Prof. dr. Philip Wallage

Professor

Philip Wallage is a prominent figure in the field of auditing. He serves as an academic board member of FAR and as Professor of Auditing at both the University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. A former partner at KPMG, he has also played a key role in shaping the Dutch accounting profession, chairing the Auditing Standards Committee of Royal NIVRA and contributing to the influential Peters Committee on Corporate Governance.

Based on the 3rd International FAR Conference (2018), this special issue of Maandblad voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie (MAB) highlights key insights from the event. The conference, held in June 2018 at Nyenrode Business University, focused on the theme: “Moving the Audit Profession Forward – New Research and Best Practices.” This publication brings together the most important presentations and discussions, offering readers a comprehensive overview of the ideas and developments shared during the conference.  
Reporting on going-concern-related uncertainties remains one of the most challenging issues faced by external auditors. Even though professional standards do not hold external auditors responsible for predicting future events, such as the subsequent viability of audit clients, if an auditor refrains from issuing a going concern modified audit opinion (hereafter GCO) and the client company subsequently fails (referred to in the academic literature as a “type II” reporting error), the costs to the auditor in terms of increased litigation costs and loss of reputation are often substantial (Carcello and Palmrose 1994). At the same time, companies usually do not welcome a GCO from their auditor. For example, if an auditor renders a GCO to a financially distressed client, there is often concern that the GCO itself may precipitate, or at least accelerate, the financial distress of the already troubled company resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further, if an auditor renders a GCO to a client that subsequently survives (referred to in the academic literature as a “type I” reporting error), these clients are significantly more likely to switch to another auditor for their next audit (Geiger, Raghunandan and Rama 1998). It is not surprising, then, that audit practitioners, regulators and standard-setters around the world continue to grapple with this complex issue. As requested by the Foundation for Audit Research (FAR), the primary purpose of this research synthesis is to review and discuss the recent academic literature pertinent to the auditor’s decision to issue, or not issue, a GCO. Our review begins with research available after the going-concern research synthesis provided in Carson, Fargher, Geiger, Lennox, Raghunandan and Willekens (2013). We attempt to minimize the gap and the overlap in the research discussed in Carson et al. (2013) and our work. Further, in an attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, we do not limit our coverage to only published research, but also include well-developed working papers in the public domain, particularly if we determine they add significant contribution to the literature.
Marshall Geiger, Anna Gold and Philip Wallage presented a masterclass on Going Concern Opinions (GCOs). In this report, a summary of the masterclass is presented. The main purpose of the session was to communicate the main results of their literature synthesis and to extend and corroborate the findings of the focus group meeting that was part of the research project, by means of an in-depth discussion concerning eight broad GCO topics.  
A two-part article published in Accounting Horizons Part 1 – Outcomes and Consequences Abstract: Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes, insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going-concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings and the goals of our subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2)  identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, we report on our discussions with practitioners and provide a summary of practitioner-informed GCO-related future research topics. In this first of a two-part sequence, we provide background information relating to our practitioner interactions, and summarize our discussions pertaining to GCO outcomes and GCO consequences, as well as future research. Part 2 – Reporting Environment and the Decision-Making Process Abstract: Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes,  insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided  practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings. The goals of our  subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2) identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, in this second of a two-part sequence of articles, we discuss the outcomes of our interactions with practitioners related to the GCO reporting environment and the GCO decision-making process, as well as directions for future research.

Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes, insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings. The goals of our subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2) identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, in this second of a two-part sequence of articles, we discuss the outcomes of our interactions with practitioners related to the GCO reporting environment and the GCO decision-making process, as well as directions for future research.

Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes, insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings and the goals of our subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2) identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, we report on our discussions with practitioners and provide a summary of practitioner-informed GCO-related future research topics. In this first of a two-part sequence, we provide background information relating to our practitioner interactions, and summarize our discussions pertaining to GCO outcomes and GCO consequences, as well as future research.  
The auditor’s decision regarding a going concern opinion (GCO) is among their most important judgments, as GCOs impact the client company, markets, financial statement users, and auditors themselves. Such a sensitive and complex judgement call requires expertise and experience. In the academic literature, GCO decisions are often seen as related to audit quality, and they are among the few observable outcomes of the audit that vary across engagements. In the last decades, academic researchers have spent considerable effort examining GCO decisions. We believe that audit practitioners can benefit from improved awareness of the insights that research has generated. In our complete report (Geiger, Gold, and Wallage, 2019), we review and synthesize 149 academic studies authored since 2013, the end of the previous synthesis by Carson et al (2013). In this practitioner note, we make a selection of what we deem the most interesting insights from our review, and discuss their implications for practice. We then report on our focus group engagement with audit practitioners where we obtained their perceptions regarding some the academic findings, the issues faced in making GCO decisions, as well as areas where additional research would be helpful.
This practice note provides initial insights from an interview study that investigates audit professionals’ decision-making processes regarding their clients’ ability to continue as a going concern. The authors find that these decisions involve the activation of a range of different actors that the engagement leader needs to manage and coordinate. Specifically, auditors need to recognize going  concern as a relevant issue (Phase 1). They then need to negotiate the involvement of their firm’s national office and restructuring specialists (Phase 2). As they conduct the going concern assessment, they mobilize a range of internal and external actors to negotiate management disclosures and the inclusion (or not) of a going concern paragraph in their audit opinion (Phase 3).
The fourth annual conference of the Foundation for Auditing Research (FAR) was held in June 2019. The theme of the conference was ‘Evidence-informed policy making for the future of the auditing profession’. Therefore, the central question during all the presentations of this conference was: how can evidence-based auditing sector policy making be implemented? We are happy to offer you this conference report, which summarizes the keynote speeches and the FAR project presentations of preliminary research findings.  
This special issue of MAB has been developed in collaboration with the Foundation for Auditing Research and is based on papers and discussions at the FAR conference at Nyenrode University (May 2016).  
No related news.

Filter projects: 

Project Lead
Theme Filter
University Filter
1 - 10 of 52 projects