شاخص ترکیبی برای خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس مبتنی بر فن تحلیل ممیزی

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری، گروه حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه حسابداری، دانشکده علوم اقتصادی و اداری، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران.

چکیده

هدف: در پژوهش حاضر، ضمن بررسی جامع شاخص‌های اندازه‌گیری خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس، از طریق روش‌شناسی شاخص ترکیبی (آماری و ریاضی)، شاخص ترکیبی جدیدی برای سنجش خرید اظهارنظر معرفی شده است.
روش: با استفاده از روش آماری تحلیل ممیزی خطی استاندارد، وزن معیارهای شاخص ترکیبی به‌دست آمد، به این صورت که پس از جمع‌آوری اطلاعات مالی و حسابرسی‌شده سال 1396 مربوط به 148 شرکت بورسی، در دو گروه برابر (74 شرکت دارای خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس و 74 شرکت بدون خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس)، تبیین شاخص بر اساس آن انجام گرفت. سپس، به‌منظور تحلیل حساسیت نتایج، اطلاعات سال 1392 تا 1395 شرکت‌هایی که به خرید اظهارنظر اقدام کرده بودند، به‌طور مقطعی بررسی شدند.
یافته‌ها: شاخص ترکیبی خرید اظهارنظر، ترکیبی از شاخص‌های انفرادی مختلف خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس است و به‌دلیل در نظرگرفتن ابعاد بیشتر، جامع‌تر است. همچنین، برای آزمون‎ معناداری شاخص، از آزمون نسبت موفقیت‌ها استفاده شد. نتایج نشان داد که شاخص معرفی شده، قابلیت اتکای زیادی دارد و می‌تواند با دقت چشمگیری، شرکت‌ها را به دو گروه خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس و بدون خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس طبقه‌بندی ‎کند.
نتیجه‌گیری: به‌طور کلی می‌توان گفت که چون شاخص ترکیبی پیشنهادشده، ابعاد بیشتری را دربرمی‌گیرد، خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس را بهتر تبیین می‌کند. به‌علاوه، در شاخص ترکیبی پیشنهادی، معیار یا شاخص تغییر شریک مؤسسه حسابرسی بیشترین ضریب را به‌دست آورد. این موضوع نشان می‌دهد که تغییر شریک مؤسسه حسابرسی، هزینه کمتری را تحمیل کرده و کمتر در معرض دید قرار می‌گیرد. از طرفی، معیار تغییر مؤسسه حسابرسی، کمترین ضریب را در شاخص ترکیبی کسب کرد. این نتیجه نیز نشان می‌دهد که تغییر مؤسسه حسابرسی، به‌معنای دستیابی صاحب‌کار به اظهارنظر مطلوب حسابرس نیست. این یافته‌ها، در خصوص تبیین و تشخیص وجود خرید اظهارنظر حسابرس، اطلاعات مفیدی را در اختیار سرمایه‌گذاران و سیاست‌گذاران قرار می‌دهد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Composite Index for Audit Opinion Shopping Based on Discriminant Analysis Technique

نویسندگان [English]

  • Esmaeil Amiri 1
  • Hossein Fakhari 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.
2 Associate Prof., Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective: In this article, after reviewing the single index for, we introduce a composite index for measuring this by constructing composite index methodology.
Methods: Using standard linear discriminant method, a weighted composite index was introduced. In order to achieve the weight for each criterion, the financial data of 148 firms listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange during 2007 were analyzed in two groups. Also, to check the robustness of the financial data over 2003-2006, cross-sectional analysis was performed.
Results: The findings showed that the composite index was more comprehensive than the signal index due to its larger dimensions. Also, to test the significance of the index, the success ratio test was used. The results demonstrated the introduced index had higher reliability and can accurately classify the firms into two groups with audit opinion shopping and with no audit opinion shopping.
Conclusion: In general, the proposed composite index had more dimensions and, therefore, could better explain the audit opinion shopping. Also, in the proposed composite index, the index of changing the partner auditor firm had the maximum coefficient, suggesting that changing the partner auditor firm could cause less cost and is less visible. On the other hand, the criteria of changing the auditor firm resulted in obtaining the minimum coefficient in the composite index, i.e. changing the auditor firm did not mean that the employer had access to the unqualified opinion of auditor. These findings provided useful information for investors and policy-markers to explain and detect whether any audit opinion shopping has occurred.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Audit opinion shopping
  • Agency theory
  • Discriminant Analysis technique
  • Composite index

