基于规模视角的我国会计师事务所审计质量研究

发布时间：2018-06-23 03:07

本文选题：规模 + 审计质量　；参考：《东北财经大学》2011年博士论文

【摘要】：会计师事务所审计质量研究一直是被关注的热点话题,而规模作为审计质量的重要影响因素倍受关注。国外的众多研究表明,规模对审计质量具有促进作用。在我国,关于会计师事务所规模与审计质量的关系争议较大,主要是基于我国特殊的国情与会计师事务所、审计市场的特点而提出的,因此也提供了大量的实证支持。同时,面对全球化和国际化引发的审计市场的激烈竞争,我国会计师事务所需要重新审视规模与审计质量的关系,尤其当面临“做大做强”、“做精做专”战略的落实时需要深入研究我国会计师事务所的发展途径和各自的特色优势。现行的研究弱化了审计质量是过程质量和结果质量统一的内涵,对审计质量内涵与要素体系存在认识和检验上的不足；规模对审计质量的影响除了相对横向静态化的对比还应关注其纵向动态推动的作用,以往研究很少涉及规模变化时个体所审计质量行为选择倾向领域；同时,我国的特殊市场环境下的审计师技术优势、人才积累等因素对审计质量的差别化以及协调化发展缺乏进一步深化研究。本文从规模角度对审计质量过程和结果进行统一,构建审计质量影响因素体系,在当前制度背景和理论基础之上,实证检验了规模不同的会计师事务所审计质量的差异和途径以及规模变更中同一会计师事务所的审计质量措施取向。全文共分为6章。第1章是导论。本章主要提出选题的理论价值与现实意义,列示研究内容、研究结构以及研究方法。第2章是研究文献回顾。本章回顾了审计质量与要素、审计质量衡量以及规模与审计质量的一般研究和具体研究的相关文献,明确了规模与盈余管理程度、规模与行业专长、规模与审计收费、规模与行业监管的关系,认为规模与审计质量之间是辩证统一、紧密结合的关系。第3章是规模对审计质量影响的理论基础与制度背景。本章认为审计质量是过程和结果的统一,是形式要素与实质要素的统一,审计质量主要体现在审计固有特征、要求和满意程度三个方面,构建了审计过程与结果的审计质量要素体系；运用经济学理论解释了规模对审计质量的影响原理,通过规模经济理论提出投入与产出效益、技术进步与人才积累是规模推动应有的两个方面,同时,审计质量的形成需要声誉理论的信号甄别和“深口袋”理论的强制性法律威慑。此外,“有限理性理论”下的审计师行为选择为审计质量管理漏洞和监管模式的改革提供了依据。第4章是不同规模会计师事务所审计质量差异实证检验。本章运用面板数据Logistic回归模型和线性回归模型检验了不同规模的会计师事务所审计质量及其主要影响因素的差异。第5章是会计师事务所规模变化前后审计质量实证检验。本章通过会计师事务所规模变化后的审计质量调整倾向、客户增减选择、审计质量控制取向三个方面,运用面板数据的Logistic模型和线性模型检验了审计质量的变化。第6章是研究结论与政策建议。本章主要概括了研究的基本结论并指出了研究的主要创新点和未来研究建议,提出政策建议和改革措施。通过研究,本文得出如下主要结论： 1.我国会计师事务所规模与审计质量存在相关关系并且影响显著,但规模对审计意见类型和盈余管理程度的影响并不一致。盈余管理程度总体上与会计师事务所规模呈现反向显著相关性,说明规模越大,会计师事务所的盈余控制程度会有显著提高；但规模对审计意见类型的影响当存在审计收费时不具有显著性；当剔除审计收费影响时,规模对审计意见类型则具有显著的相关性,并且大所更倾向于标准意见类型的审计意见。在排除某些原因后,本文认为审计师意见类型选择的“意见购买”现象依然存在。 2.不同的会计师事务所在规模对审计质量的影响方面存在差异且各有利弊。如教育程度和经验水平对本土“非十大”的意见类型具有更强的控制性,而“十大”和“四大”则体现出与预期不一致的现象。不论小所还是大所的审计质量仍需要加强管理,规模大的会计师事务所审计质量未必高。 3.规模形成的人才积累优势与技术优势在我国会计师事务所审计质量形成中普遍体现不足。“大而不强”、“大而不专”的现象在我国依然存在；并不是规模越大,其行业专长和人才优势更强。因此,需要理顺激励与引导机制；改革人才引入机制;改革监督管理手段以及评价机制。 4.审计师的低水平有限理性行为和有差异的行业监管与处罚在受到不同利益干扰时会抵消规模带来的质量成长。需要提高行业监管与处罚的公平性和威慑性、加强对地方利益以及分所质量检查和管理、增强声誉机制与品牌机制的自身约束力、增强会计师事务所和审计师有限理性的引导、激励与评价。 5.规模差异引发的会计师事务所审计质量的差异趋势明显,但我国市场机制并未体现差异性,以现有规模进行“做精做专”机制需要进一步完善。 6.同一会计师事务所的规模变化对审计质量的控制具有一定的调整倾向,但仍然存在一定风险。一是对审计意见类型的选择调整不显著,但较为一致地倾向规模变更后的高审计收费并采取标准意见类型的报告；二是盈余控制的调整倾向较显著,但对客户的财务风险的控制程度并不相同,仍然存在重大的潜在客户风险问题。此外,规模变更中的主导所并未一致地倾向非标准意见类型的审计报告；规模变更后主导所对盈余管理的控制迹象相对于非主导所而言并没有更强的倾向性。
[Abstract]:The research on audit quality of accounting firms has always been a hot topic of concern, and scale has attracted much attention as an important factor in audit quality. Many foreign studies have shown that scale has a promoting effect on audit quality. In China, the relationship between the scale of accounting firms and audit quality is more controversial, mainly based on our country. In the face of the fierce competition in the audit market caused by globalization and internationalization, China's accounting firms need to reexamine the relationship between scale and audit quality, especially when faced with "bigger and stronger", "do essence". The current research weakens the quality of audit is the connotation of the quality of process and the unity of the quality of the results, and the lack of understanding and testing on the quality of audit quality and factor system, and the impact of scale on the quality of audit. Relative lateral static contrast should also pay attention to the role of its longitudinal dynamic promotion. Previous studies rarely involve the field of quality and behavior selection of individuals audited by scale change. At the same time, the auditor technical advantage and talent accumulation in the special market environment of our country are different from the quality of the auditor and the lack of coordinated development. Further deepen the study.
In this paper, the audit quality process and results are unified from the perspective of scale, and the influence factors system of audit quality is constructed. On the basis of current system background and theory, the differences and ways of audit quality of different accounting firms and the orientation of audit quality measures of the same accounting firm in scale change are tested.
The full text is divided into 6 chapters. The first chapter is an introduction. This chapter mainly puts forward the theoretical value and practical significance of the topic, shows the research content, the research structure and the research methods. The second chapter is the literature review. This chapter reviews the audit quality and factors, the audit quality measurement and the general research and specific research literature on the scale and audit quality. The relationship between scale and earnings management, scale and industry expertise, scale and audit fees, scale and industry supervision is a dialectical unity and close relationship between scale and audit quality. The third chapter is the theoretical and institutional background of scale influence on audit quality. This chapter holds that audit quality is the process and result. First, it is the unity of the form elements and the essential elements. The audit quality is mainly embodied in the three aspects of the inherent characteristics of the audit, the requirement and the degree of