本文選題：規(guī)模 + 審計(jì)質(zhì)量��； 參考：《東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)》2011年博士論文

【摘要】：會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量研究一直是被關(guān)注的熱點(diǎn)話題,而規(guī)模作為審計(jì)質(zhì)量的重要影響因素倍受關(guān)注。國(guó)外的眾多研究表明,規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量具有促進(jìn)作用。在我國(guó),關(guān)于會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所規(guī)模與審計(jì)質(zhì)量的關(guān)系爭(zhēng)議較大,主要是基于我國(guó)特殊的國(guó)情與會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所、審計(jì)市場(chǎng)的特點(diǎn)而提出的,因此也提供了大量的實(shí)證支持。同時(shí),面對(duì)全球化和國(guó)際化引發(fā)的審計(jì)市場(chǎng)的激烈競(jìng)爭(zhēng),我國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所需要重新審視規(guī)模與審計(jì)質(zhì)量的關(guān)系,尤其當(dāng)面臨“做大做強(qiáng)”、“做精做專(zhuān)”戰(zhàn)略的落實(shí)時(shí)需要深入研究我國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所的發(fā)展途徑和各自的特色優(yōu)勢(shì)�，F(xiàn)行的研究弱化了審計(jì)質(zhì)量是過(guò)程質(zhì)量和結(jié)果質(zhì)量統(tǒng)一的內(nèi)涵,對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量?jī)?nèi)涵與要素體系存在認(rèn)識(shí)和檢驗(yàn)上的不足；規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量的影響除了相對(duì)橫向靜態(tài)化的對(duì)比還應(yīng)關(guān)注其縱向動(dòng)態(tài)推動(dòng)的作用,以往研究很少涉及規(guī)模變化時(shí)個(gè)體所審計(jì)質(zhì)量行為選擇傾向領(lǐng)域；同時(shí),我國(guó)的特殊市場(chǎng)環(huán)境下的審計(jì)師技術(shù)優(yōu)勢(shì)、人才積累等因素對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量的差別化以及協(xié)調(diào)化發(fā)展缺乏進(jìn)一步深化研究。 本文從規(guī)模角度對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量過(guò)程和結(jié)果進(jìn)行統(tǒng)一,構(gòu)建審計(jì)質(zhì)量影響因素體系,在當(dāng)前制度背景和理論基礎(chǔ)之上,實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)了規(guī)模不同的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量的差異和途徑以及規(guī)模變更中同一會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所的審計(jì)質(zhì)量措施取向。 全文共分為6章。第1章是導(dǎo)論。本章主要提出選題的理論價(jià)值與現(xiàn)實(shí)意義,列示研究?jī)?nèi)容、研究結(jié)構(gòu)以及研究方法。第2章是研究文獻(xiàn)回顧。本章回顧了審計(jì)質(zhì)量與要素、審計(jì)質(zhì)量衡量以及規(guī)模與審計(jì)質(zhì)量的一般研究和具體研究的相關(guān)文獻(xiàn),明確了規(guī)模與盈余管理程度、規(guī)模與行業(yè)專(zhuān)長(zhǎng)、規(guī)模與審計(jì)收費(fèi)、規(guī)模與行業(yè)監(jiān)管的關(guān)系,認(rèn)為規(guī)模與審計(jì)質(zhì)量之間是辯證統(tǒng)一、緊密結(jié)合的關(guān)系。第3章是規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量影響的理論基礎(chǔ)與制度背景。本章認(rèn)為審計(jì)質(zhì)量是過(guò)程和結(jié)果的統(tǒng)一,是形式要素與實(shí)質(zhì)要素的統(tǒng)一,審計(jì)質(zhì)量主要體現(xiàn)在審計(jì)固有特征、要求和滿意程度三個(gè)方面,構(gòu)建了審計(jì)過(guò)程與結(jié)果的審計(jì)質(zhì)量要素體系；運(yùn)用經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)理論解釋了規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量的影響原理,通過(guò)規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)理論提出投入與產(chǎn)出效益、技術(shù)進(jìn)步與人才積累是規(guī)模推動(dòng)應(yīng)有的兩個(gè)方面,同時(shí),審計(jì)質(zhì)量的形成需要聲譽(yù)理論的信號(hào)甄別和“深口袋”理論的強(qiáng)制性法律威懾。此外,“有限理性理論”下的審計(jì)師行為選擇為審計(jì)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(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量差異實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)。本章運(yùn)用面板數(shù)據(jù)Logistic回歸模型和線性回歸模型檢驗(yàn)了不同規(guī)模的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量及其主要影響因素的差異。第5章是會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所規(guī)模變化前后審計(jì)質(zhì)量實(shí)證檢驗(yàn)。本章通過(guò)會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所規(guī)模變化后的審計(jì)質(zhì)量調(diào)整傾向、客戶增減選擇、審計(jì)質(zhì)量控制取向三個(gè)方面,運(yùn)用面板數(shù)據(jù)的Logistic模型和線性模型檢驗(yàn)了審計(jì)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?jiǎng)?chuàng)新點(diǎn)和未來(lái)研究建議,提出政策建議和改革措施。 