مراجع

اصغرپور، محمدجواد (1392). تصمیم­گیری­های چند معیاره (چاپ یازدهم)، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
بنی مهد، بهمن (1390). بررسی عوامل تأثیرگذار بر اظهار نظر مقبول حسابرس. فصلنامه بورس و اوراق بهادار، 4 (13)، 59-83.
حاجیها، زهره؛ ابراهیمی، محمدرضا (1395). بهبود در اظهارنظر حسابرس و اثرات آن بر تغییرات قیمت و حجم معاملات سهام. پژوهش‎های حسابداری مالی و حسابرسی، 8(30)، 61-82.
خدامی پور، احمد؛ امیری، اسماعیل (1398). اثر نوع حق‎الزحمه حسابرسی بر حساسیت جریان نقدی سرمایه‎گذاری. بررسی‎های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 26(1)، 65-86.
روحانی­نیا، حسن (1395). استقلال حسابرس. نشریه حسابرس، 18(84)، 1-1.
روزگار، رسول؛ نعمت‌ اللهی، علیرضا (۱۳۸۵). مقایسه تحلیل ممیزی (آنالیز تشخیصی) و رگرسیون لجستیک، هشتمین کنفرانس آمار ایران، شیراز، دانشگاه شیراز.
سجادی، سید حسین؛ فرازمند، حسن؛ دستگیر، محسن؛ دهقان­فر، دلشاد (1387). عوامل مؤثر بر گزارش مشروط حسابرسی. مطالعات تجربی حسابداری مالی، 518)، 123-146.
کاوشی، سید رضا (1375). تحلیل ممیزی و کاربرد آن، رساله کارشناسی ارشد، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد.
کیقبادی، امیر رضا؛ فتحی، سمیه (1398). تأثیر تأخیر غیرعادی گزارش حسابرسی و ضعف در کنترل‌های داخلی و کیفیت حسابرسی بر ریسک سقوط قیمت سهام. دانش حسابرسی، 19 (75)، 143-168.
کرمی، غلامرضا؛ بذرافشان، آمنه؛ محمدی، امیر (1395). بررسی رابطه بین دوره تصدی حسابرس و مدیریت سود. دانش حسابداری، 2 (4)، 65-82.
محمدرضائی، فخرالدین؛ گل­چهره، محمد (1397). خطای حسابرسی، نوع گزارش حسابرس و تعداد بندهای شرط حسابرسی: نقش مشغله کاری شرکای مؤسسات حسابرسی. فصلنامه حسابداری مالی، 9(36)، 1-31.
نادریان، هوشنگ (1395). استقلال حسابرس، دغدغه اصلی. نشریه حسابرس، 18(84)، 28-33.
 
