Published Paper: Auditors' Use of In-House Specialists
Paper Authors: Aleksandra "Ally" B. Zimmerman, Dereck Barr-Pulliam, Joon-Suk Lee, Miguel Minutti-Meza
Publication: Journal of Accounting Research
Abstract: Using PCAOB inspection data from 2006 to 2018, we examine the use of auditor-employed specialists in audit engagements. First, we find that the use of specialists is increasingly prevalent and related to clients’ size and complex accounting estimates. Second, the use of specialists is positively associated with the incidence of audit process deficiencies (identified by PCAOB inspections) but is not associated with output-based audit-quality proxies (restatements or absolute discretionary accruals). Hence, while process deficiencies are more likely to occur in engagements with higher use of specialists, financial reporting quality is not negatively impacted. Third, the use of specialists is positively associated with the likelihood of goodwill impairments and negatively associated with engagement profitability. Finally, cross-sectional tests suggest that board accounting expertise is a salient condition for more effective use of specialists. Collectively, our findings align with concerns noted by the PCAOB and prior experimental and survey studies. Although specialists assist auditors with the audit of complex estimates, engagements with comparatively high specialist use entail an incremental risk of audit process deficiencies.
The economic research fellows and staff economists generate high-quality working papers that inform the oversight activities of the PCAOB and are disseminated to stimulate discussion and critical comment to the benefit of the public. Working papers are preliminary materials that have not been approved by the Board and reflect only the views of the author(s).
The research topics of economic research fellows, including a description of any nonpublic data sets required for research, are presented to the Board for approval and research papers are reviewed to confirm that the topic of the paper is consistent with the researcher's proposal. That review does not, however, encompass an evaluation of the conclusions reached by researchers.