연구논문 : 회계감리제도 개선방안에 대한 연구

배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ),이재은 ( Jae Eun Lee ) 한국회계학회 2013 회계저널 Vol.22 No.2

우리나라의 감사보고서감리제도는 회계품질의 향상에 공헌을 했다는 긍정적인 평가도 있지만, 동시에 감독제도 및 감리절차상 문제점과 특히 최근 IFRS의 전면도입 및 품질관리감리의 시행 등 환경변화로 인해 이를 개선할 필요가 있다는 주장도 지속적으로 제기되고 있다. 본 연구는 금융감독원(금감원)의 감사보고서감리제도의 문제점과 개선방안에 대한 이해관계자들의 인식과 현행 감리제도가 감사인(심리실)의 중요도 인식에 끼친 영향을 감사인 품질관리절차 항목별로 설문 조사를 통해 파악하고, 설문조사의 결과를 통해 품질관리감리제도의 동시시행을 고려할 때의 회계감리제도 개선방안을 도출하는 것을 주목적으로 한다. 이해관계자들의 의견조사를 통해 파악한 감사보고서감리제도의 문제점은 감리위원회에 감사전문가 참여 부족, 기업의 회계정보 작성책임의 취약성, 기업별로 상이한 위험(risk)을 일률적인 기준으로 감리판단에 적용, 종합적 적정성보다는 특정 항목의 적정성 위주 감리판단, 전문적 회계판단에 대한 징계, 사건종료 후 사후적 판단(hindsight bias) 위험 등이다. 이같은 문제를 완화할 수 있는 제도적 개선방안으로는 사전적, 예방적 심사감리 방식으로 전환, 품질관리감리 중심의 감사인(회계법인) 감사품질 감독, 중대한 회계오류에 대한 금감원의 조사권 강화에 대한 동의 수준이 높았다. 이는 선행연구들이 대체로 실증 없이 국제정합성과 비교, 논리의 일관성, 직관 등에 의거해서 도출한 회계감독제도 개선방안들과 대체로 일치하는 결과이다. 본 연구는 선행연구와 달리 이를 이해관계자 설문조사를 통해 실증했다는 데 의의가 있다.또한 회계법인 심리실을 대상으로 한 설문조사 결과, 감사보고서 감리제도는 적발된 회계기준 위배사항의 감사절차에 초점을 두는 감사보고서감리제도 특성과 관련된 항목(회계기준 점검, 특정 회계현안 관련 감사증거 및 감사절차의 적정성 확인과 문서화, 이에 따른 감사의견 결정 등)에 대해서 회계품질(감사품질) 개선에 공헌이 있는 반면에, 품질관리감리는 품질관리절차 전반에 대해 유의한 영향을 준 것으로 나타났다. 위 조사결과는 품질관리감리가 감사인(회계법인)의 행동변화에 더 효과적 수단이 될 수 있음을 나타낸다는 점에서 실무적 시사점이 있다. The regulatory review on audit reports by the Financial Supervisory Service(FSS) in Korea is generally recognized to have contributed to the improvement of overall accounting quality. Nevertheless, it has also been pointed out that the regulatory review has certain deficiencies and practical problems in the rules and procedures. Recent accounting and audit environment changes from the implementation of the International Financial Reporting Standards(IFRS), introduction of the new international standard of auditing(new ISA), and implementation of quality control review on audit firms requires modifications and improvements of the regulatory review more important. While numerous prior studies have suggested various improvement plans on the FSS` regulatory review on audit reports or on auditor`s quality control system, however, they are mostly based on the comparative analysis of Korean accounting regulation and that of other countries or the discussions with specific auditors and/ or the FSS; opinions of the interested parties(the regulators, auditors, or accounting information users) have been left untested. In this study, we use direct survey results via questionnaires to the interested parties (including FSS review staffs, accounting information users, individual accountants, and audit firm`s quality control division partners) to evaluate the validity of the points provided by prior studies. Problems confirmed in the current survey are: absence of the experienced and competent audit professionals in regulatory review committee panels, lack of preparer responsibility of reporting companies, application of uniform rules to companies with dissimilar risks, inclination to focus on specific defects of audit process and to disregard the overall appropriateness of audit, and the hindsight bias risks. Regulatory improvements recommended in the survey are: pre-emptive and realtime review on financial statements, more focus on quality control review to change the auditor`s behaviors, more stringent investigations by the FSS against intentional accounting frauds. Our findings are generally consistent with the suggestions found in the previous literature. The survey results on partners of audit firms` quality control department show that the FSS` regulatory review on audit reports has improved audit quality by changing the auditor`s behavior; the effects are significant for the items the review system focuses on. Therefore, significant impacts from the FSS`s audit report review regulation concern audit firms` actions, for example, in accounting standard training, review of reasonableness of audit evidence and its audit documentation. The FSS`s review on auditor`s quality control systems, however, has impacts on more comprehensive areas, ranging from firm-level to engagement-level quality control procedures. In addition, most of improvements by the FSS` regulatory review on audit report is covered by the ones by its review on auditor`s quality control systems. This result indicates that the most effective measure that changes the auditor`s behavior might be the FSS` regulatory review on auditor`s quality control systems rather than those on audit reports. This study has contributions by evaluating validity of the points provided by prior studies to improve the FSS`s regulatory review program via direct survey to the interested parties, and finding different effects of the FSS`s regulatory review on audit reports and auditor`s quality control systems on auditor`s behaviors, which would have regulatory implications in Korea.

