Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 會計師法律責任與資訊不對稱之關聯研究
The Relationship between the Legal Responsibility of Accountants and Information Asymmetry作者 黃奕睿
Hwang, Yih-Ray貢獻者 王文杰
Wang, Wen-Chieh
黃奕睿
Hwang, Yih-Ray關鍵詞 會計師法律責任
資訊不對稱
盈餘管理
衍生性商品
Legal responsibility
Information asymmetry
Earning management
Derivatives日期 2018 上傳時間 18-Jul-2018 11:08:22 (UTC+8) 摘要 本論文主要在於觀察臺灣地區會計師法律責任與資訊不對稱的關聯性，為有效捕捉會計師法律責任變化的影響，對於2004年發生博達舞弊案後及2005年起開始進行證券交易法法規修正，本論文茲以2005年作為子樣本期間劃分依據，進一步檢測舞弊案發生後，資訊揭露品質是否具有顯著性的改變。另一方面，回顧過去相關文獻，除了對於會計師法律責任變動少有著墨外，對於資訊不對稱的衡量亦無一致性的量化衡量方式，因此，在收集攸關公司特性變數，包括公司獲利性、規模因子、槓桿變化、成長性等變數，亦進一步計算公司營運風險與市場風險，而資訊不對稱衡量方式，則採用Dechow et al. (1995)所提出盈餘管理估計方法，茲以進行各重要變數間混合迴歸模型(pooled regression model)的估計。資料取自於臺灣經濟新報(Taiwan Economic Journal, TEJ)資料庫資訊，樣本期間為2003年到2016年所有存續經營的公司，合計完整家數計有641家公司。實證結果證實公司特性變數與風險結構對資訊不對稱程度的影響，扮演著重要的解釋能力，隨著公司規模持續擴增、成長性增加與對外舉債程度越高的公司，在內外部監督機制下，將有助於提升資訊揭露品質；然而，倘若公司僅致力績效改善，將會驅使公司進行報表窗飾，造成資訊不對稱的問題，而市場風險亦為解釋資訊不對稱的重要因素之一。再者，在2004年發生博達舞弊案後，會計師法律責任的改變，對資訊透明化具有明顯改善的實質效果，有助於市場參與者使用報表資訊進行相關決策。最後，因現今金融商品不斷推陳出新，衍生性商品多樣化對資訊不對稱，仍有一定程度的同向關聯性，故本論文建議市場參與者應提高資訊收集與分析能力，方能提高財報資訊背後所隱含的重要經濟意涵與會計政策。關鍵詞：會計師法律責任、資訊不對稱、盈餘管理、衍生性商品。
Abstract The main purpose of this thesis is to observe the relevance between the legal liability of accountants and information asymmetry in Taiwan and to effectively capture the impact of changes in accountant liability law on information asymmetry of financial reports. The amendments to the Securities Exchange Act will start in 2005 after the fraud of Procomp Informatics Ltd. in 2004. The thesis divides into two sub-sample periods by 2005 act to further test whether the quality of information disclosure has a significant change after the occurrence of the fraud case. On the other hand, after reviewing the relevant literatures in the past, little studies have investigated the changes of the legal responsibility of accountants, and previous studies are not also to provide consistent quantitative indicator of the measurement of information asymmetry. Therefore, this thesis collects relevant variables as firm-specific characteristics including company profitability, firm’s size, leverage, and growth, as well as it also further calculated the operational risk and market risk in order to capture the variation of information asymmetry. The estimated model is proposed by Dechow et al. (1995). Controlling the effect of all variables, the pooled regression model is adopted to investigate the relationship between the legal liability of accountants and information asymmetry. The data was taken from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) database information. During the sample period, all the companies have to be survived from 2003 to 2016. Therefore, the total numbers of companies are 641. The empirical results confirm there are significant influences of firm-specific characteristic and risk structures on the degree of information asymmetry, and the legal responsibility of accountant play an important explanatory after 2005. As the company`s scale continues to expand, the growth rate increases, and the degree of leverage is higher, the internal and external supervision mechanism can decrease the earning management. It effectively improve the quality of information disclosure. However, if the company has devoted to increase the profitability, it will drive the manager to use window dressing, resulting in the problem of information asymmetric. In addition, market risk is also one of the important factors to explain information asymmetry. After the fraud of Procomp Informatics Ltd., there is significant improvement in the effects of changes in the legal responsibilities on degree of information transparency. It improves the information efficiency that market participants use the information of financial statements to make relevant decisions. Finally, due to the continuous innovation of financial products, and the diversification of derivative commodities, this study suggests that market participants should increase the ability of information collections and analysis in order to know that the implied important implications of economics and accounting policies.Key words: Legal Responsibility, Information Asymmetry, Earning management, Derivatives.參考文獻 王貞丰，2006年，博達案對會計師簽發繼續經營有重大疑慮意見之研究，台南女子技術學院會計與資訊系統研究所碩士論文。王瑄、杜榮瑞，2005年，企業資訊揭露之決定因素與效應(下) 提升資訊揭露程度有效降低資金成本，會計研究月刊，237期，頁 64-67．史建倫，2005年，博達事件對會計師事務所審計品質影響之實證研究，國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。朱克敏，1993年，從社會資本與投資人保護觀點探討各國企業盈餘管理現象之研究國立臺北大學合作經濟學系碩士論文。杜榮瑞、李文智、林靖傑、朱中平，2007年，非審計服務與審計決策：博達案之前後比較，中華會計學刊，第6卷，第2期，頁125-152。韋伯韜、周信佑，2007年，誠信會計制度的國際趨勢與台灣經驗，國政研究報告，財團法人國家政策研究基金會。馬君梅、沈大白，2004年，由博達案談會計師事務所的風險管理，會計研究月刊，第226期，頁85-87。馬秀如，2004年9月，物不知其數：博達與會計師, ` 會計研究月刊，第226期，頁58-84。馬秀如，1999年10月，從中櫃事件參悟會計師執業環境與未來，會計研究月刊，第167期，頁12-16.許書偉，1994年，投資人保護與盈餘品質：以美國掛牌之外國公，國立臺北大學會計學系碩士論文。陳佩瑜，2006年，博達事件對公司財務報表保守性影響之研究，東吳大學會計學研究所碩士論文。陳姿妤，2004年，從盈餘管理與投資人保護探討各國股利發放行為，銘傳大學國際企業學系碩士論文。陳依蘋、鄭惠之，2004年，專業組織的未來－會計師、律師向前走，會計研究月刊，第226期，頁30-40。陳柏松，2004年，從博達案看整體會計環境，會計研究月刊，第225期，頁54-60。黃荃、林月麗、陳惠珠，1998年，台灣會計師簽證責任與歷來受處分案例之探討，會計研究月刊，第153期，頁76-82。楊碧茵，2004年a，博達案四會計師懲處過重？究意屬審計失敗？抑或經營失敗？，會計研究月刊，第226期，頁26。傅鐘仁、張福星、陳慶隆，2005年，審計失敗對會計師保守主義的影響：ENRON案是否存在產業蔓延效果，會計評論，第40期，頁31-67。楊碧茵，2004年，會計師執業環境之未來與挑戰，會計研究月刊，226期：頁44-51。楊炎杰、官月緞，2006年，客戶重要性與非審計服務是否影響審計品質？Enron後的觀察，會計評論，第43期，頁27-61。鄭惠之，2004，財務報表的審計責任，會計研究月刊，第220期，頁53-59。簡駿貿，1993年，會計師法律責任對經理人舞弊與會計師查核努力水準之研究，國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。譚珅杰，2006年，恩隆案、沙氏法案及博逹案對會計師獨立性影響之研究，輔仁大學會計學研究所碩士論文。蘇慧齡，2006年，非審計服務、控制風險與會計師獨立性之關聯－博達事件後之影響，國立高雄應用科技大學商務經營研究所碩士論文。Baesel, J.B. and Stein, G.R., 1979, The Value of Information: Inferences from the Profitability of Insider Trading, Journal of Finance and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14(3), pp. 553-571.Bagehot, W., 1971, The Only Game in Town, Financial Analyst Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 12-14.Beatty, A., Weber, J., and Yu, J., 2006, Conservatism and Debt, Working Paper.Berton, L., 1995, Big Accounting Firms Weed Out Risky Clients, The Wall Street Journal. B1- B6.Buckless, F.A. and Peace, R.L., 1993, The Influence of the Source of Professional Standards on Juror Decision Making, Accounting Review, Vol. 68(1), pp. 164-175Carcello, J.V., and Palmrose, Z., 1994, Auditor Litigation and Modified Reporting on Bankrupt Clients, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 1-30.Choi, J.H., Doogar, R., and Ganguly, A., 2004, The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market, Contemporary Accounting Research,Vol. 21, pp. 747-785.Danielsen, B.R., Van Ness, R.A., and Warr, R.S., 2009, Single Stock Futures as a Substitute for Short Sales: Evidence from Microstructure Data, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 36(9), pp. 1273-1293.Dechow, P., Sloan, R., and Sweeney, A., (1995), “Detecting Earnings Management”, Accounting Review, Vol. 70, pp. 193-225.Demsetz, H., 1968, The Cost of Transacting, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 82(1), pp. 33-35.Dye, R., 1988, Earnings Management in an Overlapping Generations Model, Journal of Accounting Research, 26(2), pp. 195-235.Guth, W., Krahnen, J.P. and Rieck, C., 1997, Financial Markets with Asymmetric Information: A Pilot Study Focusing on Insider Advantages, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 235-257.Easley, D., Soeren, H., and O`Hara, M., 2002, Is information risk a determinant of asset returns? Journal of Finance, Vol. 57(5), pp. 2185-2221.Hasbrouck, J., 1991a, Measuring the Information Content of Stock Trades, Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, pp. 179-207. Hasbrouck, J., 1991b, The Summary Informativeness of Stock Trades: An Econometric Analysis, Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 571-595.Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K.G., 2001, Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure, and the Capital Market: a Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 31(3), pp. 405-440.Hillegeist, S.A., 1999, Financial Reporting and Auditing under Alternative Damage Apportionment Rules, Accounting Review, Vol. 74(3), pp. 347-369.Holland, K., Light, L., and Galen, M., 1993, Big Six Firms Are Firing Clients, Business Week, Vol. 3307, pp. 76-77.Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling, 1976, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-360.Jones, F.L. and Raghunandan, K., 1998, Client Risk and Recent Changes in the Market for Audit Services, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 17, pp. 169-181.Kellogg, R., 1984, Accounting Activities, Securities Prices, and Class Action Lawsuits, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 6, pp. 185-204.Kinney, W., and McDaniel, L., 1989, Characteristics of Firms Correcting Previously Reported Quarterly Earnings, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 71-93.Kreutzfeldt, R., and Wallace, W., 1986, Error Characteristics in Audit Populations: Their Profile and Relationships to Environmental Factors. Auditing, A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 20-43.Krishnan, J., and Krishnan, J., 1996, The Role of Economic Trade-Offs in the Audit Opinion Decision: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance. 11, pp. 565-586La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W., 2000, Investor protection and corporate governance, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 58, pp. 3-27.La Porta, R.,Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer, A., 1999, Corporate ownership around the world, Journal of Finance, Vol. 54(2), pp. 471-517.La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R.W., 1998, Law and Finance, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106(6), pp. 1113-1155.LaFond, R. and Roychowdhury, S., 2008, Managerial Ownership and Accounting Conservatism, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 46(1), pp. 101-135.Leftwich, R., 1983, Accounting Information in Private ,arkets: Evidence from Private Lending Agreements, Accounting Review, Vol. 58(1), pp. 23-42.Leuz, C., 2003, IAS versus U.S. GAAP: Information Asymmetry-based Evidence from Germany’s New Market, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41, pp. 445-472.Liu, C., and Wang, T., 2006, Auditor Liability and Business Investment. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 23(4), pp. 1051-1071.Lys, T., and Watts, R.L., 1994, Lawsuits against Auditors, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 65-93.Lys, T., 1993, Discussion: The Evolution of Lawsuits against Auditors – Determinants, Consequences, and Solutions, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 2, pp. 427-433.Pae, S. and Yoo, S.W., 2001, Strategic Interaction in Auditing: An Analysis of Auditors` Legal Liability, Internal Control System Quality, and Audit Effort, Accounting Review, Vol. 76(3), pp. 333-356.Patterson, E., and Wright, D., 2003, Evidence of Fraud, Audit Risk and Audit Liability Regimes, Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 105-131.Hang, T. T., and