SUMMARY: This descriptive study analyzes deficiency data disclosed in peer review reports of the AICPA’s Center for Public Company Audit Firms Peer Review Program (CPCAF PRP). We analyze the reports of the largest 20 triennially inspected firms that have both a PCAOB inspection report and a CPCAF peer review report. The CPCAF focuses on audits of non-public companies, while the PCAOB focuses on public company audits. Our analysis identifies a number of interesting points. First, about 60 percent of the reports issued by the CPCAF and PCAOB identify at least one deficiency. Second, both CPCAF and PCAOB reports highlight the pervasiveness of insufficient documentation. Third, other common deficiencies in the CPCAF reports relate to incomplete or inaccurate management representation letters, incomplete financial statements and inaccurate audit reports, incomplete performance of analytical procedures, and insufficient review procedures.

Abbott
L. J.
,
Gunny
K.
, and
Zhang
T.
2008
.
When the PCAOB talks, who listens? Evidence from client firm reaction to adverse, seriously deficient PCAOB inspection reports
.
Working paper presented at the 2008 AAA Annual Meeting, August 3
.
Google Scholar
 
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
.
1997
. Management Representations.
Statement on Auditing Standard No. 85
.
New York, NY:
AICPA
.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
.
2005
. Audit Documentation.
Statement on Auditing Standard No. 103
.
New York, NY:
AICPA
.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
.
2006
a
. Smaller Firm PCAOB Inspection Deficiency Analysis.
New York, NY: AICPA
.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
.
2006
b
. Planning and Supervision.
Statement on Auditing Standard No. 108
.
New York, NY:
AICPA
.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
.
2009
. Peer Review Alert—April 2009 Updated and New Practice Aids for Peer Reviews Commencing on or after January 1, 2009.
New York, NY: AICPA
.
Gullapalli
D.
2004
.
Which companies were tripped up? When accounting overseer hit the books, the names weren’t named—Until now
.
The Wall Street Journal
(
September 10
):
C3
.
Google Scholar
 
Hermanson
D. R.
,
Houston
R. W.
, and
Rice
J. C.
2007
.
PCAOB inspections of smaller CPA firms: Initial evidence from inspection reports
.
Accounting Horizons
21
(
June
):
137
–
152
.
Google Scholar
 
Hilary
G.
, and
Lennox
C.
2005
.
The credibility of self regulation: Evidence from the accounting profession’s peer review program
.
Journal of Accounting and Economics
40
(
1–3
):
211
–
229
.
Google Scholar
 
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)
.
2004
. Audit Documentation.
Auditing Standard No. 3
.
Washington, D.C.:
PCAOB
.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)
.
2007
. Report on the PCAOB’s 2004, 2005, and 2006 Inspections of Domestic Triennially Inspected Firms.
Available at:
http://www.pcaob.org/Inspections/Other/2007/10-22_4010_Report.pdf
.
Riley
R. R.
,
Jenkins
J. G.
,
Roush
P. Y.
, and
Thibodeau
J. C.
2008
.
Audit quality in the post-Sarbanes audit environment: What your auditing students must know about the PCAOB inspection process
.
Current Issues in Auditing
2
(
2
):
A17
–
A25
.
Google Scholar
Crossref
Search ADS
 
Taub
S.
2005
.
PCAOB finds hefty KPMG audit errors
. CFO (
September 30
).
Available at:
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/4479843/c_4480310?f=TodayInFinance_Inside
.
Google Scholar
 
Weil
J.
2005
a
.
Board is critical of Deloitte audits
.
The Wall Street Journal
(
October 7
):
C3
.
Google Scholar
 
Weil
J.
2005
b
.
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst draw criticism
.
The Wall Street Journal
(
November 18
):
C3
.
Google Scholar
 
This content is only available via PDF.
American Accounting Association
2009