors'” and would restore people's trust in auditors after financial crises such as Enron, Tweedie said. Moreover, it is good for auditors' reputations anytime the audit report goes “towards what investors want to see” rather than what the company wants investors to see, he said.
Jennifer Rand, Deputy Chief Auditor introduced the session by saying that the PCAOB—since it began the revamp of the 75 year old standard in 2010 (07 APPR 212, 3/18/11)—had benefitted from the feedback and study of reports from other regulators. The U.S. is lagging behind the “reality around the world” of a much more informative auditors reporting model, she said.
In particular, Rand said, the PCAOB had been paying attention to the positive feedback from the U.K. which has been using a modernized auditor's reporting model for at least three years (10 APPR 351, 4/11/14). She cautioned, however, that the regulatory experience was different in the U.S., thus affecting what U.S. auditors and U.S. investors wanted from an audit report.
SAG member Liz Murrall, director, Stewardship and Reporting, Investment Management, London, drew on positive investor responses to materiality disclosures experiences in the U.K.
She argued strongly that the PCAOB needed to “go one step further” and have auditors disclose what they found material. This disclosure gives investors a chance to evaluate how deep auditors had dived into the audit, she said.
Other SAG members Elizabeth Mooney, Vice-President, The Capital Group Companies, and Sandy Peters, Head of Financial Reporting Policy, CFA Institute, also advocated the need for materiality disclosures in the audit report. Just a CAM by itself, without materiality disclosures, requires the auditor to surmise the investor's thinking process—what goes into an investment evaluation of “materiality.”
Mooney said the auditor's report was the “communication piece with investors.” Regardless how subjective an auditor's judgment was—if it is only communicated to the audit committee—leaves investors out of the information loop, and at a distinct disadvantage.
Peters echoed Murrall's comments. The CFA Institute, has asked investors whether they want materiality disclosed and they have “resoundingly answered ‘yes,' ” Peters told the group.
Arnold Schilder, International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board chairman, said he was pleased that the PCAOB and the IAASB were agreeing on how to address global audit issues (12 APPR 10, 5/20/16).
Schilder noted a May 23 IAASB press release stating: “Comparable approaches to auditor reporting around the world will clearly benefit investors and is in the public interest. We commend the PCAOB for taking steps to enhance transparency for investors and to further global consistency.”
The IAASB views are consistent with PCAOB's Chief Auditor Martin Baumann and board member Jay Hanson statements that the IAASB's reporting model's “key audit matters” (10 APPR 117, 1/31/14) and the PCAOB's “critical audit matters” were “very close in terms of the concept.”
According to the reproposal, the model would remain a “pass-fail' determination, requiring the auditor's opinion on whether the financial statements are fairly presented—pass—or not—fail..
The PCAOB reproposal refined the 2013 concept of CAMs and added other auditor assurances (12 APPR 10, 5/20/16).
The revised auditor's reporting model proposal thus has features such as:
PCAOB Chairman James Doty explained to Bloomberg BNA May 18 that the change from the original proposal—adding materiality to the financial statements into the “critical audit matter” definition— would “result in significant items reported as critical audit matters” and that the “tripartite test” for a CAM, in the reproposal, would include:
An audit report in the U.S. would also be governed by the Supreme Court's definition of materiality in TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438 (1976), a securities fraud case.
The Supreme Court's definition refers to omitted facts.
“An omitted fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote. In other words, the court must determine whether under all the circumstances, the omitted fact would have assumed actual significance in the decision of the shareholder.”
Murrall told Bloomberg BNA that she didn't think that investors or auditors benefitted from having to rely on a definition of materiality from a judicial body.
She expressed this view in regard to recent Financial Accounting Standards Board disclosure proposals also.
According to the Conceptual Framework for Financial Reporting, “information is material if omitting it or misstating it could influence decisions that users make on the basis of financial information about a specific reporting entity.”
Both Rand and Baumann responded that because there was only one comment letter on materiality after the 2013 proposal, the PCAOB didn't believe it was important to U.S. investors.
However, Baumann later in the meeting said that he hoped the reproposal would spark comment letters on the issue.
Jessica Watts, PCAOB's associate chief auditor, pointed out that the reason the reproposal had added materiality to the definition of CAM was because investors had commented that otherwise, auditors would feel obliged to report immaterial matters—those not important to the financial statement.
Baumann, after many SAG commenters had weighed in with their views, clarified what he considered had become two different discussions.
The first, he said, was what the PCAOB meant by materiality—“looking at a set of financial statements and determining are all disclosures that are materially important there, and based on both quantitative and qualitative assessments, determining whether matters in the financial statements are material and then evaluating if CAM that pertain to matters in the financial statements are material.”
Baumann distinguished this from what he believed SAG members were saying they wanted to know more about, what he referred to as the scope of the audit. He said the PCAOB's meaning was different from the U.K. requirement for the auditor to disclose “what is the materiality threshold for trying to set tolerable misstatements and determining the scope of work.”
Brian Croteau, Securities and Exchange Commission, noted that what the PCAOB was trying to establish was quite different from the ongoing Financial Accounting Standards Board determination of materiality—another concern expressed by Murrall—and he encouraged commenters to provide feedback to the PCAOB.
The difference between quantitative and qualitative measures and their overlap in financial statements is perhaps best defined in the Securities and Exchange Commission's Staff Accounting Bulletin 99: Materiality by the SEC. According to SAB 99, misstatements are not immaterial simply because they fall beneath a numerical threshold.
SAB 99 cautions registrants and auditors not to necessarily conclude that just because a misstatement or omission of an item falls under a 5 percent threshold in the financial statements, that the item is not material. It defines “material” as a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider it important.
In its Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2, FASB stated the essence of the concept of materiality as: “The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item.”
Doty—in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA May 26—said that the question of whether auditors should disclose a quantitative materiality threshold raised a difficult issue because “it is important that auditors also evaluate the qualitative materiality for significant matters that may not meet that threshold.”
Doty indicated that he would be concerned if audit opinions were understood not to consider matters that “may not meet a quantitative materiality threshold but nevertheless are qualitatively material to investors.”
Hanson told Bloomberg BNA May 11 that a key question to be resolved with the input of investors was whether disclosure of CAMs would provide the investor with “useful information” in terms of making an investment decision. He gave the example that the investor may be more interested in looking at an objective measure such as revenue—found in the financial statements—rather than an auditor's description of CAMs.
In FASB's proposed Notes to Financial Statements (ASC 235): Assessing Whether Disclosures are Material, the board summarizes that the Supreme Court's definition of materiality is the proper one.
FASB Chairman Russell Golden said May 18 that the board was attempting to align a conceptual framework to that of the auditing standard as well as securities laws, and wanted stakeholders' input on how best to do that (12 APPR 10, 5/20/16).
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Tieger Salisbury in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Ali Sartipzadeh at firstname.lastname@example.org
The Auditor's Report on an Audit of Financial Statements When the Auditor Expresses an Unqualified Opinion, and Related Amendments is on the PCAOB website at the http://src.bna.com/fpk
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)