Ngoc, B. T., 2018, Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure on Financial Performance, Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, Vol 10, No 1, pp. 40-58.Bryane, M., and Goo, S. H., 2015, Corporate Governance and its Reform in Hong Kong: a Study in Comparative Corporate Governance, Bradford Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 444-475.Narayanan, V.G., 1994, An analysis of auditor liability rules, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 39-64.Nelson, J., Ronen, J., and White, L., 1988, Legal Liability and the Markets for Auditing Services, Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, Vol. 3, pp. 255-285.Newman, M., 2005, Making ERPs Work: Accountants and the Introduction of ERP Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14(3), pp. 258–272.Palmrose, Z.V., 1988, An Analysis of Auditor Litigation and Audit Service Quality, Accounting Review, Vol. 63, pp. 55-73.Pierre, K., and Anderson, J., 1984, An Analysis of the Factors Associated with Lawsuits Against Public Accountants, Accounting Review. Vol. 59, pp. 242-263.Radhakrishnan, S., 1999, Investors` Recovery Friction and Auditor Liability Rules, Accounting Review, Vol. 74(2), pp. 225-240.Schipper, K., 1989, Commentary on Earning Management. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 4, pp. 91-102.Schwartz, R., 1997, Legal Regimes, Audit Quality and Investment, Accounting Review, Vol. 72(3), pp. 385-406Stice, J.D., 1991, Using Financial and Market Information to Identify Pre-Engagement Factors Associated with Lawsuits against Auditors, Accounting Review, Vol. 66, pp. 516-533.Simunic, D.A., and Stein, M.T., 1996, The Impact of Litigation Risk on Audit Pricing: A Review of the Economics and the Evidence. Auditing, A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 15, pp. 145-148.Thoman, L., 1996, Legal Damages and Auditor Efforts, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 13(1), pp. 275-306.Trueman, B., and Titman, S., 1988, An Explanation for Accounting Income Smoothing, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 26, pp. 127-139.Watts, R.L., 2006. What Has the Invisible Hand Achieved? Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 36, pp. 51-61.Watts, R. and Zimmerman, J., 1986, Positive Accounting Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Welker, M., 1995, Disclosure Policy, Information Asymmetry, and Liquidity in Equity Markets, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 11, pp. 801-827.Xiong, Y., 2006, Earnings Management and Its Measurement: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 9(1), pp. 214-219. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
102961066資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102961066 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 王文杰 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Wang, Wen-Chieh en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃奕睿 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hwang, Yih-Ray en_US dc.creator (作者) 黃奕睿 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hwang, Yih-Ray en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 18-Jul-2018 11:08:22 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 18-Jul-2018 11:08:22 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Jul-2018 11:08:22 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0102961066 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118738 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法學院碩士在職專班 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 102961066 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文主要在於觀察臺灣地區會計師法律責任與資訊不對稱的關聯性，為有效捕捉會計師法律責任變化的影響，對於2004年發生博達舞弊案後及2005年起開始進行證券交易法法規修正，本論文茲以2005年作為子樣本期間劃分依據，進一步檢測舞弊案發生後，資訊揭露品質是否具有顯著性的改變。