Audit risk calibration


Analytical Procedures Bloomberg Terminals, ESG-Platform, Correlations, CAM

How to Cite

Gaber, M., Garas, S., & Lusk, E. (2020). Audit risk calibration. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147- 4478), 9(4), 182-195.


AS5[v.Dec:2017] issued by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board [PCAOB] requires the use of Analytical Procedures [AP] at the Planning and Substantive Phases of Assurance Audits for firms traded on active exchanges. We argue that one aspect of AP, relative to risk-setting, should be vetting the information that is produced/published by the audit client pertaining to Regulation G [v.SEC:2003] called: Non-GAAP information. In our research, we intend to leverage the longstanding Reg[G] requirements to extend the Non-GAAP information to firm performance profiles reported for the Environment, Social, and Governance[ESG]Platform on BloombergÒ. There are two research foci: (1) Offer an AP-Model that uses GAAP & ESG variables to contribute audit evidence useful in making the decision to launch an AP-Extended Procedures examination of the firm’s Enterprise Resource Planning & Control [ERP&C] protocols, and (2) Profile a random accrual-set of firms indexed on Bloomberg so as to offer population parameter estimates for refining the AP-Model. The AP-Model is based upon correlational associations for the ESG- & GAAP-variables from the: Income, Balance Sheet & Cash Flow Statements. If there seems to be a disconnect between the nature of these associations for the ESG-variables and those of the GAAP-variables, the auditor may use this as audit evidence in making the decision to conduct an Extended Procedures Examination of the firm’s [ERP&C] protocols. As for the other focus, we found that for the accrual of firms tested there is no inferential evidence that the ERP&C-protocols are consistent drivers for both the ESG- and the GAAP variable sets.


AICPA. (2012). Audit Guide: Analytical Procedures, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Inc.New York, NY USA: <>

Amir, M. & Dixon, R. (2019). Audit data analytics of unregulated voluntary disclosures and auditing expectations gap. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 16, 188-205.

Arens, A., Elder, R., Beasley, M. & Hogan, C. (2020). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach. Pearson Publications. ISBN: 13:978-0-13-489743-3.

Cohen, J., Krishnamoorthy, G. & Wright, A. (2017). Enterprise risk management and the financial reporting process: The experiences of audit committee members, CFOs, and external auditors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34, 1178-1209.

Harman, H. (1960). Modern Factor Analysis. 3rd EdRev. University of Chicago Press. ISBN-13: 978-0226316529.

Henry TF, Weitz RR, Rosenthal DA. (2019). Non-GAAP earnings disclosure post 2010 SEC regulation change. J Corp Acct Fin, 1–21.

Henry,T., Weitz, R. & Rosenthal,D. (2020). The gap between GAAP and Non-GAAP. The CPA Journal:NYSSCPAs, Feb, 60-65.

Nichols, N. B., Gray, S. J., & Street, D. L. (2005). Pro forma adjustments to GAAP earnings: Bias, materiality, and SEC action. Research in Accounting Regulation, 18, 29 –52.

Tamhane, A. & Dunlop, D. (2000). Statistics and Data Analysis. Prentice Hall; NJ[07458] ISNB: 0-13-744426-5.

Taylor, A., Chen, Y., Taylor, E., Hanks, R. & Ramey, Z. (2017). Big analytics: Megatrends to business success. Internal Audit, 32, 26-32.

PR[Newswire]. (2006). FileNet reports second quarter 2006 results; Company achieves 19% software revenue growth. PR:New York [New York]; 26 July 2006 .

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.