References
Antonogeorgos, G., Panagiotakos, D.B., Priftis, K.N., & Tzonou, A. )2009). Logistic Regression and Linear Discriminant Analyses in Evaluating Factors Associated with Asthma Prevalence among 10- to 12-Years-Old Children: Divergence and Similarity of the Two Statistical Methods. In t J Pediatr. doi: 10.1155/2009/952042.
Archambeault, D., & DeZoort, F.T. (2001). Auditor opinion shopping and the audit committee: An analysis of suspicious auditor switches. International Journal of Auditing, 5(1), 33-52.
Asgharpour, M.J. (2013). Criteria Decision Making Multiple (11th Ed.). University of Tehran Press. (in Persian)
Ashton, R.H., Willingham, P.R., Elliot, R.K. (1987). An empirical analysis of audit delay. Journal of Accounting Research, 25 (2), 275-292.
Bagherpour, M., Monroe, G., Shailer, G. (2014). Government and managerial influence on auditor switching under partial privatization. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 33(4), 372–390.
 Ball, R., Walker, R.G., Whittred, G.P. (1979). Audit Qualifications and Share Prices. Abacus, 15 (1), 23-34.
Bamber, E.M., Bamber, L.S., & Schoderbek, M. P. (1993). Audit structure and other determinants of audit report lag: an empirical analysis, Auditing. A Journal of Practice and Theory, 12(1), 1-23.
Banimahd, B. (2011). Investigation of Some Determinants on Unqualified Audit Opinion. Journal of Securities Exchange, 4(13), 59-83. (in Persian)
Beck, P.J, & Wu, M.G.H. (2006). Learning by doing and audit quality. Contemporary Accounting Research, 23(1), 1-30.
López, B. E., Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., & Aguilar. G. N. (2010). Do Independent Audit Committees Prevent Auditor Opinion Shopping? 10.2139/ssrn.1723112.
Carslaw, C.A. & Kaplan, S.E. (1991). An examination of audit delay: further evidence from New Zealand. Accounting and Business Research, 22 (85), 21-32.
Chen, C. J. P., Su, X., Wu, X. (2005). Abnormal audit fees and the improvement of unfavorable audit opinion. China Accounting and Finance Review, 7, 1-28.
Chen, F., Francis, J. R., & Hou, Y. (2018). Opinion Shopping through Same-Firm Audit Office Switches. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2899888. 
Chen, F., Peng, S., Xue, Sh., Yang, Zh., & Ye, F. (2015). Do Audit Clients Successfully Engage in Opinion Shopping? Partner-Level Evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(1), 79-112.
Chen, K. C., Church, B. K. (1996). Going concern opinions and the market’s reaction to bankruptcy filings. The Accounting Review, 71(1), 117-128.
Choi, J. H., Chung, H., Sonu, C.H., & Zang, Y. (2016). Opinion shopping to avoid going concern audit opinions and subsequent audit quality. Working Paper, Seoul National University.
Choi, J.H., Chung, H., Sonu,H. C.H, & Zang, Y. (2019). Opinion Shopping to Avoid a Going Concern Audit Opinion and Subsequent Audit Quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 38 (2), 101-123.
Chow, C. W., & Rice, S.J. (1982). Qualified audit opinions and auditor switching. The Accounting Review, 57 (2), 326-335.
Citron, D.B., & Taffler, R.J. (1992). The audit report under going concern uncertainties: An empirical analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 22(88), 337-345.
Craswell, A. T. (1988). The association between quali.ed opinions and auditor switches. Accounting and Business Research, 19(73), 23-31.
De Andrés, J., Cabal, E., & Fernández, C. (2007). Efectos económicos de las calificaciones de auditoría. Factores determinantes de las reacciones del mercado ante las salvedades. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 36(133), 73-96.
opuch, N., Holthausen, R. & Leftwich, R. (1986). Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of ‘subject to’ qualified audit opinions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 8(2), 91–172.
Dye, R. (1991). Informational motivated auditor replacement. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 14(4), 347-374.
Fakhari, H., Rezaei Pitenoei, Y. (2017). The Impact of Audit Committee and Its Characteristics on the Firms' Information Environment. Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 10(3), 577-608.
Fang, C. L., Lin, Y.C., & Chen, C.S. (2014). Accrual Quality and Audit Fees: The Role of Abnormal Audit Fees. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33 (1), 117-138.
