本文選題：審計(jì)定價(jià) + 內(nèi)控缺陷�。� 參考：《西安工業(yè)大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：本文以2012年滬深兩市A股上市公司作為研究樣本,通過是否披露內(nèi)控缺陷、是否披露實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞、披露的實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞的數(shù)量、以及將實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞進(jìn)一步分類為會計(jì)層面的實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞和公司層面的實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞五個(gè)指標(biāo)來研究我國上市公司內(nèi)控實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞對審計(jì)定價(jià)的影響。 實(shí)證結(jié)果表明,是否披露內(nèi)控缺陷、是否披露實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞以及披露的實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞的數(shù)量與審計(jì)定價(jià)均呈顯著的正相關(guān),但相對于內(nèi)控缺陷,實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞對審計(jì)定價(jià)的影響更為顯著。會計(jì)層面的實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞與審計(jì)定價(jià)呈顯著正相關(guān),但公司層面實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞對審計(jì)定價(jià)的影響卻并不顯著。這說明內(nèi)控缺陷的披露提高了審計(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn),CPA需要增加實(shí)質(zhì)性檢測的范圍和程序,投入更多的時(shí)間和精力,從而引起審計(jì)費(fèi)用的增加。而且內(nèi)控缺陷的嚴(yán)重性越高,對審計(jì)定價(jià)的影響越大。雖然在理論上,公司層面漏洞的嚴(yán)重程度高于會計(jì)層面漏洞。但在現(xiàn)實(shí)中,公司層面漏洞的涵蓋范圍廣,比較虛化,審計(jì)難度較大；且不論上市公司是否披露了公司層面的漏洞,CPA在審計(jì)過程中都要對這方面項(xiàng)目進(jìn)行必需的檢測。所以公司層面漏洞的披露對審計(jì)定價(jià)不會產(chǎn)生較大的影響。會計(jì)層面的漏洞涉及公司特定賬戶會直接導(dǎo)致財(cái)務(wù)重大錯(cuò)報(bào),可以被CPA的實(shí)質(zhì)性測試所辨認(rèn)。如果披露了會計(jì)層面的漏洞,CPA將面臨較高的審計(jì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。所以CPA在審計(jì)的過程中更傾向于圍繞特定賬戶的某些具體問題。 同時(shí)我們發(fā)現(xiàn),被審單位規(guī)模、事務(wù)所規(guī)模與聲譽(yù)、上市公司所屬區(qū)域以及審計(jì)意見類型、第一股東股權(quán)性質(zhì),這五個(gè)控制變量與審計(jì)定價(jià)存在顯著的正相關(guān)關(guān)系,是影響上市公司審計(jì)定價(jià)的最主要因素。應(yīng)收賬款與總資產(chǎn)比、存貨與總資產(chǎn)比以及資產(chǎn)負(fù)債率三個(gè)變量與審計(jì)定價(jià)之間的相關(guān)性并不顯著。
[Abstract]:This paper takes the A-share listed companies in the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets in 2012 as the research sample, through whether to disclose the internal control defects, whether to disclose the material loopholes, and the number of the material loopholes disclosed.Furthermore, it classifies the material loophole into five indexes: the substantial loophole in accounting level and the substantive loophole in company level to study the impact of internal control substantive loophole on audit pricing of listed companies in China.The empirical results show that whether or not to disclose internal control defects, whether to disclose material loopholes and the number of material loopholes disclosed are significantly positive correlation with audit pricing, but relative to internal control defects.The impact of substantial loopholes on audit pricing is more significant.There is a significant positive correlation between accounting substantive loopholes and audit pricing, but the impact of firm substantive loopholes on audit pricing is not significant.This shows that the disclosure of internal control defects increases the audit risk. CPA needs to increase the scope and procedure of substantive detection and invest more time and energy, thus causing the increase of audit costs.Moreover, the more serious the internal control defects, the greater the impact on audit pricing.In theory, though, firm-level loopholes are more serious than accounting ones.However, in reality, the company level loopholes cover a wide range, relatively empty, audit is difficult; regardless of whether the listed company disclosed the company level loopholes and CPA in the audit process to carry out the necessary detection of this aspect of the project.Therefore, the disclosure of company level loopholes will not have a greater impact on audit pricing.Accounting vulnerabilities involving company-specific accounts can directly lead to material financial misstatements that can be identified by CPA's substantive tests.If the accounting level of the disclosure of loopholes CPA will face a higher audit risk.Therefore, CPA is more inclined to focus on specific account issues in the audit process.At the same time, we find that the size of the auditee, the size of the firm and reputation, the region of the listed company and the type of audit opinion, the nature of the equity of the first shareholder, these five control variables have significant positive correlation with the audit pricing.It is the most important factor that affects the audit pricing of listed companies.The correlation between the ratio of accounts receivable to total assets, the ratio of inventory to total assets and the ratio of assets to liabilities and audit pricing is not significant.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西安工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：F832.51;F275

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉明輝;胡波;;公司治理、代理成本與審計(jì)定價(jià)——基于2001—2003年我國A股上市公司的實(shí)證研究[J];財(cái)經(jīng)問題研究;2006年02期

2 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)會通訊(學(xué)術(shù)版);2005年11期

3 陳宋生;楊雙;;上市公司內(nèi)部控制披露對審計(jì)費(fèi)用的影響分析[J];財(cái)會通訊;2010年21期

4 宋紹清;張俠;;關(guān)于上市公司內(nèi)部控制信息披露影響因素的實(shí)證研究[J];財(cái)會月刊;2009年06期

5 韓厚軍,周生春;中國證券市場會計(jì)師報(bào)酬研究——上市公司實(shí)證數(shù)據(jù)分析[J];管理世界;2003年02期

6 瞿旭;楊丹;;完善企業(yè)內(nèi)部控制體系——基于實(shí)質(zhì)性漏洞的視角[J];經(jīng)營管理者;2011年05期

7 郭夢嵐;李明輝;;公司治理、控制權(quán)性質(zhì)與審計(jì)定價(jià)[J];管理科學(xué);2009年06期

8 王振林;政府規(guī)范對審計(jì)服務(wù)供求的影響:中國證券市場的證據(jù)[J];中國注冊會計(jì)師;2002年03期

9 劉明輝,李黎,張羽;我國審計(jì)市場集中度與審計(jì)質(zhì)量關(guān)系的實(shí)證分析[J];會計(jì)研究;2003年07期

10 伍利娜;盈余管理對審計(jì)費(fèi)用影響分析——來自中國上市公司首次審計(jì)費(fèi)用披露的證據(jù)[J];會計(jì)研究;2003年12期

，

本文編號：1760257