감사보고서상 특기사항의 기재유인

전영순 ( Youngsoon S. Cheon ),노준화 ( Joon Hwa Rho ),배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ) 한국회계학회 2004 회계학연구 Vol.29 No.2

본 연구는 감사인이 감사보고서에 특기사항을 기재할 유인을 검토한다. 분석결과 표본기업의 64%가 감사보고서에 특기사항을 기재하고 있으며 특히 1997년 이후에는 표본기업의 89%가 특기사항을 기재하고 있다. 이는 주석사항 중 특히 강조하고자 하는 내용을 감사보고서에 별도문단으로 기재하여 재무제표 이용자들의 주의를 환기함으로써 이들의 의사결정에 도움을 주기 위한 특기사항 본연의 취지를 전혀 반영하지 못하는 것이라 할 수 있다. 예상한 바와 같이 위험회피성향이 높은 감사인일수록, 피감사인의 경영성과가 낮거나 재무위험이 높을수록 특기사항이 보다 빈번하게 기재되는 경향이 있다. 특기사항을 사유별로 구분하여 기재유인을 분석한 결과도 전체를 사용한 결과와 유사하다. Before 1988 auditors expressed a subject-to-qualified opinion in the auditor`s report, if there was a significant uncertainty such as an ongoing concern problem or a pending lawsuit. However, the Statements on the Auditing Standard (SAS) 58 and 59 issued in 1988 removed the subject-to- qualified opinion. Instead, the SAS 58 and 59 required auditors to add an explanatory paragraph, rather than modifying the audit opinion, if a significant uncertainty exists. Similar to the US, Korean auditing standards also require auditors to add an explanatory paragraph in the auditor`s report to highlight matters significantly affecting financial statements, such as a significant uncertainty, ongoing concern problems, a significant change in the business environment, significant related-party transactions, and significant changes in accounting methods and estimates. The purpose of explanatory paragraphs is to highlight a matter affecting the financial statements included in a note on the financial statements that more extensively discuss the matter. The use of explanatory paragraphs is not only useful for the financial statement users but also adequate to meet the auditor`s reporting responsibilities without altering the audit opinion. Thus, the use of explanatory paragraphs is likely to be related to the auditor`s attitude toward the reporting responsibilities and firm characteristics of the client. This study examines patterns of the use of explanatory paragraphs in the auditor`s report and then the auditor`s incentives to use explanatory paragraphs. We find that 64% of our sample firms have explanatory paragraphs in the auditor`s report. The frequency of explanatory paragraphs significantly increases after the 1997 crisis. During the post-crisis period, 89% of our sample contained explanatory paragraphs in the auditor`s report and some auditor`s reports are a few pages long due to explanatory paragraphs. These results suggest that explanatory paragraphs are used excessively and therefore are not likely to achieve their intended purposes. The results also reveal that the use of explanatory paragraphs is significantly associated with characteristics of auditors and client firms. The addition of explanatory paragraphs is significantly associated with Big 6 auditors. This suggests that the more conservative the auditor is, the more likely the auditor uses explanatory paragraphs to meet the reporting responsibilities. The addition of explanatory paragraphs is also negatively related to clients` performance and positively related to clients` leverage. These results suggest that the addition of explanatory paragraphs increases as clients perform poorly and have high financial risks.

감사파트너 경험에 따른 감사시간,감사보수 및 감사품질의 차이

배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ),최승욱 ( Seung Uk Choi ),이재은 ( Jae Eun Lee ) 한국회계학회 2014 회계저널 Vol.23 No.6

According to recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession(ACAP 2008), the PCAOB(2011) released a concept statement, which would consider to require public disclosure of audit partner names. The regulator explains that partner identity disclosure would increase transparency and accountability of the audits, which would eventually improve audit quality(PCAOB 2011). In a sense of transparency, the regulator indicates that partner identity would help the investors and audit committee to evaluate the potential audit partners by enabling them to find the partner’s competence, experience, or disciplinary history. This is in line with the thoughts that individual partner characteristics would have differential effects on audit partner’s behaviors and, ultimately, audit quality. In response to such a new development, academic literature also push down its research focus from audit firm levels and office levels to the individual partner level. Conventional audit firm level studies have examined various audit firm characteristics, such as audit firm size(e.g. DeAngelo 1981; Becker et al. 1998; Krishnan and Schauer 2000), industry specialists(e.g. DeFond et al. 2000; Balsam et al. 2003), audit firm tenure or audit firm rotations(e.g. Lim 2006; Rho 2009), audit firm independence and non-audit services(e.g. Craswell et al. 2002; Myers et al. 2003). They investigate the relations between the audit firm characteristics or the audit firm client characteristics and engagement level audit attributes such as audit quality, audit hours or audit fees. More recent office level studies have examined the effect of office size and office level industry expertise on audit quality(e.g. Ferguson et al. 2003; Francis and Yu 2009; Francis et al. 2013). More nascent individual partner level studies have examined audit partner tenure or partner rotation(Carey and Simnett 2006; Manry et al. 2008; Fargher et al. 2008; Chen et al. 2008; Azizkhani et al. 2013), audit partner’s industry expertise(Chi and Chin 2011; Zerni 2012), auditor independence at the individual partner level(Chen et al. 2010; Ye et al. 2011), fixed effects of audit quality across individual audit partners(Gul et al. 2013; Sundgren and Svanstrom 2014), and effects of potential disclosure of partner identity(Carcello and Li 2013; Abodia et al. 2013; King et al. 2012) on audit quality. They generally find that individual partner characteristics are systematically related to audit quality and other audit attributes. Our study adds to the existing literature by examining the effect of various audit partner’s experiences and auditor behavior on audit results. Specifically, auditor behavior is measured by audit hours, audit fees, and audit fee premium/discounts. Audit quality is measured by restatements and the absolute value of performance-matched discretionary accruals( AbsPMDA). Audit partners’ experience is proxied by (i) the number of public company audits, (ii) the number of career years as professional certified public accountants(CPA), (iii) the number of partner tenure years with the client. In particular, we examine whether the partner experience proxies are related to audit hours, audit fees, audit fee premium/discounts, restatements and AbsPMDA. Our sample consists of 7,167 firm-years from 2006 to 2012 . The results indicate that audit partner experience is systematically related to audit hours, audit fees, and audit quality. First, the number of public company audits is negatively associated with audit hours and audit fee. Audit quality is positively associated with the number of public company clients, although the significance level is generally low. However, the number of prior three year public company audits is not systematically associated with audit hours, audit fee, and audit quality. Second, audit partner career as a CPA is negatively associated with audit hours and audit fees and AbsPMDA. However, we find no systematic relationship between audit partner career and restatements. Third, audit partner tenure has no significant association with audit hours, audit fees, restatements, and AbsPMDA. Audit partner tenure is negatively associated with AbsPMDA at the 0.1 level in the non-Big 4 audit firm subsample, but not in the Big 4 audit firm subsample. However, audit firm tenure is positively associated with audit hours and audit fees. We find that audit firm tenure is positively related to audit fee premiums, but not related to restatements and AbsPMDA. We perform several sensitivity tests. First, converting experimental variables to corresponding dummy variables does not alter the results. Dividing the observations into Big 4 and non-Big 4 subsamples reveals that auditor behavior and audit quality are not constant across these subsamples. More specifically, Big 4 audit firms appear to have a more structured quality control system to mitigate quality differences across individual partners and better utilize partner experience by more effectively transferring their knowledge to less-experienced professionals. Our work has several contributions. First, we extend the existing literature in auditing by extending the scope of the analysis to audit partners. Second, we provide evidence that audit partner experience is systematically related to auditor behavior and audit quality at the engagement level. Third, given the debate on the effect of potential partner identity disclosure in several countries including the U.S. and the EU, our work provides regulatory implications for the potential regulatory changes.