Fang, J. X., Hong, J. Q. (2008). Abnormal audit fees and their damage to audit quality. China Accounting Review, 6, 425-442.
Fields, L.P., Wilkins, M.S. (1991). The Information Content of Withdrawn Audit Qualifications: New Evidence on the Value of "Subject-To" Opinions. A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10 (2), 62-69.
Firth, M. (1980). A note on the impact of audit qualifications on lending and credit decisions. Journal ofBanking and Finance, 4(3), 257-267.
Garcia Osma, B., Gill-de-Albornoz, B., de Las Heras, E., & Rusanescu, S. (­2018). Opinion-Shopping: Firm versus Partner-Level Evidence. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2776609
Gibbins, M., Salterio, S., & Webb, A. (2001). Evidence about auditor-client management negotiation concerning client's financial reporting. Journal of Accounting Research, 39 (3), 535-563.
Hajiha, Z., Ebrahimi, M. (2016). Audit opinion Improvement and its effects on stock price changes and volume. Quarterly Journal of Financial Accounting and Auditing Research, 8(30), 82-61. (in Persian)
Haskins, M.E., & Williams, D. D. (1990). Acontingent model of intra-big eight auditor changes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9(3), 55-74.
Karami, G., Bazrafshan, A., & Mohammadi, A. (2011). Auditor Tenure and Earnings Management. Journal of Accounting Knowledge, 2(4), 65-82. (in Persian)
Khodamipour, A., Amiri, E. (2019). The Effect of the Audit Fee Type on Investment Cash Flow Sensitivity. Journal of Accounting and Auditing Review, 26(1), 65-86. (in Persian)
Kiqbadi, A.R., Fathi, S. (2019). The Impact of Abnormal Audit Delay and Weakness in Internal Controls and Audit Quality on Stock Crash Risk. Journal of Auditing Knowledge, 19(75), 143-168.
Knechel, W. R., & Sharma, D. S. (2012). Auditor‐provided nonaudit services and audit effectiveness and efficiency: Evidence from pre‐ and post‐SOX audit report lags. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(4), 85–114.
Krishnan J., & Yang, J.S. (2009). Recent trends audit report and earning announcement leg. Accounting Horizons, 23(3), 265-288.
Krishnan, J. (1994). Auditor switching and conservatism. The Accounting Review, 69 (1), 200-215.
Krishnan, J., & Stephens, R. (1995). Evidence on opinion shopping from audit opinion conservatism. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 14 (3), 179-201.
Krishnan, J., Krishnan, J. & Stephens, R. (1996). The simultaneous relation between auditor switching and audit opinion: Empirical analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 26(3), 224-236.
Lennox, C. (2000). Do companies successfully engage in opinion shopping? Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29 (3), 321-337.
Lennox, C. (2002). Opinion shopping and audit committees. Unpublished manuscript.
Lennox, C. (2003). Opinion-shopping and the role of audit committees when audit firms aredismissed: The US experience. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, Bell and Bain Ltd, Glasgow, UK.
Li, S., Wu, X. (2002). A study on audit switch: Preliminary evidence from China’s capital market. China Financial and Economic Publishing House: Beijing.
Louwers, T. (1998). The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditor’s loss function. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(1), 143-156.
Lu, T. (2006). Does opinion shopping impair auditor independence and audit quality?, Journal of Accounting Research, 44(3), 561-583.
Lu, Z. F., Tong, P. (2003). Audit opinion, auditor switch, and securities regulation: An empirical study based on Regulation No. 14. Auditing Research, 4: 30-35.
McConnell, D.K. (1984). Auditor changes and related disagreements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 3(2), 44-56.
McKeown, J., Mutchler, J., and Hopwood, W. (1991). Towards an explanation of auditorfailure to modify the audit opinions of bankrupt companies, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 10, 1-13.
Mohammad Rezaei, F., Golchehreh, M. (2018). Audit Failure, Audit Opinion and Auditor’s Remarks: The Role of Audit Partner Busyness. Quarterly Financial Accounting Journal, 9 (36), 1-31. (in Persian)
