finding fraud deception
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Finding Fraud & Deception

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 49

Finding Fraud & Deception - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Wichita State University Accounting & Audit Conference May, 18, 2011. Finding Fraud & Deception. Presented by: Don Wengler, CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA. Lunch, Murthy, Engle 2009. Useful Research. “Useful research reflects results that are belief changing”.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Finding Fraud & Deception' - donald

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
finding fraud deception
Wichita State University Accounting & Audit Conference

May, 18, 2011

Finding Fraud & Deception

Presented by:

Don Wengler, CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA

useful research
Useful Research

“Useful research reflects results that are belief changing”

Uday Murthy lecture, March 4, 2011

fraud brainstorming
Fraud Brainstorming

SAS 99: Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement (AICPA 2002)

Usually face-to-face audit team discussion

Part of audit planning process

Outcome affects audit procedures performed

our experiment
Our Experiment

Team Nominal

Team Face-to-Face

Team Content Facilitation

fraud brainstorming1
Fraud Brainstorming




Not Relevant

To Client

Relevant to


face to face brainstorming
Face-to-Face Brainstorming

- Coordinate Schedules

- Wait

- Attend

- Remember

- Avoid Cog. Inertia

computer mediated advantages
Computer-Mediated Advantages

Members can input ideas simultaneously

However, fraud brainstorming is more complex than simple idea generation

Relevant fraud risks must be identified through the interaction regarding:

Specialized auditing knowledge

Industry-specific factors

Client-specific factors

florida study
Florida Study

Objectives--Relative effectiveness of:

Electronic v. face-to-face

Interactive v. Nominal

With v. without content facilitation

Whether participating in a fraud brainstorming session heightened auditor awareness of fraud risks when present

florida study1
Florida Study

188 SAS 99 auditing students, teams of 4

Studied a company case study

5 question test assured case facts known

108 electronically/80 face-to-face

Electronic interactive; electronic nominal; face-to-face, with/without facilitation.

florida study2
Florida Study

Reviewed case again

Made initial fraud risk assessment alone

20 minutes of fraud brainstorming (1221)

5 prompts: Opportunity, pressure, rationalization, revenue recognition, management override of internal controls

Face-to-face 2nd interaction

florida study measurement
Florida Study: Measurement

The number of relevant fraud factors identified from the case

Change from the pre-brainstorming to post-brainstorming fraud risk assessment from 1% to 100% of estimated probability of material misstatement

florida study conclusions
Florida Study: Conclusions

Electronic fraud brainstorming is significantly more effective than face-to-face fraud brainstorming

Interactive brainstorming is no more effective than “nominal” brainstorming

Brainstorming effectiveness is significantly higher with content facilitation, than without

stanford study
Stanford Study

Objective: Construct and test a linguistic model for detecting deceptive CEO and CFO communications in quarterly earnings call communications.

stanford study1
Stanford Study

Reviewed prior psychological and linguistic research related to deception

Identified words and uses of language that are believed to signal deception

Built a statistical model designed to measure/predict deception in CEO/CFO Q&A communications, based on the words/usage

stanford study2
Stanford Study

4. Defined deceptive CEO and CFO communications in quarterly earnings call Q&A sessions

Analyzed 16,577 full text Q&A sessions to test the success of the statistical model for predicting deception CEO and CFO communications

Generalized conclusions

prior psychological linguistics
Prior Psychological/Linguistics

Emotions perspective

Cognitive effort perspective

Control perspective

Lack of embracement perspective

reference language
Reference Language

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

reference language1
Reference Language

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

positive negative words
Positive/Negative Words

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

positive negative words1
Positive/Negative Words

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

cognitive process
Cognitive Process

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

other cues
Other Cues

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

self constructed word categories
Self-constructed word categories

Reference to general knowledge

Shareholder value

Value creation

Hesitation expressions

Extreme negative emotions

Extreme positive emotions

stanford study how was deception measured
Stanford Study: How Was Deception Measured?


Form 8-K filings reflecting restatements of earnings (significant in size)

Filings reflecting “material weaknesses”

Auditor changes

Late financial statement filings

stanford study how was size of the answer uniformly scaled
Stanford Study: How Was Size of the Answer Uniformly Scaled?

Median CEO answer: 1,811 words

Median CFO answer: 987 words

Typical CFO: (10/1,000) X 1,000 = 10

Talkative CFO: (10/3,000) x 1,000 = 3.3

stan ford study model output
Stan-ford Study: Model Output

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

stanford study model output
Stanford Study: Model Output

Larcker & Zakolyukina 2010

conclusions deceptive executives
Conclusions: Deceptive Executives

More general knowledge references

Fewer non-extreme positive emotions

Fewer references to shareholder value and value creation

conclusions deceptive ceos
Conclusions: Deceptive CEOs

Fewer self-references

More 3rd person plural & impersonal pronouns

More extreme positive emotions

Fewer extreme negative emotions

Fewer certainty & hesitation words

Joseph F. Fisher

Indiana University

James R. Frederickson

Hong Kong University

Sean A. Peffer

University of Kentucky

Budgeting: An Experimental

Investigation of the Effects

of Negotiation

budget setting
Budget Setting

Negotiation Process

Unilateral Process

budget setting consequences
Budget Setting Consequences

Budgetary Slack/Planning

Subordinate Performance/Motivational


Budgets set through a negotiation process where superiors have final authority are lower than budgets set unilaterally by superiors.

Budgets set through a negotiation process where subordinates have final authority are not significantly different from budgets set unilaterally by subordinates.


Budgets set through a negotiating process ending in agreement contain significantly less slack.

A failed negotiation followed by superiors imposing a budget has a significant detrimental effect on subordinate performance.

contact information
Contact Information

Don Wengler


Kansas City, MO 64105



Wichita, Kansas