另一方面，回顧過去相關文獻，除了對於會計師法律責任變動少有著墨外，對於資訊不對稱的衡量亦無一致性的量化衡量方式，因此，在收集攸關公司特性變數，包括公司獲利性、規模因子、槓桿變化、成長性等變數，亦進一步計算公司營運風險與市場風險，而資訊不對稱衡量方式，則採用Dechow et al. (1995)所提出盈餘管理估計方法，茲以進行各重要變數間混合迴歸模型(pooled regression model)的估計。資料取自於臺灣經濟新報(Taiwan Economic Journal, TEJ)資料庫資訊，樣本期間為2003年到2016年所有存續經營的公司，合計完整家數計有641家公司。實證結果證實公司特性變數與風險結構對資訊不對稱程度的影響，扮演著重要的解釋能力，隨著公司規模持續擴增、成長性增加與對外舉債程度越高的公司，在內外部監督機制下，將有助於提升資訊揭露品質；然而，倘若公司僅致力績效改善，將會驅使公司進行報表窗飾，造成資訊不對稱的問題，而市場風險亦為解釋資訊不對稱的重要因素之一。再者，在2004年發生博達舞弊案後，會計師法律責任的改變，對資訊透明化具有明顯改善的實質效果，有助於市場參與者使用報表資訊進行相關決策。最後，因現今金融商品不斷推陳出新，衍生性商品多樣化對資訊不對稱，仍有一定程度的同向關聯性，故本論文建議市場參與者應提高資訊收集與分析能力，方能提高財報資訊背後所隱含的重要經濟意涵與會計政策。關鍵詞：會計師法律責任、資訊不對稱、盈餘管理、衍生性商品。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) Abstract The main purpose of this thesis is to observe the relevance between the legal liability of accountants and information asymmetry in Taiwan and to effectively capture the impact of changes in accountant liability law on information asymmetry of financial reports. The amendments to the Securities Exchange Act will start in 2005 after the fraud of Procomp Informatics Ltd. in 2004. The thesis divides into two sub-sample periods by 2005 act to further test whether the quality of information disclosure has a significant change after the occurrence of the fraud case. On the other hand, after reviewing the relevant literatures in the past, little studies have investigated the changes of the legal responsibility of accountants, and previous studies are not also to provide consistent quantitative indicator of the measurement of information asymmetry. Therefore, this thesis collects relevant variables as firm-specific characteristics including company profitability, firm’s size, leverage, and growth, as well as it also further calculated the operational risk and market risk in order to capture the variation of information asymmetry. The estimated model is proposed by Dechow et al. (1995). Controlling the effect of all variables, the pooled regression model is adopted to investigate the relationship between the legal liability of accountants and information asymmetry. The data was taken from the Taiwan Economic Journal (TEJ) database information. During the sample period, all the companies have to be survived from 2003 to 2016. Therefore, the total numbers of companies are 641. The empirical results confirm there are significant influences of firm-specific characteristic and risk structures on the degree of information asymmetry, and the legal responsibility of accountant play an important explanatory after 2005. As the company`s scale continues to expand, the growth rate increases, and the degree of leverage is higher, the internal and external supervision mechanism can decrease the earning management. It effectively improve the quality of information disclosure. However, if the company has devoted to increase the profitability, it will drive the manager to use window dressing, resulting in the problem of information asymmetric. In addition, market risk is also one of the important factors to explain information asymmetry. After the fraud of Procomp Informatics Ltd., there is significant improvement in the effects of changes in the legal responsibilities on degree of information transparency. It improves the information efficiency that market participants use the information of financial statements to make relevant decisions. Finally, due to the continuous innovation of financial products, and the diversification of derivative commodities, this study suggests that market participants should increase the ability of information collections and analysis in order to know that the implied important implications of economics and accounting policies.Key words: Legal Responsibility, Information Asymmetry, Earning management, Derivatives. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 5第二章 會計師法律責任之沿革及現狀 7第一節 安隆事件後美國會計師責任的改變 7第二節 我國會計師之法律責任 13第三節 會計師法律責任的理論沿革 24第三章 資訊不對稱的原因及理論發展 38第一節 資訊不對稱的原因 38第二節 資訊不對稱對投資人影響理論發展 39第四章 會計師法律責任與資訊不對稱 42第一節 會計師法律責任的變動 42第二節 會計師法律責任變動的衡量 47第三節 公司特性變數的選擇 49第四節 模型選擇與設定 51第五節 資料來源與選取標準 52第五章 實證結果與分析 53第一節 資訊不對稱樣本群描述性統計分析 53第二節 會計師法律責任迴歸模型估計結果 55第三節 會計師法律責任改變前後估計結果 57第六章 結論與研究啟示 59第一節 研究結論與經濟意涵 59第二節 未來研究方向 61參考文獻 62 zh_TW dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102961066 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 會計師法律責任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資訊不對稱 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 盈餘管理 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 衍生性商品 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Legal responsibility en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Information asymmetry en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Earning management en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Derivatives en_US dc.title (題名) 會計師法律責任與資訊不對稱之關聯研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Relationship between the Legal Responsibility of Accountants and Information Asymmetry en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王貞丰，2006年，博達案對會計師簽發繼續經營有重大疑慮意見之研究，台南女子技術學院會計與資訊系統研究所碩士論文。王瑄、杜榮瑞，2005年，企業資訊揭露之決定因素與效應(下) 提升資訊揭露程度有效降低資金成本，會計研究月刊，237期，頁 64-67．史建倫，2005年，博達事件對會計師事務所審計品質影響之實證研究，國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文。朱克敏，1993年，從社會資本與投資人保護觀點探討各國企業盈餘管理現象之研究國立臺北大學合作經濟學系碩士論文。杜榮瑞、李文智、林靖傑、朱中平，2007年，非審計服務與審計決策：博達案之前後比較，中華會計學刊，第6卷，第2期，頁125-152。韋伯韜、周信佑，2007年，誠信會計制度的國際趨勢與台灣經驗，國政研究報告，財團法人國家政策研究基金會。馬君梅、沈大白，2004年，由博達案談會計師事務所的風險管理，會計研究月刊，第226期，頁85-87。馬秀如，2004年9月，物不知其數：博達與會計師, ` 會計研究月刊，第226期，頁58-84。馬秀如，1999年10月，從中櫃事件參悟會計師執業環境與未來，會計研究月刊，第167期，頁12-16.許書偉，1994年，投資人保護與盈餘品質：以美國掛牌之外國公，國立臺北大學會計學系碩士論文。陳佩瑜，2006年，博達事件對公司財務報表保守性影響之研究，東吳大學會計學研究所碩士論文。陳姿妤，2004年，從盈餘管理與投資人保護探討各國股利發放行為，銘傳大學國際企業學系碩士論文。陳依蘋、鄭惠之，2004年，專業組織的未來－會計師、律師向前走，會計研究月刊，第226期，頁30-40。陳柏松，2004年，從博達案看整體會計環境，會計研究月刊，第225期，頁54-60。黃荃、林月麗、陳惠珠，1998年，台灣會計師簽證責任與歷來受處分案例之探討，會計研究月刊，第153期，頁76-82。楊碧茵，2004年a，博達案四會計師懲處過重？究意屬審計失敗？抑或經營失敗？，會計研究月刊，第226期，頁26。傅鐘仁、張福星、陳慶隆，2005年，審計失敗對會計師保守主義的影響：ENRON案是否存在產業蔓延效果，會計評論，第40期，頁31-67。楊碧茵，2004年，會計師執業環境之未來與挑戰，會計研究月刊，226期：頁44-51。楊炎杰、官月緞，2006年，客戶重要性與非審計服務是否影響審計品質？Enron後的觀察，會計評論，第43期，頁27-61。鄭惠之，2004，財務報表的審計責任，會計研究月刊，第220期，頁53-59。簡駿貿，1993年，會計師法律責任對經理人舞弊與會計師查核努力水準之研究，國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文。譚珅杰，2006年，恩隆案、沙氏法案及博逹案對會計師獨立性影響之研究，輔仁大學會計學研究所碩士論文。蘇慧齡，2006年，非審計服務、控制風險與會計師獨立性之關聯－博達事件後之影響，國立高雄應用科技大學商務經營研究所碩士論文。Baesel, J.B. and Stein, G.R., 1979, The Value of Information: Inferences from the Profitability of Insider Trading, Journal of Finance and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 14(3), pp. 553-571.Bagehot, W., 1971, The Only Game in Town, Financial Analyst Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 12-14.Beatty, A., Weber, J., and Yu, J., 2006, Conservatism and Debt, Working Paper.Berton, L., 1995, Big Accounting Firms Weed Out Risky Clients, The Wall Street Journal. B1- B6.Buckless, F.A. and Peace, R.L., 1993, The Influence of the Source of Professional Standards on Juror Decision Making, Accounting Review, Vol. 68(1), pp. 164-175Carcello, J.V., and Palmrose, Z., 1994, Auditor Litigation and Modified Reporting on Bankrupt Clients, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 1-30.Choi, J.H., Doogar, R., and Ganguly, A., 2004, The Riskiness of Large Audit Firm Client