Denetim Zorluğu ile İlişkili Faktörlerin İncelenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma: BİST’te Bir İnceleme

Öz

Bu çalışmada, denetim faaliyetlerini karmaşıklaştıran, denetçinin bir görüşe varmasını olumsuz yönde etkileyebilen ve nihayetinde denetim kalitesini etkileyen bir kavram olarak denetim zorluğu konusu ele alınmıştır. Çalışmanın amacı, denetim zorluğu kavramının ele alınması ve denetlenen işletme, denetim firması ve denetçiye ait niteliklerin denetim zorluğu ile olası ilişkilerinin incelenmesidir. Bu amaç çerçevesinde, üç farklı finansal tablo kalemi ve finansal olmayan bir değişken olan denetim raporu gecikmesi ile ölçülen, toplam dört denetim zorluğu ölçütü bağımlı değişken olarak kullanılmıştır. Çalışmanın bulguları, denetlenen işletmeden kaynaklanan faktörlerin, denetim zorluğunu daha fazla etkilediğini göstermiştir. Bulgulara göre, finansal tablo kalemleri ile ölçülen denetim zorluğu göstergeleri, en fazla denetlenen işletmenin borçluluk, büyüme ve piyasa değerlerinden etkilenmektedir. Diğer yandan, denetim zorluğu ile ölçülen denetim zorluğu göstergesinin ise, en fazla denetim firması ve denetçiden kaynaklanan araştırma değişkenlerinden etkilendiği tespit edilmiştir. Söz konusu bulgular, denetimi zorlaştıran faktörlerin tespit edilmesi, denetim riskinin azaltılması ve denetim kalitesinin artırılması konusunda denetim araştırmalarına yardımcı olabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Denetim zorluğu
• Denetim kalitesi
• Denetim Raporu Gecikmesi
• Bilanço Kalemlerinin Büyüklüğü
• Denetçi özellikleri
• Denetim riski

A Research on Examining Factors Related to Audit Difficulty: A Review on BIST

Öz

This study focuses on audit difficulty as a concept that complicates audit activities, can hinder the auditor's ability to form an opinion, and ultimately affects audit quality. The aim of the study is to examine the concept of audit difficulty and its relationships with the qualifications of the audited company, audit firm and auditor in Türkiye. Three financial statement items commonly linked to audit difficulty in the literature and four dependent variables based on audit report delay were analyzed. Findings reveal that the factors related to the audited company significantly influence audit difficulty, particularly financial statement items such as indebtedness, growth, and market capitalization. On the other hand, other research variables linked to the audit firm and auditor were found to have a greater effect on audit difficulty measured through audit report delay. These findings may help audit research to identify the factors that make the audit difficult, to reduce audit risk and to improve audit quality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Audit difficulty
• Audit quality
• Auditor Characteristics
• Audit report lag
• Audit risk

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, H. M. S., El-Halaby, S., ve Albitar, K. (2023). Board governance and audit report lag in the light of big data adoption: the case of Egypt. International Journal of Accounting and Information Management, 31(1), 148-169.
2. Andriani, N., ve Nursiam. (2017). The effect of audit fees, audit tenure, audit rotation and auditor reputation on audit quality. Indonesian Accounting and Finance Research, 3(1), 2018.
3. Asthana, S. (2014). Abnormal audit delays, earnings quality and firm value in the USA. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 12(1), 21-44.
4. Baatwah, S. R., Almoataz, E. S., Omer, W. K., ve Aljaaidi, K. S. (2024). Does KAM disclosure make a difference in emerging markets? An investigation into audit fees and report lag. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 19(3), 798-821.
5. Bell, T.B. ve Tabor, R.H. (1991), Empirical analysis of audit uncertainty qualifications. Journal of Accounting Research, 29, 350-70.
6. Bimo, A. A., ve Sari, I. R. (2022). The effect of audit complexity, financial distress and institutional ownership on audit report lag:(Empirical study on property and real estate sub-sector companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2017-2021 period). Current Advanced Research on Sharıa Fınance and Economıc Worldwıde, 2(1), 75-89.
7. Bonner, S. E. (1994). A model of the effects of audit task complexity. Accounting, organizations and society, 19(3), 213-234.
8. Boon, K.S. et al. (2005). Compulsory audit tendering and audit fees: Evidence form Australian local government. International Journal of Auditing, 9(3), 221–41.