동일한 집단에 속한 기업의 재무제표가 서로 유사한가?

배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ),최승욱 ( Seung Uk Choi ) 한국회계학회 2017 회계저널 Vol.26 No.6

재무제표는 기업에 발생한 경제적인 사건을 구체적인 수치로 환산한 결과의 요약이라고 볼 수 있다. 이러한 경제적인 사건은 다양할 뿐만 아니라 그 구체적인 내용에 있어 차이가 존재하므로 관련된 회계기준을 특정 기업에 발생한 특정 사건에 적용하기 위해서는 재무제표 작성자의 해석과 선택이 필요하다. 본 연구는 동일한 집단에 속한 계열사 사이의 재무제표 비교가능성이 동일한 집단에 속하지 않은 기업들 사이의 재무제표 비교가능성 정도에 비해 높은지를 조사한다. 기업집단이 최고의사결정권자의 지배권에 영향을 받는다면 기업집단에 속한 구성원들(계열사들)의 회계기준 해석과 선택에는 일관성이 존재할 가능성이 있다. 반면, 집단에 속한 계열사들이라도 이들 개별 계열사들의 직접 운영을 담당하고 있는 고용된 전문경영인이 재무제표를 작성하는 데 중요한 영향을 미친다면 동일 기업집단 내 계열사 간이라도 타 기업집단 소속이나 집단 소속이 아닌 기업들 간에 비해 재무제표의 비교가능성이 반드시 더 높지는 않을 가능성도 있다. 2008년부터 2013년까지의 국내 상장기업 자료를 사용하여 조사한 결과 동일한 집단에 속해 있는 기업-쌍은 동일한 집단에 속해 있지 않은 기업-쌍에 비해 재무제표의 비교가능성이 높았다. 이는 최종의사결정권자 혹은 집단 내 유사한 조직문화 등의 영향으로 인해 동일 기업집단 내 기업 간 재무제표가 보다 비교가능 해진다는 해석과 일치하는 결과이다. 이는 여러 다른 비교가능성 측정치를 이용한 분석과 기업집단 소속 기업의 특성 자체가 비교가능성에 미치는 영향을 완화하기 위해 성향점수매칭 표본을 이용한 분석에서도 일관되었다. 또한 본 연구는 기업집단 소속 기업들의 평균적인 재무제표 비교가능성에 영향을 미치는 집단의 특성요인들을 조사하였다. 그 결과, 수익성이 높거나 내부자본시장이 존재하는 기업집단의 평균적인 비교가능성이 그렇지 않은 기업집단에 비해 더 낮았다. 이는 자체유보자금이 풍부하거나 집단 내부적으로 자금을 조달할 수 있는 기업집단 내 계열사들은 외부시장의 투자자들에게 공시되는 재무제표의 비교가능성에 대한 의존도가 낮다는 해석과 일치한다. In this study, we investigate whether the financial statements of the member companies in business groups are more comparable relative to those of non-member companies. This prediction is based on the observation that the ultimate owner of the business group controls all the members, and therefore the ultimate owner’s interpretation of the event and accounting standards will be reflected in the financial statements of all the member companies. Using a data set from 2008-2013, we find that the financial statements of the member companies of the same business group are significantly more comparable than those of non-member companies (e.g., companies that belong to other business groups or stand-alone companies). In addition, we find that business groups that report higher profitability or have an active internal capital market exhibit lower financial statement comparability. The results using a propensity score matched sample are qualitatively similar, suggesting that our main findings are robust to selection bias.

