本文選題：規(guī)模 + 審計質(zhì)量　； 參考：《東北財經(jīng)大學》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量研究一直是被關注的熱點話題,而規(guī)模作為審計質(zhì)量的重要影響因素倍受關注。國外的眾多研究表明,規(guī)模對審計質(zhì)量具有促進作用。在我國,關于會計師事務所規(guī)模與審計質(zhì)量的關系爭議較大,主要是基于我國特殊的國情與會計師事務所、審計市場的特點而提出的,因此也提供了大量的實證支持。同時,面對全球化和國際化引發(fā)的審計市場的激烈競爭,我國會計師事務所需要重新審視規(guī)模與審計質(zhì)量的關系,尤其當面臨“做大做強”、“做精做�！睉�(zhàn)略的落實時需要深入研究我國會計師事務所的發(fā)展途徑和各自的特色優(yōu)勢�，F(xiàn)行的研究弱化了審計質(zhì)量是過程質(zhì)量和結(jié)果質(zhì)量統(tǒng)一的內(nèi)涵,對審計質(zhì)量內(nèi)涵與要素體系存在認識和檢驗上的不足；規(guī)模對審計質(zhì)量的影響除了相對橫向靜態(tài)化的對比還應關注其縱向動態(tài)推動的作用,以往研究很少涉及規(guī)模變化時個體所審計質(zhì)量行為選擇傾向領域；同時,我國的特殊市場環(huán)境下的審計師技術優(yōu)勢、人才積累等因素對審計質(zhì)量的差別化以及協(xié)調(diào)化發(fā)展缺乏進一步深化研究。 本文從規(guī)模角度對審計質(zhì)量過程和結(jié)果進行統(tǒng)一,構(gòu)建審計質(zhì)量影響因素體系,在當前制度背景和理論基礎之上,實證檢驗了規(guī)模不同的會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量的差異和途徑以及規(guī)模變更中同一會計師事務所的審計質(zhì)量措施取向。 全文共分為6章。第1章是導論。本章主要提出選題的理論價值與現(xiàn)實意義,列示研究內(nèi)容、研究結(jié)構(gòu)以及研究方法。第2章是研究文獻回顧。本章回顧了審計質(zhì)量與要素、審計質(zhì)量衡量以及規(guī)模與審計質(zhì)量的一般研究和具體研究的相關文獻,明確了規(guī)模與盈余管理程度、規(guī)模與行業(yè)專長、規(guī)模與審計收費、規(guī)模與行業(yè)監(jiān)管的關系,認為規(guī)模與審計質(zhì)量之間是辯證統(tǒng)一、緊密結(jié)合的關系。第3章是規(guī)模對審計質(zhì)量影響的理論基礎與制度背景。本章認為審計質(zhì)量是過程和結(jié)果的統(tǒng)一,是形式要素與實質(zhì)要素的統(tǒng)一,審計質(zhì)量主要體現(xiàn)在審計固有特征、要求和滿意程度三個方面,構(gòu)建了審計過程與結(jié)果的審計質(zhì)量要素體系；運用經(jīng)濟學理論解釋了規(guī)模對審計質(zhì)量的影響原理,通過規(guī)模經(jīng)濟理論提出投入與產(chǎn)出效益、技術進步與人才積累是規(guī)模推動應有的兩個方面,同時,審計質(zhì)量的形成需要聲譽理論的信號甄別和“深口袋”理論的強制性法律威懾。此外,“有限理性理論”下的審計師行為選擇為審計質(zhì)量管理漏洞和監(jiān)管模式的改革提供了依據(jù)。第4章是不同規(guī)模會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量差異實證檢驗。本章運用面板數(shù)據(jù)Logistic回歸模型和線性回歸模型檢驗了不同規(guī)模的會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量及其主要影響因素的差異。第5章是會計師事務所規(guī)模變化前后審計質(zhì)量實證檢驗。本章通過會計師事務所規(guī)模變化后的審計質(zhì)量調(diào)整傾向、客戶增減選擇、審計質(zhì)量控制取向三個方面,運用面板數(shù)據(jù)的Logistic模型和線性模型檢驗了審計質(zhì)量的變化。