9. Coffee, J. (2001). The acquiescent gatekeeper: Reputational intermediaries, auditor independence and the governance of accounting, Colombia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 191, Colombia Law School.
10. Cohen, S., ve Leventis, S. (2013). An empirical investigation of audit pricing in the public sector: The case of Greek LGOs. Financial Accountability and Management, 29(1), 74-98.
11. Corte-Real, C. A. S. (2019). Auditee and audit firm characteristics as determinantes of audit qualifications-Portugal Case Study.
12. Craswell, A.T., Francis, J.R. ve Taylor, S.L. (1995). Auditor brand name reputations and ındustry specialisations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20(3), 297–322.
13. Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R.W. ve Leftwich, R.W. (1987). Predicting audit qualifications with f inancial and market variables, The Accounting Review, 62(3), 431-54
14. Fang, H. (2019). Number of regional accounting firms and audit fees—Based on the experience data of listed companies in China in 2016. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management, 9(3), 592-608.
15. George, D., ve Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10a ed.) Boston: Pearson
16. He, Z., Chen, D., ve Tang, J. (2021). Do goodwill impairments affect audit opinions. Evidence from China.
17. Hendi, H., ve Sitorus, R. (2023). An empirical research on audit report timeliness. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, 25(1), 39-53.
18. Huang, Y. T., Liu, C. Z., ve Wang, Y. F. (2014). Audit quality of the integrated supply chain-Evidence from Taiwan electronic industry. Journal of Accounting and Finance, 14(4), 104.
19. Jiang, L., Naiker, V., Wang, Y., ve Zhang, S. (2024). Partner-level cumulative industry expertise and audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 1-32.
20. Johl, S., C.A. Jubb ve K.A. Houghton (2007), Earnings management and the audit opinion: Evidence from Malaysia. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(7), 688-715.
21. Johnson, V. E., Khurana, I. K., ve Reynolds, J. K. (2002). Audit‐firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary accounting research, 19(4), 637-660.
22. Kara, S., ve Tuna, M. (2018). Kar yönetiminin düzeltilmiş Jones modeliyle ölçümü: BIST’te bir uygulama. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 18(54), 97-112.
23. Karacaer, S., ve Özek, P. (2010). Denetim firmasinin büyüklüğü ve kâr yönetimi ilişkisi: İMKB şirketleri üzerinde ampirik bir araştirma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi (48), 60-74.
24. Kilgore, A., Radich, R., ve Harrison, G. (2011). The relative importance of audit quality attributes. Australian Accounting Review, 21(3), 253-265.
25. Koca, N. (2023). Muhasebe bilgi kalitesinde bağımsız denetim bilincinin etkisi: Nitel bir araştırma. Denetim ve Güvence Hizmetleri Dergisi, 3(2), 129-146.
26. Küster, S. (2024). The determinants of linguistic features in key audit matters: Empirical evidence from Europe. International Journal of Auditing. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12344
27. Lennox, S. C. (1999). Audit quality and auditor size: An evaluation of reputation and deep pockets hypotheses. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 26(78), 779-805.
28. Liao, F. N., Zhang, C., Zhang, J. J., Yan, X., ve Chen, T. X. (2024). Hyperbole or reality? The effect of auditors' AI education on audit report timeliness. International Review of Financial Analysis, 91, 103050.
29. Louwers, T. J. (1993). An empirical investigation of the relationship between financial distress, external factors, and the auditor's going concern opinion modification. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/empirical-investigation-relationship-between/docview/304081591/se-2
30. Louwers, T. J. (1998). The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditor's loss function. Journal of Accounting research, 36(1), 143-156.
