發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-06-18 05:51

  本文選題：資產(chǎn)評估 + 評估收費(fèi)　； 參考：《浙江財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：資產(chǎn)評估收費(fèi)是決定資產(chǎn)評估機(jī)構(gòu)成本與收益的關(guān)鍵因素,過低的收費(fèi)也是導(dǎo)致業(yè)內(nèi)惡性競爭的根源所在。市場經(jīng)濟(jì)下,一方面,優(yōu)勝劣汰的競爭法則使客戶得到評估機(jī)構(gòu)優(yōu)質(zhì)的服務(wù);另一方面,激烈的競爭又迫使資產(chǎn)評估機(jī)構(gòu)以犧牲評估質(zhì)量為代價(jià)來壓低收費(fèi),損害行業(yè)形象。由此可見,評估收費(fèi)作為評估執(zhí)業(yè)的首要環(huán)節(jié),無論對于評估質(zhì)量的好壞,還是對整個(gè)評估行業(yè)的發(fā)展都至關(guān)重要。評估機(jī)構(gòu)作為自負(fù)盈虧的法人實(shí)體,掌握著評估收費(fèi)的自主定價(jià)權(quán),但業(yè)內(nèi)激烈的價(jià)格戰(zhàn)、頻發(fā)的低價(jià)攬客現(xiàn)象、評估收費(fèi)法律的缺失以及監(jiān)管的不完善導(dǎo)致評估市場中收費(fèi)定價(jià)的混亂局面。那么,我們是否可以通過深入了解評估人員的定價(jià)過程來改變現(xiàn)狀呢?本文的研究無論對于拓展評估收費(fèi)的理論研究范圍,還是對監(jiān)管、完善資產(chǎn)評估市場都大有裨益。本文將心理學(xué)理論融入資產(chǎn)評估領(lǐng)域,以定價(jià)人員決策行為為主線,首先通過問卷形式、利用層次分析法篩選出影響收費(fèi)定價(jià)的關(guān)鍵因素,再利用這些因素進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì),深入探究在這些因素的影響下,定價(jià)人員在整個(gè)收費(fèi)定價(jià)過程中是否產(chǎn)生錨定效應(yīng),以及如何利用錨定進(jìn)行收費(fèi)定價(jià)的。最后通過對實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)論的分析提出相關(guān)建議來規(guī)范評估收費(fèi)過程,從根本上解決評估市場混亂的現(xiàn)狀。值得說明的是,本文實(shí)驗(yàn)部分采用2×2×2三因素二水平實(shí)驗(yàn),以層次分析法篩選出的“評估收費(fèi)政府指導(dǎo)價(jià)格”、“客戶風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”以及“評估機(jī)構(gòu)綜合能力”為自變量,在嚴(yán)格控制無關(guān)變量的條件下,通過一系列實(shí)驗(yàn)來探究收費(fèi)定價(jià)人員是否會(huì)參照相關(guān)定價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)選定一個(gè)初始“錨”值,并以此為基礎(chǔ)利用獲取的新信息對初始“錨”值進(jìn)行上下調(diào)整,且進(jìn)一步驗(yàn)證定價(jià)人員在定價(jià)決策行為過程中是否存在有限理性。經(jīng)過對實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)結(jié)果的綜合分析,得出以下結(jié)論:第一,評估收費(fèi)的最終定價(jià)會(huì)受客戶、評估機(jī)構(gòu)、承接項(xiàng)目、宏觀因素等多方面因素的影響;第二,資產(chǎn)評估中的收費(fèi)定價(jià)過程是定價(jià)人員處在不確定情景下的決策過程,在此過程中會(huì)產(chǎn)生錨定效應(yīng);第三,定價(jià)人員在獲取一定的新信息后,會(huì)根據(jù)所在評估機(jī)構(gòu)自身能力和客戶的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)情況,對初始評估收費(fèi)進(jìn)行一定幅度的上調(diào)或下調(diào);第四,在定價(jià)過程中,定價(jià)人員會(huì)綜合考慮各因素對收費(fèi)產(chǎn)生的影響,各因素間會(huì)產(chǎn)生一定的交互作用,即評估收費(fèi)的最終定價(jià)是各因素綜合作用的結(jié)果;第五,評估收費(fèi)定價(jià)的過程是定價(jià)人員基于有限理性做出的定價(jià)決策。據(jù)此,本文認(rèn)為可以分別從政府和評估機(jī)構(gòu)自身視角來規(guī)范評估收費(fèi)的定價(jià)過程,促進(jìn)行業(yè)良性發(fā)展。具體措施包括規(guī)范各地區(qū)政府指導(dǎo)價(jià)格、加強(qiáng)對收費(fèi)的監(jiān)管力度、建立評估收費(fèi)披露政策、加強(qiáng)評估機(jī)構(gòu)自身建設(shè)、定價(jià)人員對客戶風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的充分關(guān)注以及對影響收費(fèi)各因素的綜合權(quán)衡等。
[Abstract]:Asset appraisal fee is the key factor to determine the cost and income of asset appraisal institution, and too low fee is the root of vicious competition in the industry. Under the market economy, on the one hand, the competition rule of survival of the fittest makes the customer get the high quality service of the evaluation institution; on the other hand, the fierce competition forces the asset appraisal organization to lower the charge at the expense of the evaluation quality and damage the image of the industry. It can be seen that the evaluation of fees as the first step of evaluation practice, whether for the quality of evaluation, or for the development of the whole evaluation industry is very important. As a legal entity that is responsible for its own profits and losses, the evaluation organization has the autonomous pricing power to assess fees, but the fierce price war in the industry and the frequent phenomenon of low price solicitation, The lack of the law and the imperfect regulation lead to the confusion of pricing in the evaluation market. So can we change the situation by understanding the pricing process of the evaluators in depth? The research in this paper is of great benefit to expand the scope of theoretical research on assessment fees, to supervise and perfect the market of asset assessment. In this paper, the psychological theory is integrated into the field of asset evaluation, and the decision behavior of the pricing personnel is taken as the main line. Firstly, through the form of questionnaire, the key factors affecting the pricing of fees are selected by using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Using these factors to carry out further experimental design, this paper deeply explores whether pricing personnel have anchoring effect in the whole process of pricing fees under the influence of these factors, and how to use anchoring to carry out pricing of fees. Finally, through the analysis of the experimental results, some suggestions are put forward to standardize the process of pricing evaluation, and to fundamentally solve the current situation of market chaos. It is worth explaining that the experiment part of this paper adopts 2 脳 2 脳 2 three factors and two levels of experiment, and takes the "government guiding price", "customer risk" and "comprehensive ability of evaluation institution" as independent variables, which are selected by AHP. Under the condition of strict control of independent variables, a series of experiments were conducted to find out whether the pricing personnel would choose an initial anchor value according to the relevant pricing criteria. On this basis, the initial "anchor" value is adjusted up and down with the new information obtained, and it is further verified whether there is limited rationality in the pricing decision-making process. Based on the comprehensive analysis of the experimental data, the following conclusions are drawn: first, the final pricing of the assessment fees will be affected by various factors, such as customers, evaluation institutions, undertaking projects, macro factors, etc. The pricing process in asset evaluation is a decision-making process in which the pricing personnel are in an uncertain situation, in which anchoring effect will occur. Third, after obtaining certain new information, the pricing personnel will have a certain amount of new information. According to the capacity of the evaluation organization and the risk situation of the customer, the initial assessment fee will be increased or lowered to a certain extent. Fourth, in the pricing process, the pricing personnel will consider the impact of various factors on the fees. There will be a certain interaction among the factors, that is, the final pricing of the evaluation fee is the result of the comprehensive effect of each factor; fifthly, the process of the pricing evaluation is the pricing decision made by the pricing personnel based on the limited rationality. Therefore, this paper suggests that the pricing process of pricing can be standardized from the perspective of the government and the evaluation agency to promote the benign development of the industry. Specific measures include standardizing prices directed by regional governments, strengthening the supervision of fees, establishing a policy on disclosure of assessment fees, and strengthening the construction of evaluation institutions themselves. Pricing personnel to the customer risk full attention and the impact of the various factors such as fees and so on.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：浙江財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：F233

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張志紅;趙暉;;估值判斷中的錨定效應(yīng)研究[J];中國資產(chǎn)評估;2016年07期

2 吳宗奎;;資產(chǎn)評估機(jī)構(gòu)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)管理政策選擇探究[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊;2014年20期

3 朱蓓;;期望審計(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)水平評估中的錨定效應(yīng)研究[J];西部金融;2013年02期

4 彭桃英;蔣柏娟;;審計(jì)定價(jià)中的錨定效應(yīng)研究[J];保險(xiǎn)職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

5 王曉莊;白學(xué)軍;;判斷與決策中的錨定效應(yīng)[J];心理科學(xué)進(jìn)展;2009年01期

6 楊明增;張繼勛;;審計(jì)判斷中的錨定效應(yīng)研究[J];審計(jì)研究;2007年04期

7 劉登清;;規(guī)范資產(chǎn)評估收費(fèi) 促進(jìn)行業(yè)健康發(fā)展[J];中國資產(chǎn)評估;2007年02期

8 邢紅;王平澤;;由“低價(jià)競爭”現(xiàn)象談我國資產(chǎn)評估機(jī)構(gòu)收費(fèi)模式[J];事業(yè)財(cái)會(huì);2006年01期

9 夏孟余;;上市公司審計(jì)收費(fèi)影響因素的實(shí)證研究[J];財(cái)會(huì)通訊(學(xué)術(shù)版);2005年11期

10 閆麗萍,趙邦宏;資產(chǎn)評估結(jié)果失實(shí)的行為經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)分析[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)論壇;2005年09期

，

本文編號：2034413