第6章是研究結(jié)論與政策建議。本章主要概括了研究的基本結(jié)論并指出了研究的主要創(chuàng)新點和未來研究建議,提出政策建議和改革措施。 通過研究,本文得出如下主要結(jié)論： 1.我國會計師事務所規(guī)模與審計質(zhì)量存在相關關系并且影響顯著,但規(guī)模對審計意見類型和盈余管理程度的影響并不一致。盈余管理程度總體上與會計師事務所規(guī)模呈現(xiàn)反向顯著相關性,說明規(guī)模越大,會計師事務所的盈余控制程度會有顯著提高；但規(guī)模對審計意見類型的影響當存在審計收費時不具有顯著性；當剔除審計收費影響時,規(guī)模對審計意見類型則具有顯著的相關性,并且大所更傾向于標準意見類型的審計意見。在排除某些原因后,本文認為審計師意見類型選擇的“意見購買”現(xiàn)象依然存在。 2.不同的會計師事務所在規(guī)模對審計質(zhì)量的影響方面存在差異且各有利弊。如教育程度和經(jīng)驗水平對本土“非十大”的意見類型具有更強的控制性,而“十大”和“四大”則體現(xiàn)出與預期不一致的現(xiàn)象。不論小所還是大所的審計質(zhì)量仍需要加強管理,規(guī)模大的會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量未必高。 3.規(guī)模形成的人才積累優(yōu)勢與技術優(yōu)勢在我國會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量形成中普遍體現(xiàn)不足。“大而不強”、“大而不專”的現(xiàn)象在我國依然存在；并不是規(guī)模越大,其行業(yè)專長和人才優(yōu)勢更強。因此,需要理順激勵與引導機制；改革人才引入機制;改革監(jiān)督管理手段以及評價機制。 4.審計師的低水平有限理性行為和有差異的行業(yè)監(jiān)管與處罰在受到不同利益干擾時會抵消規(guī)模帶來的質(zhì)量成長。需要提高行業(yè)監(jiān)管與處罰的公平性和威懾性、加強對地方利益以及分所質(zhì)量檢查和管理、增強聲譽機制與品牌機制的自身約束力、增強會計師事務所和審計師有限理性的引導、激勵與評價。 5.規(guī)模差異引發(fā)的會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量的差異趨勢明顯,但我國市場機制并未體現(xiàn)差異性,以現(xiàn)有規(guī)模進行“做精做�！睓C制需要進一步完善。 6.同一會計師事務所的規(guī)模變化對審計質(zhì)量的控制具有一定的調(diào)整傾向,但仍然存在一定風險。一是對審計意見類型的選擇調(diào)整不顯著,但較為一致地傾向規(guī)模變更后的高審計收費并采取標準意見類型的報告；二是盈余控制的調(diào)整傾向較顯著,但對客戶的財務風險的控制程度并不相同,仍然存在重大的潛在客戶風險問題。此外,規(guī)模變更中的主導所并未一致地傾向非標準意見類型的審計報告；規(guī)模變更后主導所對盈余管理的控制跡象相對于非主導所而言并沒有更強的傾向性。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：東北財經(jīng)大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：F239.4;F233;F224

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前4條

1 黃龍;我國國際四大與本土八大會計師事務所審計質(zhì)量比較實證研究[D];財政部財政科學研究所;2013年

2 陳倩倩;控股股東占款、事務所選擇與審計合謀問題研究[D];南京財經(jīng)大學;2013年

3 袁宏穩(wěn);基于會計師事務所視角下的審計意見研究[D];天津商業(yè)大學;2013年

4 趙云;證券資格會計師事務所行業(yè)專門化與審計質(zhì)量相關性研究[D];杭州電子科技大學;2014年

，

本文編號：2055480