Mohammad Rezaei, F., Mohd-Saleh, N. (2018). Audit report lag: the role of auditor type and the increased competition in the audit market. Accounting & Finance, 58 (3), 885-920.
Mohammad Rezaei, F., Mohd-Saleh, N., Jaffar, R., Sabri, M.S. (2016). The effects of audit market liberalisation and auditor type onaudit opinions: The Iranian experience. International Journal of Auditing, 20, 87-100.
Nadrian, H. (2016). Auditor independence. The Auditor Journal, 18(84), 28-33. (in Persian)
Nagle, B. (1996). Audit report modifications and auditor switches. Accounting Enquiries, 5)2(, 171-202.
Newton, N. J., Persellin, J.S., Wang, D., Wilkins, M.S. (2016). Internal control opinion shopping and audit market competition. The Accounting Review, forthcoming, 91(2), 603-623.
OECD (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide. Retrieved from. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/42/42495745.pdf.
PCAOB (2011). Concept release on auditor independence and audit firm rotation, PCAOB Release No. 2011-006, August 16, 2011.
Raghavan, A. (2002). How a bright star at Andersen burned out along with Enron. Wall Street Journal, Available in: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1021425497254672480.
Rosen, R. (1991). Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry into Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. Columbia University Press.
Rouhaninia, H. (2016). Auditor independence. The Auditor Journal, 18(84), 1-1. (in Persian)
Ruiz-Barbadillo, E., Aguilar. G. N., & López. B. E. (2006). Long-term audit engagements and opinion shopping: Spanish evidence. Accounting Forum, 30(1), 61-79.
Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. EUR 20408 EN, European Commission-JRC: Italy.
Sajadi, S., Farazmand, H., Dastgir, M., Dehghanfar, D. (2007). The Effect of Variables on Qualified Audit Report. Empirical Studies in Financial Accounting, 5(18), 123-146.
(in Persian)
Sarhan, M., Frank, G., & Fisher, S. (1991). Switching independent auditors: An empirical investigation. Akron Business and Economic Review, 22(2), 173-183.
Schwartz, K.B., & Menon, K. (1985). Auditor switches by failing firms. The Accounting Review60 (20), 248-261.
Scott, W.R. (2009). Financial Accounting Theory. Pearson education.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (1988). Disclosure Amendments to Regulation S-K, Form 8-K and Schedule 14A regarding changes in accountants and potential opinion shopping situations.
Simunic, D. A. (1980). The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 161-190.
Smith, D.B. (1986). Auditor ‘subject to’ opinions, disclaimers, and auditor changes. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 6(1), 95-108.
Taffler, R., Lu, J., & Kausar, A. (2004). In denial? Stock market under reaction to going-concern audit report disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 38(1-3), 263-296.
Tang, Y.J. (2009). Audit fees, auditor switching and audit opinion shopping: test for interaction effect based on evidences of Chinese stock market. The Theory and Practice of Finance and Economics, 5, 57-61.
Tang, Y. (2011). Audit fees, motivation of avoiding loss and opinion shopping. China Finance ReviewInternational, 1(3), 241 – 261.
Teoh, S. H. (1992). Auditor independence, dismissal threats, and the market reaction to auditor switches. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(1), 1–23.
Walker, M. (2003). Principal/agency theory when some agents are trustworthy. Accounting and Finance Working Paper, Manchester: Manchester Business School, Manchester University.
Wang, C.F. (2006). Turning loss into gain, auditor switching and audit opinions shopping. Audit & Economy Research, (5), 5-31.
Wu, L.S. (2005). Opinion shopping and regulatory strategy. Economic Research Journal, (7), 66-75.
Wu, L.S., & Tan, L. (2005). Decision of auditor change and the improvement of unfavorable audit opinion. Audit Research, (2), 34-40.
Xie, Z. & Cai, Ch., & Ye, J. (2010). Abnormal Audit Fees and Audit Opinion – Further Evidence from China's Capital Market. China Journal of Accounting Research, 3, 51-70.
بررسی‏‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی
دوره 27، شماره 1
1399
صفحه 1-31

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار