THE AUDIT EXPECTATION GAP IN SINGAPORE - EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG-FORM AUDIT REPORT

This paper reports the results of a study of the audit expectation gap in Singapore, conducted in 1996. The motivation for this study was Singapore’s status as one of the “dragon countries” in Asia with a large international financial market in which foreign and local investors depend on audited financial reports for investment decisions. Currently, in Singapore short-form audit reports are to be attached to financial reports, unlike the long-form reports required by major countries like the United States, Australia and United Kingdom. The research method adopted in this paper is a replication of an Australian study documented in Schelluch (1996). That study found evidence of a reduction in the audit expectation gap through the use of the long-form audit report introduced in Australia in 1994. It was hypothesised that the expectation gap would have been considerable in Singapore relative to the results found by Schelluch (1996). The results provide evidence of the existence of a moderate audit expectation gap in Singapore but not to the extent envisaged given the current usage of a short-form audit report. The introduction of a longform audit report in Singapore could be beneficial in improving users’ understanding of the nature, purpose and limitations of audit reports. INTRODUCTION The research literature examining the nature and extent of the audit expectation gap has been considerable over the past twenty years [see Beck (1973); Arrington, Hillison and Wilson (1983);ASCPA (1994)]. Research has been conducted on the impact of modifications to the wording in audit reports as a means of reducing this gap. The adoption of long-form audit reports has proven to be effective in reducing the differences between auditors’ and users’ perceptions of the audit function in a number of areas [see Kelly and Mohrweis (1989); Hatherly, Innes and Brown (1991); Gay and Schelluch (1993); Schelluch (1996)]. Various definitions have been proposed for the audit expectation gap. Porter (1988) identified two components of the audit expectation gap: a) the difference between what society expects auditors to achieve and what they can reasonably expect to accomplish (designated the ‘reasonableness gap’); and b) the difference between the responsibilities society reasonably expects of auditors and auditors’ performance (designated the ‘performance gap’). This paper does not address issues associated with the performance gap. Society’s reasonable expectations of auditors have become embodied in auditing standards and legislation, and have also developed further through decisions of the courts (e.g. negligence actions) and the conduct of peer reviews (mandatory or voluntary). The main focus of this study is differences between the expectations of users of audited financial reports and auditors’ perceptions of their role (that is, primarily the reasonableness gap). This paper reports the results of a study of the audit expectation gap in Singapore, conducted in 1996. The motivation for this study was Singapore’s status as one of the “dragon countries” in Asia with a large international financial market in which 1 REFERENCES 1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Commission on Auditors’ Responsibilities (1978), Report, Conclusions and Recommendations, AICPA, New York. 2. Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants (ASCPA) and The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) (1994), A Research Study on Financial Reporting and Auditing Bridging the Expectation Gap, Melbourne. 3. Arrington C.E. , Hillison W.A. and Wilson P.F. (1983), “The Psychology of Expectation Gaps: Why Is There So Much Dispute about Auditor Responsibility? ” Accounting and Business Research , Autumn, pp. 243-250. 4. Bailey K.E. , Bylinski J.H. , and Shields M.D. (1983), “Effect of Audit Report Wording Changes on the Perceived Message”, Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn, pp. 355-370. 5. Beck G.W. (1973), “The Role of the Auditor in Modern Society: An Empirical Appraisal”, Accounting and Business Research, Spring, pp. 117-122. 6. Gay G.E. and Schelluch P (1993), “The Impact of the Long Form Audit Report on Users’ Perceptions of the Auditor’s Role”, Australian Accountant Review, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 1-11. 7. Hatherly D. , Innes I. and Brown T. (1991), “The Expanded Audit Report An Empirical Investigation”, Accounting and Business Research, Autumn, pp. 311-322. 8. Holt G. and Moizer P. (1990), “The Meaning of Audit Reports”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 20, No. 78, pp. 111-121. 9. Humphrey C. , Moizer P. and Turley S. (1992), The Audit Expectation Gap in the United Kingdom, The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, London. 10. Humphrey C. , Moizer P. and Turley S. (1993), “The Audit Expectation Gap in Britain: An Empirical Investigation”, Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 23, No. 91A, pp. 395-411. 11. Kelly A.S. and Mohrweis L.C. (1989), “Bankers’ and Investors’ Perceptions of the Auditor’s Role in Financial Statement Reporting: The Impact of SAS No.58”, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 9, No.1, Fall, pp. 87-97. 12. Libby R. (1979), “Bankers’ and Auditors’ Perceptions of the Message Communicated by the Audit Report”, Journal of Accounting Research, Spring, pp. 99-122. 13. Low A.M. (1984), “The Audit Report: Time for a Change? ”, Singapore Accountant, September/October, pp. 17-21. 14. Low A.M., Foo S.L. and Koh H.C. (1988), “The Expectation Gap Between Financial Analysts and Auditors – Some Empirical Evidence”, Singapore Accountant, May, pp. 10-13. 15. Malhotra N.K. (1981), “A Scale to Measure Self Concepts, Person Concepts and Product Concepts”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XVIII, pp. 456-464. 16. Monroe G.S. and Woodliff D. (1993), “The Effect of Education on the Audit Expectation Gap”, Accounting and Finance, May, pp. 61-78. 17. Monroe G.S. and Woodcliff D (1994a), “Great Expectations: Public Perceptions of the Auditor’s Role”, Australian Accounting Review, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 42-53. 18. Monroe G.S. and Woodcliff D (1994b), “An Empirical Investigation of the Audit Expectation Gap: Australian Evidence”, Accounting and Finance, May, pp. 47-74. 19. Nair R.D. and Rittenberg L.E. (1987), “Messages Perceived from Audit, Review, and Compilation Reports: Extension to More Diverse Groups,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, Fall, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 15-38. 20. Porter B.A. (1988), “The Audit Expectation Gap”, Massey University New Zealand Discussion Paper No.72. 21. Porter B.A. (1990), “The Audit Expectation-Performance Gap An Empirical Investigation”, AAANZ Conference, Perth, July. 22. Schelluch P. (1996), “Longform Audit Report Messages: Further Implications for the Audit Expectation Gap”, Accounting Research Journal, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 48-55.