Portfolios and Changes in Audit Liability Regimes Evidence from the U.S. Audit Market, Contemporary Accounting Research,Vol. 21, pp. 747-785.Danielsen, B.R., Van Ness, R.A., and Warr, R.S., 2009, Single Stock Futures as a Substitute for Short Sales: Evidence from Microstructure Data, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 36(9), pp. 1273-1293.Dechow, P., Sloan, R., and Sweeney, A., (1995), “Detecting Earnings Management”, Accounting Review, Vol. 70, pp. 193-225.Demsetz, H., 1968, The Cost of Transacting, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 82(1), pp. 33-35.Dye, R., 1988, Earnings Management in an Overlapping Generations Model, Journal of Accounting Research, 26(2), pp. 195-235.Guth, W., Krahnen, J.P. and Rieck, C., 1997, Financial Markets with Asymmetric Information: A Pilot Study Focusing on Insider Advantages, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 235-257.Easley, D., Soeren, H., and O`Hara, M., 2002, Is information risk a determinant of asset returns? Journal of Finance, Vol. 57(5), pp. 2185-2221.Hasbrouck, J., 1991a, Measuring the Information Content of Stock Trades, Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, pp. 179-207. Hasbrouck, J., 1991b, The Summary Informativeness of Stock Trades: An Econometric Analysis, Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 571-595.Healy, P.M. and Palepu, K.G., 2001, Information Asymmetry, Corporate Disclosure, and the Capital Market: a Review of the Empirical Disclosure Literature, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 31(3), pp. 405-440.Hillegeist, S.A., 1999, Financial Reporting and Auditing under Alternative Damage Apportionment Rules, Accounting Review, Vol. 74(3), pp. 347-369.Holland, K., Light, L., and Galen, M., 1993, Big Six Firms Are Firing Clients, Business Week, Vol. 3307, pp. 76-77.Jensen, M.C. and W.H. Meckling, 1976, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-360.Jones, F.L. and Raghunandan, K., 1998, Client Risk and Recent Changes in the Market for Audit Services, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 17, pp. 169-181.Kellogg, R., 1984, Accounting Activities, Securities Prices, and Class Action Lawsuits, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 6, pp. 185-204.Kinney, W., and McDaniel, L., 1989, Characteristics of Firms Correcting Previously Reported Quarterly Earnings, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 71-93.Kreutzfeldt, R., and Wallace, W., 1986, Error Characteristics in Audit Populations: Their Profile and Relationships to Environmental Factors. Auditing, A Journal of Practice and Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 20-43.Krishnan, J., and Krishnan, J., 1996, The Role of Economic Trade-Offs in the Audit Opinion Decision: An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance. 11, pp. 565-586La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W., 2000, Investor protection and corporate governance, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 58, pp. 3-27.La Porta, R.,Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer, A., 1999, Corporate ownership around the world, Journal of Finance, Vol. 54(2), pp. 471-517.La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., and Vishny, R.W., 1998, Law and Finance, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106(6), pp. 1113-1155.LaFond, R. and Roychowdhury, S., 2008, Managerial Ownership and Accounting Conservatism, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 46(1), pp. 101-135.Leftwich, R., 1983, Accounting Information in Private ,arkets: Evidence from Private Lending Agreements, Accounting Review, Vol. 58(1), pp. 23-42.Leuz, C., 2003, IAS versus U.S. GAAP: Information Asymmetry-based Evidence from Germany’s New Market, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 41, pp. 445-472.Liu, C., and Wang, T., 2006, Auditor Liability and Business Investment. Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 23(4), pp. 1051-1071.Lys, T., and Watts, R.L., 1994, Lawsuits against Auditors, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 65-93.Lys, T., 1993, Discussion: The Evolution of Lawsuits against Auditors – Determinants, Consequences, and Solutions, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 2, pp. 427-433.Pae, S. and Yoo, S.W., 2001, Strategic Interaction in Auditing: An Analysis of Auditors` Legal Liability, Internal Control System Quality, and Audit Effort, Accounting Review, Vol. 76(3), pp. 333-356.Patterson, E., and Wright, D., 2003, Evidence of Fraud, Audit Risk and Audit Liability Regimes, Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 8, pp. 105-131.Hang, T. T., and Ngoc, B. T., 2018, Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure on Financial Performance, Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, Vol 10, No 1, pp. 40-58.Bryane, M., and Goo, S. H., 2015, Corporate Governance and its Reform in Hong Kong: a Study in Comparative Corporate Governance, Bradford Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 444-475.Narayanan, V.G., 1994, An analysis of auditor liability rules, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 32, pp. 39-64.Nelson, J., Ronen, J., and White, L., 1988, Legal Liability and the Markets for Auditing Services, Journal of Accounting, Auditing, and Finance, Vol. 3, pp. 255-285.Newman, M., 2005, Making ERPs Work: Accountants and the Introduction of ERP Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14(3), pp. 258–272.Palmrose, Z.V., 1988, An Analysis of Auditor Litigation and Audit Service Quality, Accounting Review, Vol. 63, pp. 55-73.Pierre, K., and Anderson, J., 1984, An Analysis of the Factors Associated with Lawsuits Against Public Accountants, Accounting Review. Vol. 59, pp. 242-263.Radhakrishnan, S., 1999, Investors` Recovery Friction and Auditor Liability Rules, Accounting Review, Vol. 74(2), pp. 225-240.Schipper, K., 1989, Commentary on Earning Management. Accounting Horizons, Vol. 4, pp. 91-102.Schwartz, R., 1997, Legal Regimes, Audit Quality and Investment, Accounting Review, Vol. 72(3), pp. 385-406Stice, J.D., 1991, Using Financial and Market Information to Identify Pre-Engagement Factors Associated with Lawsuits against Auditors, Accounting Review, Vol. 66, pp. 516-533.Simunic, D.A., and Stein, M.T., 1996, The Impact of Litigation Risk on Audit Pricing: A Review of the Economics and the Evidence. Auditing, A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. 15, pp. 145-148.Thoman, L., 1996, Legal Damages and Auditor Efforts, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 13(1), pp. 275-306.Trueman, B., and Titman, S., 1988, An Explanation for Accounting Income Smoothing, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 26, pp. 127-139.Watts, R.L., 2006. What Has the Invisible Hand Achieved? Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 36, pp. 51-61.Watts, R. and Zimmerman, J., 1986, Positive Accounting Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Welker, M., 1995, Disclosure Policy, Information Asymmetry, and Liquidity in Equity Markets, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 11, pp. 801-827.Xiong, Y., 2006, Earnings Management and Its Measurement: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 9(1), pp. 214-219. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.LLME.004.2018.F10 -