양적,질적 중요성기준 지침이 감사인의 중요성 판단에 미치는 영향

배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ),이재은 ( Jae Eun Lee ) 한국회계학회 2011 회계저널 Vol.20 No.1

품질관리검토시간을 통한 감사위험에 대한 감사인의 차별적대응

배길수(제1저자) ( Gil S. Bae ),이재은(교신저자) ( Jae Eun Lee ),노준화(공동저자) ( Joon Hwa Rho ),최승욱(공동저자) ( Seung Uk Choi ) 한국회계학회 2015 會計學硏究 Vol.40 No.6

본 연구는 외감법 개정에 따라 2014 회계연도부터 감사보고서의 ``감사실태보고자료``에 첨부된 품질관리검토시간 공시정보가 감사위험에 따른 감사인 대응행동의 차이를 나타내는지 조사한다. 선행연구(Francis and Krishnan 1999)에서는 감사위험이 높을 경우,투입시간의 증가, 전문성이 높은 인력의 투입, 감사보수의 증가 등의 대응방법을 감사인이 선택한다고 보고하였다. 이러한 가정에 의하면, 감사위험이 높을수록 품질관리검토시간비율은 증가하고, 높은 감사위험에 따른 감사시간·보수 증가 효과는 품질관리검토시간비율에 따라 차별적으로 나타날 것이다. 본 연구는 이에 대한 실증조사이다. 본 연구에서 높은 감사위험은 전기와 당기 재량발생액(실적대응재량발생액절댓값)으로 측정하였다. 연구대상최종표본은 2014년 12월 결산 코스피·코스닥 상장 비금융업 1,449개 기업이다. 실증조사 결과, 감사인이 인지한 감사위험(전기 또는 당기재량발생액절댓값)이 높을수록 품질관리검토시간비율이 대체로 높았다. 또한 품질관리검토시간비율이 높아지면 감사위험(전기 또는 당기재량발생액절댓값)이 높을 경우의 감사시간 증분차이는 이에 따라 함께 증가하고, 감사보수 증분차이는 유의한 차이가 없으며, 시간당감사보수 증분차이는 유의하게 감소하였다. 강건성 분석에서도 높은 감사위험 하에서 품질관리검토시간비율 증가시 시간당보수 증분차이의 감소라는 수익성 악화현상이 일관되게 나타났다. 이 조사결과는 감사수익성을 희생하더라도 높은 감사위험에 더 많은 투입노력을 기울인다고 보고한 선행연구(Schelleman and Knechel 2010)와 일맥상통한다. 한편, 전체 표본을 Big 4 감사법인과 Non-big 4 감사법인 표본을 구분한 경우에는 양 표본그룹 사이에 감사인의 대응이 위험요소별로 다소 차이가 있지만, 대체로 감사위험 증가시 품질관리검토시간비율 증가현상과, 감사위험이 높을 때 품질관리검토시간비율이 증가하면 시간당보수가 하락하는 것은 동일하다. 본 연구의 공헌점은, 외감법 개정에 따라 2014 회계연도부터 시행된 품질관리검토시간 공시정보가 감사위험에 대한 감사인의 차별적 대응행동을 식별할 수 있게 함으로써 품질관리업무에 대한 회계감독 목적으로 유용한 정보임을 확인한다. Francis and Krishnan (1999) suggest that auditors respond to earnings management in five ways: (1) screen out high-risk clients, (2) charge a fee premium, (3) adjust audit effort, (4) negotiate financialstatement adjustments, and/or (5) report more conservatively. In this study, we focus on (2) and (3) above. Several prior studies demonstrate that earnings management affects audit fees and/or hours (Gul et al. 2003; Bedard and Johnstone 2004; Schelleman and Knechel 2010), providing evidence that both audit effort and pricing are affected by accruals. In particular, Schelleman and Knechel (2010) provide explanations for engagement profitability in the context of risk-adjusted audit fees. This paper investigates (1) the effect of increased levels of audit risks perceived by the auditors on the quality control review hours, and (2) the combined association of the increased audit risk level (measured by quality control review hours) with the auditors`` responses (audit hours, audit fees, and the hourly audit fees) to the auditors`` perceived audit risks. Our paperexploits the Korean regulation setting which mandates audit firms to report the "audit details information" in the audit reports from the fiscal year 2014. This regulation requires auditors to disclose the quality control review hours expended for the specific audit in each audit report. Prior studies expect that auditors respond to high audit risks by increasing audit hours (Bell et al. 2001; Bedard and Johnstone 2004) and audit fees (Gul et al. 2003). Further, Bell et al.