PCAOB Letter: The Topic For The Group Presentation Is To Wri ✓ Solved

PCAOB Letter: The topic for the group presentation is to wri

PCAOB Letter: The topic for the group presentation is to write a comment letter to the PCAOB addressing Docket 043: Proposed Auditing Standard for Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements. Pretend the proposal is not yet effective and prepare a comment letter. Question to respond: Are there additional economic considerations associated with this proposal that the Board should consider? If so, what are those considerations? Research the issues and accumulate relevant points for the comment letter. Prepare one PowerPoint slide presenting the relevant questions and issues reflected in the comment letter in 1–2 paragraphs.

Paper For Above Instructions

Comment Letter to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (Docket No. 043)

Date: [Insert Date]

To: PCAOB Standards Staff

From: [Group Name / Individual]

Re: Proposed Auditing Standard — Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements (Docket No. 043)

We appreciate the Board’s work to strengthen audit approaches to accounting estimates and fair value measurements. This comment letter focuses on additional economic considerations the Board should examine before finalizing the proposed standard. We support objectives to enhance audit quality and investor protection, but urge the PCAOB to balance benefits against costs and potential market effects (PCAOB, 2016).

Summary of Key Economic Considerations

  • Incremental audit costs and pricing pressure: The proposed standard will likely increase auditor effort (experts, model testing, data validation), raising audit fees—especially for firms with significant level-3 fair value estimates (Simunic, 1980; Knechel, 2013).
  • Concentration and market structure: Higher per-engagement costs can strengthen economies of scale, favoring larger audit firms and potentially increasing market concentration and switching costs for issuers (Christensen et al., 2013).
  • Issuers’ compliance costs and resource allocation: Smaller registrants may face proportionally larger compliance burdens, potentially diverting resources from productive investment (GAO, 2018).
  • Capital market impacts: Greater audit rigor may reduce information asymmetry and lower cost of capital for some firms, but increased costs and potential delays in reporting could reduce market liquidity or raise borrowing costs for smaller issuers (Barth et al., 2008).
  • Behavioral responses and conservatism: Stricter auditing of estimates may push management to bias estimates conservatively or to choose simpler accounting alternatives, altering economic reporting incentives (DeFond & Zhang, 2014).
  • Litigation and insurance effects: Expanded documentation and testing requirements may amplify auditors’ litigation exposure and insurance costs, affecting supply and pricing of audit services (Knechel, 2013).
  • International comparability and regulatory alignment: Differences between PCAOB requirements and international auditing standards (IAASB/IFRS) can create cross-border compliance asymmetries for multijurisdictional issuers (IFRS Foundation; FASB, 2011).

Supporting Analysis

Audit pricing theory and empirical studies indicate that increased audit effort translates into higher fees, as audit firms pass incremental costs to clients (Simunic, 1980). The proposed standard’s emphasis on methodical challenge of models, use of specialists, and deeper documentation will raise labor, specialist, and technology costs. For large public companies these may be manageable; for smaller reporting entities, audit fees may rise as a percentage of revenue, potentially discouraging public listing or prompting cost-cutting elsewhere (GAO, 2018).

Market concentration effects merit attention. If compliance costs become sizeable and require substantive investments in training and technology, smaller audit firms may exit segments of the market or consolidate, resulting in fewer choices for issuers and possible pricing power among large firms (Christensen et al., 2013). The Board should analyze whether the proposal unintentionally accelerates concentration and, if so, consider proportionality to preserve competition.

Capital market benefits are plausible: higher-quality audits of estimates can reduce earnings management and improve investor confidence, possibly lowering firms’ cost of capital (Barth et al., 2008). However, these benefits are heterogeneous: firms with opaque, model-dependent valuations stand to gain more than firms with straightforward measurements. A rigorous economic impact assessment should quantify the distribution of benefits versus costs across issuer size, industry, and level of estimate subjectivity.

Behavioral and reporting incentives must be considered. Heightened auditor scrutiny may induce management to alter estimation approaches—opting for conservative estimates to avoid auditor pushback or selecting less informative accounting alternatives—creating unintended information loss (DeFond & Zhang, 2014). The Board should weigh design choices that minimize perverse incentives.

Recommendations to the PCAOB

  1. Perform and publish a quantitative economic impact analysis (QEA) that models incremental audit hours, fee changes, and distributional effects by issuer size and industry. Include sensitivity analysis for different implementation scenarios (PCAOB, 2016; GAO, 2018).
  2. Adopt proportionate requirements: scale documentation and testing expectations to risk and materiality, with explicit relief or phased requirements for smaller issuers to limit disproportionate burdens (Knechel, 2013).
  3. Encourage pilot testing and post-implementation monitoring: run a voluntary pilot program to collect real-world data on costs, audit processes, and market effects; use metrics to refine the final standard (PCAOB staff practice).
  4. Provide implementation guidance and templates: practical guidance for model validation, use of experts, and evidence thresholds can reduce compliance ambiguity and lower implementation costs (PwC, 2015).
  5. Coordinate internationally: align core principles with IAASB and IFRS/FASB guidance to reduce cross-border compliance frictions (IFRS Foundation; FASB, 2011).
  6. Assess litigation and insurance implications: evaluate likely shifts in litigation risk and advise on mitigations to avoid unintended reduction in audit supply (Knechel, 2013).

Conclusion

The proposed standard promises audit quality improvements that can enhance investor confidence. However, its economic consequences are non-trivial and unevenly distributed. Prior to finalizing the standard, the PCAOB should publish a quantitative economic assessment, consider proportionate implementation paths, pilot key requirements, and enhance guidance to limit unintended market impacts while achieving audit quality goals. These steps will enable the Board to balance investor protection with market efficiency and preserve a competitive audit market.

PowerPoint Slide (One Slide Content — 1–2 Paragraphs)

Slide Title: Economic Considerations for Docket 043 — Auditing Accounting Estimates

Key questions: Will the proposed standard materially increase audit fees and operational costs for issuers and auditors? How will higher compliance costs affect smaller registrants and market concentration? What are the net benefits to investors in terms of reduced information risk and lower cost of capital? Recommended actions: conduct a quantitative economic assessment, pilot implementation, scale requirements by issuer risk/size, and publish practical implementation guidance (PCAOB, 2016; Simunic, 1980).

References

  • PCAOB. (2016). Proposed Auditing Standard: Auditing Accounting Estimates, Including Fair Value Measurements (Docket No. 043). Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. https://pcaobus.org
  • Simunic, D. A. (1980). The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161–190.
  • Knechel, W. R. (2013). Audit Quality and Regulation. Accounting and Business Research, 43(4), 367–394.
  • DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A Review of Archival Auditing Research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326.
  • Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., & Lang, M. H. (2008). International Accounting Standards and Accounting Quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(3), 467–498.
  • Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2018). Financial Audits: Various Challenges Related to Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures. GAO-18-XXX. https://gao.gov
  • FASB. (2011). Accounting Standards Codification Topic 820: Fair Value Measurement. Financial Accounting Standards Board. https://www.fasb.org
  • IFRS Foundation / IASB. (2011). IFRS 13 Fair Value Measurement. International Accounting Standards Board. https://www.ifrs.org
  • PwC. (2015). Auditing Fair Value Measurements: Practical Considerations and Best Practices. PricewaterhouseCoopers. https://www.pwc.com
  • Christensen, H. B., Hail, L., & Leuz, C. (2013). Mandatory IFRS Reporting and Changes in Enforcement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 56(2–3), 147–177.

Related Assignments