Auditing Complex Estimates: Management-Provided Evidence and Auditors’ Consideration of Inconsistent Evidence

Recent inspection findings from audit regulators around the world suggest that auditors fail to use sufficient professional skepticism when auditing complex estimates. In an experiment using audit managers and partners as participants, we examine factors that influence auditors’ deficiencies in this area. We find that the presentation format of management-provided evidence significantly affects auditors’ skepticism. In particular, auditors are less skeptical of aggressive assumptions underlying complex estimates when reviewing evidence presented in a text format rather than a graph format. However, we find that priming auditors to consider how management derived its assumptions effectively enhances auditors’ skepticism by encouraging them to consider the often ignored information that is inconsistent with management’s assumptions. Further, auditors are most skeptical when this simple intervention is combined with evidence that is presented graphically. These results should be important to practitioners, regulators, and researchers, as they provide insight into how two factors affect a significant deficiency noted in the audits of complex estimates.