(2008) and Schelleman and Knechel (2010) suggest that audit firms assign more experienced and (or) specialist professionals for risky clients even when they may not able to recoup the normal engagement profits from those audits. This finding indicates that as perceived audit risk increases, audit firms likely increase audit hours and/or also put more quality control review hours. Moreover, Matsumura and Tucker (1995) report that audit issues raised by quality control review partners are usually addressed successfully, but tend to increase interactions among the audit engagement team, the quality control review partner, and the client in the interacting process, which eventually increases audit inputs (i.e., audit hours). Based on this argument, we expect that auditors will exhibit different behavior with quality control review hours in accordance with perceived audit risk. The difference in auditor behavior, in turn, will be manifested as differences in audit hours, audit fees, and hourly audit fees. Our initial sample is consisted of 1,620 non-financial listed companies with December 2014 fiscal year. We first dropped the companies that lack the necessary financial variables and audit fee and hour information for the analysis. We also eliminated the companies with audit hours less than 100 and companies in industries with less than 10 observations. After this screen, our final sample is consisted of 1,449 companies. We use the absolute performance-matched discretionary accruals as the proxy for auditors`` perceived audit risk.We find that auditors`` perceived audit risk is significantly associated with the level of quality control review hours ratio. We also find that an increase in quality control review hours ratio leads to a significant increase in incremental audit hours when audit risk is high, but no corresponding increase in incremental audit fees, resulting in the significantly lower incremental hourly audit fee. This finding is consistent with Schelleman and Knechel (2010), who find that auditors respond to higher risk by increasing audit inputs even when they sacrifice engagement profitability. One possible explanation for this auditors`` response to audit risk is that auditors address high audit risk even at the expense of sacrificing profitability of the engagement. Also, an increase in the quality control review hours ratio leads to higher engagement team hours designed to address the quality control review issues. Our additional analyses also find that differential auditors`` responses are not constant across audit firms with a different size. This paper makes several contributions to the existing literature. First, prior studies find that audit risks are positively associated with higher audit fees and quality control reviewers`` activities are associated with increased audit inputs and fees. Our work investigates the combined relationship between thequality control review inputs and audit risks, audit hours, audit fees and the hourly audit fees. As such, it provides insights into understanding auditors`` behaviors when quality control review efforts and audit risks are considered simultaneously. Second, although there are many experimental studies, few empirical studies have investigated quality control review procedures. Therefore, our empirical evidence expands the scope of the extant research. Third, we contribute to the related literature by showing that disclosing quality control review hours in the "audit details information" likely provides additional useful information to investors and other interested parties to understand auditors`` behaviors in response to the increased audit risk.