satisfaction, and the audit quality factor system of the audit process and the results is constructed. The impact of the scale on the audit quality is explained by the economic theory, and the input and output effect is put forward through the theory of scale economy. At the same time, the formation of audit quality needs the signal discrimination of reputation theory and the coercive legal deterrence of "deep pocket" theory. In addition, the choice of auditor behavior under the "limited rational theory" provides the basis for the reform of audit quality management loopholes and the reform of supervision mode. The fourth chapter is the empirical test of the audit quality difference of different scale accounting firms. This chapter uses the panel data Logistic regression model and linear regression model to test the difference between the audit quality and the main influencing factors of different scale accounting firms. The fifth chapter is the empirical test of audit quality before and after the change of the scale of the accountants' affairs. In this chapter, the audit quality adjustment tendency, the choice of customer increase and reduction, the audit quality control orientation in three aspects, the audit quality changes are tested by the Logistic model and the linear model of panel data. The sixth chapter is the research conclusion and policy recommendations. This chapter mainly summarizes the basic conclusions of the study and points out the basic conclusions and points out The main innovation points and suggestions for future research are put forward, and policy recommendations and reform measures are put forward.
Through the study, this paper draws the following main conclusions:
1. the scale of accounting firms in China has a significant correlation with the audit quality, but the impact on the audit opinion type and the earnings management degree is not consistent. The degree of earnings management has a significant reverse correlation with the scale of the accounting firm, indicating the larger the scale, the earnings control of the accounting firms. There will be significant improvement, but the impact of scale on audit opinions is not significant when there is audit fees; when eliminating the impact of audit fees, the scale has a significant correlation with the audit opinion type and is more inclined to the audit opinion of the standard opinion type. The "opinion purchase" phenomenon of type selection still exists.
2. different accounting firms have differences on the impact of scale on audit quality. For example, educational level and experience level have stronger control over local "non ten" opinion types, while the "ten" and "four" are not consistent with expectations. It is still necessary to strengthen management. The audit quality of large scale accounting firms is not necessarily high.
The talent accumulation advantage and technical advantage formed by the 3. scale are generally insufficient in the formation of audit quality in China's accounting firms. The phenomenon of "big and not strong" and "big and not special" still exists in our country; it is not the larger the scale, and its industry expertise and talent advantage are stronger. Therefore, the incentive and guidance mechanism should be straightened out; Only by introducing the mechanism, reforming supervision and management means and evaluating mechanism.
4. auditors' low level limited rational behavior and different industry supervision and punishment will offset the quality growth brought by different interests. It is necessary to improve the fairness and deterrence of industry supervision and punishment, strengthen the local interests and quality inspection and management, enhance the reputation mechanism and brand mechanism itself. Binding, enhancing accounting firms and auditors' limited rational guidance, encouragement and evaluation.
The difference between the audit quality of the accounting firms caused by the 5. scale difference is obvious, but the market mechanism of our country does not reflect the difference, and the mechanism of "doing fine and specialized" on the existing scale needs to be further improved.
6. the scale change of the same accounting firm has a certain tendency to adjust the audit quality control, but there is still a certain risk. First, the selection and adjustment of the audit opinion type is not significant, but it tends to be more consistent with the high audit fees after the scale change and the report of the standard opinion type; the two is the adjustment of earnings control. The control degree of financial risk is not the same, but there is still a major potential customer risk problem. In addition, the leading place in the scale change does not agree with the non standard opinion type audit report unanimously; the control sign of the surplus management after scale change is not concerned with the non dominant place. Stronger tendentiousness.
【学位授予单位】：东北财经大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：F239.4;F233;F224

【引证文献】