Khairil Faizal KhairiNur Hidayah Laili2024-05-272024-05-2720140031-4773383-12http://ssrn.com/abstract=2448096https://oarep.usim.edu.my/handle/123456789/3621Pensee, Vol. 76, iss. 2, pp: 262-275The application of FRS 136 – Impairment of Assets (Amended by Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2009) was mandatory for all companies listed in Bursa Malaysia from 1 January 2010. The highly prescriptive and technical provisions of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) 136 – Impairment of Assets (FRS 136, 2009) therefore represent a very substantial variation from past practice. This in turn gives rise to questions about how Malaysian companies and their auditors have fared during the process of transition to a complex reporting regime and in consequence to the quality and consistency of reports produced pursuant to that new regime. Hence, this study examines the degree of technical compliance with the disclosure requirements of FRS 136 (Amended by Annual Improvements to IFRSs 2009) by a sample of 20 large Malaysian companies used as a proxy for audit quality. This research employed six analytical structures to distinguish audit quality among the Big 3 in an attempt to question the homogeneity of audit quality assumption. The evidence presented in this study suggests that there is no variation in audit quality among the Big 3 and contributes to the literature by providing at least preliminary evidence for the proposition that audit quality among the largest audit firms is homogenous, as has so often been assumed in previous studies. The findings will be of interest to investors, analysts, regulators and enforcers, not only in Malaysia but also in other jurisdictions undergoing transition to IFRS, in particular those whose reporting regimes portray similar features.enGoodwill,FRS136,Impairment,MalaysiaArticle262275762