通過(guò)研究,本文得出如下主要結(jié)論： 1.我國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所規(guī)模與審計(jì)質(zhì)量存在相關(guān)關(guān)系并且影響顯著,但規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)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(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所規(guī)模呈現(xiàn)反向顯著相關(guān)性,說(shuō)明規(guī)模越大,會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所的盈余控制程度會(huì)有顯著提高；但規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型的影響當(dāng)存在審計(jì)收費(fèi)時(shí)不具有顯著性；當(dāng)剔除審計(jì)收費(fèi)影響時(shí),規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型則具有顯著的相關(guān)性,并且大所更傾向于標(biāo)準(zhǔn)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型的審計(jì)意見(jiàn)。在排除某些原因后,本文認(rèn)為審計(jì)師意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型選擇的“意見(jiàn)購(gòu)買(mǎi)”現(xiàn)象依然存在。 2.不同的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所在規(guī)模對(duì)審計(jì)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(yàn)水平對(duì)本土“非十大”的意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型具有更強(qiáng)的控制性,而“十大”和“四大”則體現(xiàn)出與預(yù)期不一致的現(xiàn)象。不論小所還是大所的審計(jì)質(zhì)量仍需要加強(qiáng)管理,規(guī)模大的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量未必高。 3.規(guī)模形成的人才積累優(yōu)勢(shì)與技術(shù)優(yōu)勢(shì)在我國(guó)會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量形成中普遍體現(xiàn)不足�！按蠖粡�(qiáng)”、“大而不專(zhuān)”的現(xiàn)象在我國(guó)依然存在；并不是規(guī)模越大,其行業(yè)專(zhuān)長(zhǎng)和人才優(yōu)勢(shì)更強(qiáng)。因此,需要理順激勵(lì)與引導(dǎo)機(jī)制；改革人才引入機(jī)制;改革監(jiān)督管理手段以及評(píng)價(jià)機(jī)制。 4.審計(jì)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(shí)會(huì)抵消規(guī)模帶來(lái)的質(zhì)量成長(zhǎng)。需要提高行業(yè)監(jiān)管與處罰的公平性和威懾性、加強(qiáng)對(duì)地方利益以及分所質(zhì)量檢查和管理、增強(qiáng)聲譽(yù)機(jī)制與品牌機(jī)制的自身約束力、增強(qiáng)會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所和審計(jì)師有限理性的引導(dǎo)、激勵(lì)與評(píng)價(jià)。 5.規(guī)模差異引發(fā)的會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量的差異趨勢(shì)明顯,但我國(guó)市場(chǎng)機(jī)制并未體現(xiàn)差異性,以現(xiàn)有規(guī)模進(jìn)行“做精做專(zhuān)”機(jī)制需要進(jìn)一步完善。 6.同一會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所的規(guī)模變化對(duì)審計(jì)質(zhì)量的控制具有一定的調(diào)整傾向,但仍然存在一定風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。一是對(duì)審計(jì)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)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(jì)收費(fèi)并采取標(biāo)準(zhǔn)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型的報(bào)告；二是盈余控制的調(diào)整傾向較顯著,但對(duì)客戶的財(cái)務(wù)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的控制程度并不相同,仍然存在重大的潛在客戶風(fēng)險(xiǎn)問(wèn)題。此外,規(guī)模變更中的主導(dǎo)所并未一致地傾向非標(biāo)準(zhǔn)意見(jiàn)類(lèi)型的審計(jì)報(bào)告；規(guī)模變更后主導(dǎo)所對(duì)盈余管理的控制跡象相對(duì)于非主導(dǎo)所而言并沒(méi)有更強(qiáng)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(xué)位授予單位】：東北財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：F239.4;F233;F224

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 黃龍;我國(guó)國(guó)際四大與本土八大會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所審計(jì)質(zhì)量比較實(shí)證研究[D];財(cái)政部財(cái)政科學(xué)研究所;2013年

2 陳倩倩;控股股東占款、事務(wù)所選擇與審計(jì)合謀問(wèn)題研究[D];南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2013年

3 袁宏穩(wěn);基于會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所視角下的審計(jì)意見(jiàn)研究[D];天津商業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

4 趙云;證券資格會(huì)計(jì)師事務(wù)所行業(yè)專(zhuān)門(mén)化與審計(jì)質(zhì)量相關(guān)性研究[D];杭州電子科技大學(xué);2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：2055480