연구논문 : 감사판단의 사후평가시 기대차이, 직무책임 및 사후편견의 영향

이재은 ( Jae Eun Lee ),배길수 ( Gil S Bae ) 한국회계학회 2014 회계저널 Vol.23 No.5

국내 감사보고서감리제도는 회계품질의 향상에 공헌을 했다는 평가와 함께 감독제도와 감리절차상 문제점들이 지속적으로 제기되어 왔다. 이러한 문제제기 중 대표적 항목으로서 회계기준 적용 판단, 회계추정의 판단, 감사절차의 판단 등 회계 및 감사사항에 대한 감사인의 전문적 판단에 대해서 잘잘못을 판단하는 것이 부적절하다는 문제제기를 포함한다. 이러한 논란의 배경에는 여러 편의(bias)의 영향에 따라 감사품질에 대한 제3자의 사후적 판단이 달라진다는 주장이 있다. 선행연구(Anderson et al. 1993; Lowe and Reckers 1994; Anderson etal. 1997; Kadous 2001 등)에서는 감사의견에 대한 제3자의 사후적 평가가 여러 편의의 영향을 받을 수 있다고 보고하면서, 이러한 편의의 발생원인을 기대차이(expectation gap), 직무책임(accountability), 사후편견(hindsight bias) 등을 제시하였다. 본 연구에서는 국내감사 실무에서 감사판단의 평가가 이루어지는 대표적 절차인 감사보고서감리에서의 당사자인개인공인회계사(이하, 감사인)와 금감원 감리검사역(이하, 금감원검사역)을 대상으로 이러한 편의가 감사판단 사후평가에 실제 영향을 끼치는지 조사한다. 연구 표본은 감사인 107명, 금감원검사역 44명이다. 연구 결과, 국내 감사인과 금감원검사역들이 공통적으로 감사판단에 대한 사후평가시 사후편견의 영향을 받는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 회계오류 발생가능성 사전예측이 높을수록(기대차이영향), 감사인보다 금감원검사역이(직무책임 차이 영향) 감사품질을 더 낮게 평가하였다. 반면에 회계오류발생가능성을 높게 인식할수록 사후편견의 증분효과는 감소하는 (즉, 역[逆]사후편견의 영향을 받는) 형태로 나타났다. 그러나 금감원 검사역과 감사인의 사후편견 차이는 유의하지 않아서, 금감원검사역의 감사품질 판단시 사후편견의 영향은 감사인과 유사한 수준인것으로 나타났다. 추가로 감사(감리) 경험기간을 통제한 경우에는 대체로 위에서 확인된 영향(계수값의 유의수준)이 작아졌다. 이는 감사(감리)경험기간이 감사판단에 대한 사후평가시 편의완화전략으로 활용가능함을 의미한다. 본 연구의 공헌점은 감사판단에 대한 편의영향을 조사한 Anderson et al. (1993) 등의 선행연구들이 잠재적 업무관련 가능성이 있는 배심원·판사 또는 감사인을 주로 대상으로 한 것과 달리 국내 감리절차를 실제 담당 또는 경험한 당사자인 금감원검사역과 감사인을 직접 조사 대상으로 한 연구라는 점, 국내 감리조사의 감사품질 평가에서 기대차이, 직무책임, 사후편견이 유의한 영향을 끼침과 경험기간이 길수록 위 편의가 완화할 수 있음을 발견한 것이다. Regulatory reviews on audit reports by the Financial Supervisory Service (the “FSS”) are generally believed to have improved the overall accounting and audit quality in Korea. Under the FSS`s review program, the FSS staffs select samples of public companies listed in the Korea Stock Exchange, and evaluate the financial statements for any potential misstatements. However, there have been ever growing concerns among the accounting profession over the fairness and objectivity of the FSS`s disciplinary decisions. In particular, one important issue with respect to the review procedure is a potential bias in the ex post evaluation on audit judgment. Despite the concerns about such bias in the accounting profession, little evidence that either refutes or validates the allegation is currently available. We attempt to fill this void. Prior studies report a potential bias in the third party`s evaluation of audit results. For instance, Anderson et al. (1993) report that one such a bias is so-called hindsight bias. Hindsight bias exists when individuals overestimate the extent to which outcomes could have been anticipated prior to their occurrence. That is, individuals judge audit quality (e.g., the likelihood of auditor negligence) in light of ex post adverse outcomes (e.g., unfavorable subsequent consequences or undetected material misstatements of earnings). One common and legitimate concern therefore is that adverse outcomes could bias individuals, causing overly harsh conclusions about the likelihood of auditor negligence. Also, Anderson et al. (1993) argue that the evaluation may be biased by a factor such as expectation gap. However, while hindsight bias may contribute to the professional legal disputes, this analysis alone may not resolve all issues since many studies attend on other biases by expectation gaps deriving from prior belief on estimated error occurrence (Peecher and Piercey 2008), or accountability difference by respondent`s responsibility or roles (Kennedy 1995). Previous studies report that adverse outcome tends to cause lower evaluation of audit quality