Skip to main content
Log in

Materiality disclosure and litigation risks: A Canadian perspective

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Disclosure and Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article investigates the perceptions of auditors (accounting firms), preparers (industry) and users (banks) of financial statements on the disclosure of a materiality list using the survey method. The materiality list is a subjective compilation by the auditor of unadjusted differences such as misstatements, omissions and rounding calculations that on an individual basis would not be considered material. Our survey results show that users agree with the disclosure of materiality lists and do not believe that a materiality list will expose preparers and auditors to litigation risks; users believe that a materiality list will reduce the risk of litigation, facilitate investment in stocks, reduce the cost of capital and usher in financial stability. On the other hand, we find that auditors disagree with users of financial statements with respect to disclosure and risk of litigation. In addition, we find that the perception of auditors, preparers and users is not influenced by factors such as gender and work experience. These results come from a sample set of a total of 501 survey questionnaires sent to bank, industry and accounting firms across Canada with 167 returned responses. These findings indicate a disconnect between users and the preparers and auditors of financial statements that should be fixed. That is, investors and analysts (among the users) of financial reports need to know how materiality is being defined and are not satisfied with the status quo currently defined by accounting and securities regulators. Preparers and auditors could achieve greater clarity in financial reports by articulating what it takes for a transaction to be classified as material. This materiality standard may best be accomplished by the creation of a materiality list.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acito, A.A., Burks, J.J. and Johnson, W.B. (2009) Materiality decisions and the correction of accounting errors. The Accounting Review 84 (3): 659–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B., Maletta, M. and Wright, A. (1998) Perceptions of auditor responsibility: Views of the judiciary and the profession. International Journal of Auditing 2 (3): 215–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D.F., Bernardi, R.A. and Neidermeyer, P.E. (2001) The association between European materiality estimates and client integrity, rational culture, and litigation. The International Journal of Accounting 36 (4): 459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blokdijk, H.F., Drieenhuizen, D., Simunic, A. and Stein, M.T. (2003) Factors affecting auditors’ assessments of planning materiality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 22 (2): 297–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brody, R.G., Lowe, D.J. and Pany, K. (2003) Could $51 million be immaterial when Enron reports income of $105 million? Accounting Horizons 17 (2): 153–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chewning, G., Pany, K. and Wheeler, S. (1989) Auditor reporting decisions involving accounting principle changes: Some evidence on materiality thresholds. Journal of Accounting Research 27 (1): 78–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, S., Hagerman, R.L., Nabar, S. and Patterson, E.R. (2003) Measuring stockholder materiality. Accounting Horizons 17 (Supplement): 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, K. and Pflugrath, G. (2008) Do different audit report formats affect shareholders’ and auditors’ perceptions? International Journal of Auditing 12 (3): 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobert, J.L. (1996) International and US standards-audit risk and materiality. Managerial Auditing Journal 11 (8): 31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Martinis, M.R. and Burrowes, A.W. (1996) Materiality and risk judgments: A review of users’ expectations. Managerial Finance 22 (9): 16–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeZoort, T., Harrison, P. and Taylor, M. (2006) Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength in conservatism, variability, and effort. Accounting, Organizations and Society 31 (4–5): 373–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ettredge, M., Scholz, S., Smith, K.R. and Sun, L. (2010) How do restatements begin? Evidence of earnings management preceding restated financial reports. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 37 (3–4): 332–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FASB Statement No. 154, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. Financial Accounting Standards Board of the Financial Accounting Foundation, Norwalk, Connecticut.

  • Gangolly, J.S., Hussein, M.E., Seow, G.S. and Tam, K. (2002) Harmonization of the auditor's report. International Journal of Accounting 37 (3): 327–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guidera, J. (2002) Computer associates' revenue is probed by federal officials. Wall Street Journal, 20 May A3.

  • Hernandez-Madrigal, M., Blanco-Dopico, M.-I. and Aibar-Guzman, B. (2012) The influence of mandatory requirements on risks disclosure practices in Spain. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 9 (1): 78–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holstrum, L.G. and Messier, F.W. (1982) A review and integration of empirical research on materiality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 2 (1): 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, T.P. and DeZoort, T. (2009) The effects of internal audit report disclosure on investor confidence and investment decisions. International Journal of Auditing 13 (1): 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P.H. (2004) Moody Investing and the Supreme Court: Rethinking the Materiality of Information and the Reasonableness of Investors. University of Pennsylvania Law School, Institute for Law and Economics. Research Paper No. 04–06.

  • Iselin, E.R. and Iskandar, T.M. (2000) Auditors’ recognition and disclosure materiality thresholds: Their magnitude and the effects of industry. British Accounting Review 32 (3): 289–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M., Kneer, D.C. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1987) A re-examination of the concept of materiality: Views of auditors, users and officers of the court. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 6 (1): 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, M., Kneer, D.C. and Reckers, P.M.J. (1996) Mitigating the auditor's legal risk. Managerial Finance 22 (9): 61–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlbeck, M. and Warfield, T. (2010) Accounting quality discussion and analysis. Research in Accounting Regulation 22 (2): 59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, A. (1998) The ‘Numbers Game’. New York University Center for Law and Business. New York, 28 September.

  • Martinov, N. and Roebuck, P. (1998) The assessment and integration of materiality and inherent risk: An analysis of major firms’ audit practices. International Journal of Auditing 2 (2): 103–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messier Jr, W., Martinov-Bernie, N. and Eilifsen, A. (2005) A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 24 (2): 153–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. (2006) The illusory nature of D & O insurance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance 3 (3): 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M.H. and Nichols, W.D. (1988) Consistency exceptions: Materiality judgments and audit firm structure. The Accounting Review 63 (2): 237–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. (2009) Assessing the materiality of financial misstatements. Journal of Corporation Law 34 (2): 513–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, E.R. and Smith, R. (2003) Materiality uncertainty and earnings misstatements. The Accounting Review 78 (3): 811–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, R. and Wallace, W.A. (2002) An international comparison of materiality guidance for governments, public services and charities. Financial Accountability & Management 18 (3): 261–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Public Oversight Board of the SEC Practice Section. (1993) Special Report: Issues Confronting the Accounting Profession. Stamford, CT: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

  • Ronen, J. (2010) Corporate audits and how to fix them. Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (2): 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission. (1999) Materiality. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99.

  • Skinner, D. and Srinivasan, S. (2011) Audit Quality and Auditor Reputation: Evidence from Japan. Chicago Booth Research Paper no. 10–15, Harvard Business School Accounting Management Unit Working Paper No. 10-088.

  • Treadway Commission. (1987) Report of the National Commission on Fraudulent Financial Reporting. New York: American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

  • Turpin, R.A. and DeZoort, F.T. (1998) Characteristics of firms that include an audit committee report in their annual report. International Journal of Auditing 2 (1): 35–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuttle, B., Coller, M. and Plumlee, R.D. (2002) The effect of misstatements on decisions of financial statement users: An experimental investigation of auditor materiality thresholds. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 21 (1): 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond AK Cox.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cox, R., Dayanandan, A. & Donker, H. Materiality disclosure and litigation risks: A Canadian perspective. Int J Discl Gov 11, 284–298 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.16

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2013.16

Keywords

Navigation