臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：非營利組織審計公費之研究：以私立大專院校為例
作者：賴永裕
作者(外文)：Yung-Yu Lai
校院名稱：雲林科技大學
系所名稱：管理研究所博士班
指導教授：張福星
傅鍾仁
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2007
主題關鍵詞：非營利事業組織；產業專家；商標溢酬；私立大專院校；審計公費；audit fees；brand name reputation；Non-profit organizations；industry specialization；colleges and universities
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:38
審計公費研究之主要障礙在於審計公費之取得，與過去研究最主要不同之處，本論文直接取得私立大專院校2001至2003學年度會計師查核財務報表之審計公費。研究結果證實假說一非營利事業組織會計師委任，採限制性招標審計公費高於公開招標下審計公費。
當非營利事業組織(私立大專院校)財務越趨穩健時其審計風險越低，會計師可以減少後續查核工作之進行以降低查核成本。結果支持假說二A及假說二B在較低審計風險及治理越好的學校審計公費較低，與假說二B預期一致。當客戶複雜度越高時會導致委任之會計師事務所須投入更多的審計努力與時間，甚至於投入更多的高級人力來執行查核工作。以大學組織及學校附屬作業組織規模代理複雜度，實證結果假說三一致，顯示非營利事業組織複雜度越高，委任會計師審計公費越高。
藉由排除專業的4大，比較非專業的4大與非4大，結果非專業的4大會計師事務所(BIG4)在定義專業為佔該產業審計公費15%以上時，結果與假說四A預期一致存有商標溢酬。在有專業會計師事務所的產業，非專業的4大會計師事務所其審計公費比非4大會計師事務所的審計公費高。用全體樣本進行實證，結果與分組樣本一致，在控制商標溢酬混淆不清的可能影響後，審計公費的差異可歸因於4大為產業專家時存有公費溢酬。為會計師事務所商標溢酬與產業專家的存在提供了額外的證據。
研究主要貢獻為增進對非營利組織審計公費決定因素瞭解，並證實商標溢酬及產業專家的存在。
This study collected first-hand audit fee data from audited financial statements of private colleges and universities for the 2001-2003 academic years. The empirical results support the first hypothesis (H1) that audit fees of NPOs would be higher when limited tendering procedures were carried out for auditor selections. As to the second hypothesis (H2), it is argued that auditors could reduce follow-up audit work to cut down audit costs since NPOs clients (private colleges and universities) pose a low audit risk with steady and strong financial structures. These results support our hypotheses H2a and H2b, that is, NPOs with lower business risk and better corporate governance are more likely to pay lower audit fees. The third hypothesis assumed that the more complicated the clients are, the more effort auditors would make to maintain a tolerable audit risk, one as low as possible. These results support our conjecture that an increase in relative audit fees is subject to an increase in the level of NPOs’ complexity.
By excluding the industry specialist Big 4, a comparable result is found to be consistent with our forth hypothesis (H4a). It shows that the auditor brand name premium exists between the non-specialist Big 4 and the non-Big 4 while the non-specialist Big 4 is defined as audit firms having their audit fees in that industry of less than 15 percent. In sum, we could conclude that differences in audit fee charges may be attributed to fee premiums for the specialist Big 4, and so provide additional evidence to sustain the auditor’s brand name premiums and industry specialist effect.
The main contributions of this research are not only to make a comprehensive understanding about the determinants of audit fees for NPOs, but also to empirically show both brand name premiums and the effects of industry specialists.
Anderson, T., and D. Zeghal. 1994. The pricing of audit services Further evidence from the Canadian market. Accounting and Business Research: 195-207.
Arrow, K. 1971. Essays in the Theory of Risk Bearing.
Chen, S. H. 2000. A study of the auditor selection and audit fees of private colleges and universities in Taiwan, master’s thesis, Soochow University（in Mandarin）.
Chow, C. W. 1982. The Demand for External Auditing: Size, Debt and Ownership Influences. The Accounting Review : 272-291.
Conger, J. A., D. Finegold, and E. E. Lawler. 1998. Appraising boardroom performance. Harvard Business Review 76:136-148.
Craswell, A. T., J. R. Francis, and S. L. Taylor. 1995. Auditor Brand Name Reputations and Industry Specializations. Journal of Accounting & Economics: 297-322.
DeAngelo, L. 1981a. Auditor Independence, Low Balling, and Disclosure Regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics :.113-127.
------------. 1981b. Auditor Size and Audit Quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics: 183-199.
DeFond, M. L., K. Raghunandan, and K. R. Subramanyam. 2002. Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research 40 (4): 1247-1274.
--------------., J.R. Francis, and T.J. Wong. 2000. Auditor industry specialization and market segmentation: evidence from Hong Kong. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 19(1):49-66.
Francis, J. R. 1984. The effect of audit firm size on audit prices: A Study on the Australian Market. Journal of Accounting and Economics : 133-151.
Hackenbrack, K., K. L. Jensen, and J. L. Payne. 2000. The effect of a bidding restriction on the audit servers market,.Journal of Accounting Research : 355-374.
Holmstrom,B. 1979. Moral Hazard and Observability. Bell Journal of Economics: 74-91
Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics : 305-360.
Joseph V. C, D. R. Hermanson, T. L. Neal, R. A. riley, JR. 2002. Board Characteristics and Audit Fees. Contemporary Accounting Research :365-384.
Kinney, W.R. Jr., and R. K. Martin, 1994. Does Auditing Reduce Bias in Financial Reporting? A Review of Audit Related Adjustment Studies. Auditing: A Journal of Practices and Theory: 149-155.
Klein, B., and K. Leffler. 1981. The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy: 615-641.
Lee, C. W.J., and Z. Gu. 1998. Low-Balling, Legal Liability and Auditor Independence. The Accounting Review 73 : 533-55.
Lin, Y. C. 1997. A study of influential factors of audit fees, master’s thesis. Soochow University (in Mandarin）.
Lipton, M., and J. Lorsch. 1992. A modest proposal for improved corporate governance. Business Lawyer :59-77.
Menon, K., and D. D. Williams. 1994. The Insurance Hypothesis and Market Prices. The Accounting Review:327-342.
Palmrose, Z. 1986. Audit Fees and Auditor Size: Further Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research. : 97-110.
Rubin, M. A. 1988. Municipal Audit Fee Determinants. The Accounting Review : 219-236.
Shapior, C. 1983. Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. Quarterly Journal of Economics : 659-679.
Simon, D. T., and J. R. Francis. 1988. The effects of Auditor Change on Audit Fees: Tests of Price Cutting and Price recovery. The Accounting Review : 255-269.
Simunic, D. 1980. The Pricing of Audit Services: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research. : 161-190.
------------. and M. Stein. 1987. Product Differentiation in Auditing: Auditor Choice in the Market for Unseasoned New Issues. The Canadian Certified General Accountants’ Research Foundation.
Thorne, J., S. A. Holmes, A. S. McGowan, C. A. Strand, and R. H. Strawser. 2001. The relation between audit pricing and audit contract type: A public sector analysis. Journal of Accounting and Public policy (20):189-215.
Vafeas, N., 1999. Board meeting frequency and firm performance. Journal of Financial Economics 53 (July): 113-142.
Wallace, W. A. 1980. The Economic Role of the Audit in Free and Regulated Markets. American Accounting Association.
------------. 1987. Integrating Recent Developments in Attestation, Risk Evaluation, Technology, and Regulation into the Ph.D. Auditing Seminar, Issues in Accounting Education: 325-348.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：686（臺灣：669，外國：17） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2096089 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67900231
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上