What is specific materiality?
ISA 320.10 requires auditors to determine whether there are particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures for which misstatements of lesser amounts than overall materiality could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users. When they exist, the auditor sets a separate, lower materiality for those areas — this is specific materiality.
Common examples include related party transactions, key management personnel compensation, regulatory-sensitive balances (such as capital adequacy ratios for banks), and segment-level disclosures that investors monitor independently of the consolidated result.
The judgement is about users, not risk. The question is not "is this area risky?" but "would users change their decisions based on a misstatement smaller than overall materiality?" A high-risk area that users evaluate at the overall materiality level does not need specific materiality — it needs more testing at the existing threshold.
Once set, specific materiality triggers its own cascade. The auditor determines a specific performance materiality (typically 50–75% of specific materiality) and a specific clearly trivial threshold (typically 3–5% of specific materiality). Both cascades run in parallel throughout the audit and feed separately into the ISA 450.11 evaluation at completion.
Key Points
- Driven by user sensitivity, not audit risk. The trigger is whether users would change their decisions based on misstatements below overall materiality — not whether the area is inherently risky or complex.
- Creates a parallel materiality cascade. Specific materiality requires its own performance materiality and clearly trivial threshold, running alongside the overall cascade throughout the audit.
- Common triggers are predictable. Related party transactions, key management compensation, regulatory-sensitive balances, and segment disclosures are the most frequent areas where specific materiality applies.
- ISA 320.A10 provides guidance but no formula. The standard acknowledges the need for judgement and does not prescribe a fixed percentage or benchmark for setting specific materiality.
Why it matters in practice
The most common error is setting specific materiality for the wrong reason. Auditors frequently confuse risk with user sensitivity. An area can be high-risk without needing specific materiality, and a low-risk area can still require it if users are particularly sensitive to the amounts involved. Director compensation disclosures, for example, may carry low inherent risk but very high user sensitivity.
The second pitfall is forgetting to cascade. Setting a specific materiality number without also determining specific performance materiality and a specific clearly trivial threshold leaves a gap in the methodology. Testing designed using overall performance materiality will not achieve the precision needed for the lower specific materiality threshold.
In practice, managing two parallel materiality frameworks adds complexity to both planning and completion. The summary of audit differences must track misstatements against both cascades. A misstatement that falls below the overall clearly trivial threshold may still exceed the specific clearly trivial threshold for related party transactions, requiring accumulation and evaluation in that context.
Key standard references
- ISA 320.10: Determining specific materiality for particular classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures.
- ISA 320.A10: Application guidance on factors that may indicate the existence of classes of transactions, account balances, or disclosures requiring specific materiality.
- ISA 320.11: Determining performance materiality to reduce to an appropriately low level the probability that the aggregate of uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceeds materiality.
- ISA 320.14: Documentation requirements for materiality, including specific materiality and revisions during the audit.
- ISA 450.A2: Guidance on evaluating accumulated misstatements, including those measured against specific materiality.
Related terms
Related tools
Related reading
Frequently asked questions
When should you set specific materiality?
When a particular user group would change their decisions based on misstatements smaller than overall materiality. Common triggers include related party transactions, director or key management compensation disclosures, regulatory-sensitive balances, and segment-level disclosures that investors monitor independently. The trigger is user sensitivity, not audit risk.
What happens after you set specific materiality?
The entire materiality cascade runs separately for the affected area. You need a specific performance materiality (typically 50-75% of specific materiality) and a specific clearly trivial threshold (typically 3-5% of specific materiality). Testing of the affected balance or disclosure uses these lower thresholds. Both cascades feed into the ISA 450.11 evaluation separately at completion.
Is specific materiality the same as setting a lower materiality for high-risk areas?
No. Specific materiality is driven by user sensitivity, not by audit risk. A high-risk area does not automatically need specific materiality. If users would not change their decisions based on misstatements below overall materiality, the correct response to high risk is more testing at the existing materiality threshold, not a lower materiality.