31. McKeown, J. C., Mutchler, J. F., ve Hopwood, W. (1991). Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinions of bankrupt companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 10.
32. Meyer, M. J., Rigsby, J. T., ve Boone, J. (2006). The impact of auditor‐client relationships on the reversal of first‐time audit qualifications. Managerial Auditing Journal, 22(1), 53-79.
33. Monroe, G.S. ve Tan, E. (1997). The relationship between audit firm size and audit quality: An empirical investigation of Australian audits. Perspectives on Contemporary Auditing, 1, 35–47.
34. Monroe, G.S. ve Teh, S.T. (1993). Predicting uncertainty audit qualifications in Australia using publicly available information, Accounting and Finance, 32, 79-106.
35. Nindita, O., ve Nirwana, N. (2023). The effect of audit fees, auditor reputation, auditor rotation on audit quality in food and beverage companies listed on the BEI periode 2019-2021. Journal of Finance and Business Digital, 2(4), 449-462.
36. Oktay, S. (2013). Bağımsız denetim etkinliğinin arttırılmasında, denetim hizmetinde kalite ve kalite kontrol: ABD düzenlemeleri. Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, 1(100), 42-94.
37. Pearson, T., ve Trompeter, G. (1994). Competition in the market for audit services: The effect of supplier concentration on audit fees. Contemporary accounting research, 11(1), 115-135.
38. Roekhudin, R. (2018). Auditors response towards auditing of fair value measurement based financial reporting. The Indonesian Journal of Accounting Research, 21(1), 23-46.
39. Rusmanto, T., Djamil, A. B., ve Salim, Y. (2014). The effect of earnings management to issuance of audit qualification: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6(1), 1-28. Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: Theory and evidence. Journal of accounting research, 18(1), 161-190.
40. Soleimaniamiri, G., ve Mahmoudkhani, M. (2019). Iranian auditors perspectives about auditing of fair value estimates. Accounting and Auditing Review, 26(2), 255-278.
41. Sudradjat, S., Ishak, J. F., ve Nugraha, A. A. (2023). Determinants of banking sector audit report lag: Evidence from Indonesia. Jurnal Aset (Akuntansi Riset), 15(1), 167-176.
42. Sulanjaku, M., ve Shingjergji, A. (2015). An overview of factors affecting auditing quality in Albania. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(10), 223-228.
43. Sun, G., ve Guan, B. (2024). Enterprise audit risk assessment and prevention based on AHP analysis. Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience, 25(3), 2013-2020.
44. Tuttle, B., ve Vandervelde, S. D. (2007). An empirical examination of CobiT as an internal control framework for information technology. International Journal of Accounting information systems, 8(4), 240-263.
45. Wallman, S. (1996). The future of accounting, Part III: Reliability and auditor independence, Accounting Horizons, 10(4), 76–97.
46. Whitworth, J. D., ve Lambert, T. A. (2014). Office-level characteristics of the Big 4 and audit report timeliness. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 33(3), 129-152.
47. Wright, A. M., ve Wu, Y. J. (2018). The impact of auditor task difficulty and audit quality indicators on jurors' assessments of audit quality. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30(2), 109-125.
48. Yaacob, N. M., ve Mohamed, N. (2021). Determinants of audit delay: an analysis of post Malaysian Financial Reporting Standards (MFRS) adoption. Management and Accounting Review (MAR), 20(3), 1-26.
49. Yıldız, E., ve Atış, C. (2022). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bağımsız denetim şirketlerinin denetim kalitesi göstergelerine uyumu üzerine bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 21(65), 157-178.
50. Zhou, Y., Liu, J., ve Lei, D. (2024). The effect of financial reporting regimes on audit report lags and audit fees: Evidence from firms cross-listed in the USA. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 22(4), 917-941.