Setting Audit Materiality: What Options Does a PCAOB-Registered Accounting Firm Have?

12 hours ago

8 min read

Materiality is one of the most consequential professional judgments made during a PCAOB audit.

Set materiality too high, and the audit may fail to identify misstatements that could matter to investors.

Set it unnecessarily low, and the audit team may perform substantially more work without a corresponding improvement in audit quality.

So how does a PCAOB-registered accounting firm determine materiality for an issuer audit?

The answer is more nuanced than simply applying 5% of pretax income.

Under PCAOB AS 2105, Consideration of Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit, the auditor must consider whether misstatements, individually or in combination, could reasonably influence investors.

Importantly, the PCAOB does not establish a universal mathematical formula for calculating materiality. (PCAOB AS 2105)

That means the auditor has options—but those options require professional judgment and documentation.

Start With the Reasonable Investor

PCAOB materiality begins with the investor, not with a percentage.

AS 2105 incorporates the U.S. Supreme Court concept that information is material when there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would view it as significantly altering the total mix of information available.

That distinction matters.

The auditor is not simply asking: "What percentage should we use?"

The better question is: "What magnitude or nature of misstatement could reasonably influence the decisions of investors using these financial statements?"

Only then should the auditor determine an appropriate quantitative benchmark.

Option 1: Pretax Income

For many profitable operating companies, income before taxes is a logical starting point.

Why?

Because investors frequently evaluate companies based on profitability, earnings trends and earnings per share.

A firm might therefore establish a methodology that considers a percentage of normalized pretax income.

A commonly encountered audit methodology might use something around: 5% of normalized pretax income

But that percentage is not a PCAOB rule.

The audit firm must determine whether both the benchmark and percentage are appropriate for the circumstances.

Pretax income may be particularly relevant when:

The company has stable profitability.
Investors focus heavily on earnings.
Pretax income is reasonably predictable.
Current-year results are representative of normal operations.

However, pretax income can become problematic when earnings are volatile.

Imagine a company with:

$500 million in revenue
$400 million in assets
$2 million in pretax income

If the company's historically normal pretax income is $20 million, blindly applying 5% to the current $2 million could produce a materiality level dramatically different from prior periods.

The auditor needs to understand why.

Option 2: Normalized Pretax Income

One alternative is normalized earnings.

Suppose the company normally earns approximately $20 million before taxes but reports only $2 million this year because of an unusual restructuring charge.

The auditor might conclude that current-year pretax income is not the most representative benchmark.

The firm could consider adjusting the benchmark for unusual or nonrecurring items.

But normalization requires judgment.

The auditor should avoid turning normalization into a mechanism for simply increasing materiality.

The workpapers should explain:

What was normalized?
Why was it unusual?
Why is the resulting benchmark more relevant to investors?
Is the adjustment consistent with the firm's methodology?
Is the approach consistent with prior years?

The stronger the judgment, the stronger the documentation should be.

Option 3: Revenue

Revenue can be an appropriate benchmark when earnings are small, volatile or negative.

This may be particularly relevant for:

High-growth companies
Early-stage companies
Companies operating near break-even
Companies experiencing temporary losses
Businesses where investors emphasize revenue growth

Consider a rapidly growing technology company generating $300 million in revenue but reporting a net loss.

Pretax income may provide little useful basis for establishing materiality.

Revenue could provide a more stable and meaningful benchmark.

A firm's methodology might therefore consider a relatively small percentage of revenue.

Again, there is no PCAOB-prescribed percentage.

The auditor must justify the amount selected based upon the circumstances.

Option 4: Total Assets

For some companies, investors may focus more heavily on assets than earnings.

Total assets could therefore be an appropriate benchmark for organizations such as:

Financial institutions
Investment companies
Real estate entities
Asset-intensive businesses
Certain holding companies

Consider a company with $5 billion in assets but relatively small annual earnings.

Using pretax income could result in a materiality level disconnected from how investors evaluate the company.

An asset-based benchmark might be more appropriate.

But the audit team should document why assets are relevant to the users of the financial statements.

Option 5: Equity or Net Assets

Another possible benchmark is shareholders' equity or net assets.

This might be relevant where investors are particularly focused on:

Capital preservation
Net asset value
Regulatory capital
Book value
Financial solvency

Again, the benchmark should reflect the economics of the business and the information important to investors.

Option 6: Multiple Benchmarks

Sometimes one benchmark is not enough.

An audit team might calculate materiality using several potential benchmarks:

Benchmark	Amount	Illustrative %	Indicated Amount
Pretax income	$20 million	5%	$1.0 million
Revenue	$500 million	0.5%	$2.5 million
Total assets	$400 million	0.5%	$2.0 million
Equity	$200 million	1%	$2.0 million

These percentages are illustrative—not PCAOB requirements.

The value of the analysis is not to mechanically select the highest or lowest number.

Instead, it forces the engagement team to ask: Which benchmark best reflects what is important to a reasonable investor in this particular company?

A well-documented comparison can make the auditor's professional judgment considerably more transparent.

Option 7: Separate Materiality for Particular Accounts or Disclosures

Overall financial statement materiality may not always be enough.

AS 2105 specifically requires the auditor to consider whether particular accounts or disclosures could influence investors at amounts below overall financial statement materiality.

If so, the auditor should establish a separate materiality level for those accounts or disclosures. (PCAOB AS 2105.07)

This is particularly important when qualitative factors are involved.

Examples might include:

Related-party transactions
Executive compensation
Regulatory capital
Debt covenant compliance
Segment information
Earnings-per-share information
Transactions involving conflicts of interest
Sensitive disclosures

A $500,000 error might be quantitatively insignificant to a large corporation but very important if it causes the company to meet an earnings target or avoid violating a debt covenant.

Materiality is not purely mathematics.

Materiality Is Not the Same as Tolerable Misstatement

Another important distinction is between financial statement materiality and tolerable misstatement.

AS 2105 requires the auditor to determine tolerable misstatement for purposes of assessing risks and planning and performing procedures at the account or disclosure level.

Tolerable misstatement must be less than overall financial statement materiality.

The objective is to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of undetected and uncorrected misstatements results in materially misstated financial statements. (PCAOB AS 2105.08)

A firm might therefore have:

Overall Materiality → Tolerable Misstatement → Sampling Tolerable Misstatement

These are related concepts, but they are not interchangeable.

For audits involving sampling, the distinction becomes particularly important. PCAOB AS 2315 provides that when a sampled population represents only part of an account or transaction class, tolerable misstatement for that population ordinarily should be less than tolerable misstatement for the overall account or transaction class. (PCAOB AS 2315)

Multi-Location Audits Add Another Layer

Materiality becomes even more complicated when auditing companies with multiple locations or business units.

AS 2105 requires the auditor to determine tolerable misstatement for individual locations or business units at an amount that reduces to an appropriately low level the probability that uncorrected and undetected misstatements could aggregate into a material misstatement of the consolidated financial statements.

The auditor therefore cannot simply give every location the full consolidated materiality amount.

Aggregation risk matters.

Materiality Should Affect the Audit

Materiality is not merely a number documented in the planning workpapers.

It should influence the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures.

PCAOB AS 2301 requires substantive procedures for relevant assertions of significant accounts and disclosures and provides that the necessary extent of substantive procedures depends in part on materiality and assessed risk. (PCAOB AS 2301)

Materiality can therefore affect:

Significant account determination
Audit scope
Sample sizes
Selection of items for testing
Location scoping
Substantive procedures
Control testing considerations
Evaluation of detected misstatements
Audit completion procedures

That is why materiality is such an important audit judgment.

Materiality May Need to Change During the Audit

The materiality determination made during planning is not necessarily permanent.

Circumstances change.

Actual results may differ significantly from the preliminary financial information used during planning.

AS 2105 requires the auditor to reevaluate established materiality levels when changes in circumstances or additional information indicate that a lower materiality amount may be appropriate.

If materiality or tolerable misstatement is reduced, the auditor must evaluate the effect on the risk assessment and audit procedures and modify the nature, timing or extent of procedures when necessary. (PCAOB AS 2105.11-.12)

This can create a major problem when firms wait until the end of the audit to update their materiality calculation.

A lower final materiality level could mean previously completed audit procedures are no longer sufficient.

Watch the Qualitative Factors

One of the biggest mistakes auditors can make is treating materiality as purely quantitative.

A misstatement below overall materiality could still matter because of its nature or circumstances.

Examples might include a misstatement that:

Changes a profit into a loss.
Allows the company to meet analysts' expectations.
Changes an earnings trend.
Affects management compensation.
Causes compliance with a debt covenant.
Conceals an unlawful transaction.
Involves a related party.
Masks a change in earnings.
Affects an important regulatory requirement.

The question remains whether the information could reasonably influence an investor.

What Should Be in the Audit Workpapers?

A PCAOB engagement file should tell the story behind the materiality decision.

A strong materiality workpaper should ordinarily address: Benchmark selected. Why is pretax income, revenue, assets, equity or another benchmark appropriate?

Alternative benchmarks considered. Why were they rejected or given less weight?

Percentage selected. Why is the percentage reasonable given the company's circumstances?

Normalization adjustments. Why were unusual items included or excluded?

Investor perspective. What measures appear important to investors?

Qualitative considerations. Are there particular accounts or disclosures requiring lower materiality?

Tolerable misstatement. How was it established relative to overall materiality?

Prior-year misstatements. AS 2105 specifically requires consideration of the nature, cause and amount of prior-period accumulated misstatements when determining tolerable misstatement.

Changes during the audit. Was materiality reevaluated using final or near-final financial results?

Most importantly, the workpapers should demonstrate professional judgment rather than simply document a mathematical calculation.

A Dangerous Approach: Selecting the Benchmark That Produces the Highest Materiality

Suppose an audit team calculates:

5% of pretax income = $1 million
0.5% of revenue = $2.5 million
0.5% of assets = $2 million

Selecting $2.5 million simply because it produces the largest materiality level is difficult to reconcile with a risk-based audit approach.

The benchmark should be selected because it is appropriate for investors and the company's circumstances—not because it reduces sample sizes or audit hours.

The same concern applies when a firm changes benchmarks from year to year.

Changing from pretax income to revenue might be entirely appropriate.

But the audit documentation should explain why the economics or circumstances changed sufficiently to justify the new benchmark.

Materiality Is Professional Judgment—But It Is Not Unlimited Discretion

PCAOB standards give registered firms flexibility in determining materiality.

That flexibility allows firms to consider:

But flexibility creates accountability.

The engagement team should be able to explain:

Why this benchmark?
Why this percentage?
Why this materiality amount?
Why is it appropriate for this company and its investors?
How did it affect the audit strategy?

Those are the questions that transform materiality from a spreadsheet calculation into a defensible audit judgment.

The Bottom Line

There is no universal PCAOB rule saying that materiality equals 5% of pretax income.

The firm's responsibility is more demanding than that.

The auditor must establish materiality in the context of the particular company, its financial statements, its investors and the risks of material misstatement.

The strongest approach is therefore not: "Our firm's policy says 5%."

It is: "Based on the circumstances of this company and the information important to a reasonable investor, this benchmark and this materiality level are appropriate—and our audit documentation demonstrates why."

That is the type of materiality judgment a PCAOB engagement file should be prepared to defend.