due to hindsight bias. Also, the higher the expectation for auditors` responsibility or audit standards to be accomplished is, the more stringent evaluations on audit opinions tend to be. Similarly, more accountable respondents are more likely to be assigned to tough evaluations on audit results. In addition, Peecher and Piercey (2008) find that the higher prior belief on error occurrence is positively associated with the lower level of hindsight bias of the jury ("the reverse hindsight bias"). Several prior studies attempt to design debiasing methods that could be implemented in the legal liability context, given that judicial litigants may be unable to ignore the knowledge about outcomes. We investigate whether such a bias actually affects the professional evaluation on the auditor opinion in the course of the FSS`s review procedures. Specifically, based on the findings in the prior literature, we posit that bias arises from several factors: outcome knowledge (hindsight bias), expectation gap (prior belief on estimated occurrence of error), and accountability difference (i.e. regulatory reviewer`s challenging positions vs. auditor`s defending positions). We conduct an experimental field survey using 44 staff reviewers of the FSS and 107 auditors of various accounting firms, who are the counterparts involved in the FSS`s review procedures. Our results indicate that the FSS reviewers` evaluation on the auditors` performance is significantly lower than that of auditors, which is reflective of an accountability difference. Moreover, the higher prior belief on error is, the lower evaluation of audit quality is, which is also reflective of an expectation gap. Perhaps more importantly, our results reveal that evaluative judgments of auditors` performance are subject to hindsight bias. These results together indicate that professionals including both of auditors and the FSS reviewers are affected by hindsight bias, expectation gap, and accountability in the third party evaluation of audit results. In addition, we find that higher prior belief on estimated error occurrence is positively associated with lower hindsight bias (the reverse hindsight bias). However, we do not find the reverse hindsight bias in the FSS reviewer`s evaluation, which indicates that FSS reviewers tend to evaluate audit results lower than auditors, and their level of hindsight bias is similar with that of the auditor. Additional analyses also show that longer experience in the years of audit or regulatory review tends to mitigate the bias affecting the ex post evaluation of audit results. This suggests that longer experience can be used as debiasing method to mitigate the bias. Our study has several contributions. First, most of prior studies on hindsight and other bias are based on the surveys or experimental studies using jury, judge, or auditors. In contrast, our study is based on a field survey on auditors and the FSS reviewers who are the actual counterpart of the FSS review procedures. Second, we find that the hindsight bias, expectation gap and accountability difference together actually affect the judgment of the professionals participating in the FSS review process. Lastly, we find that the audit or the FSS review experience reduces the level of such bias, and therefore can be useful as a debiasing method that mitigates biases.

투자국가의 투자자 보호수준이 피투자내국기업의 회계보수성 및 감사수요에 미치는 영향

김정옥 ( Jeong Ok Kim ),배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ) 한국회계학회 2007 회계학연구 Vol.32 No.3

본 연구는 우리나라에 투자한 외국인투자기업의 투자자 보호수준 측정치인 투자국가의 법체계, 투자자권리, 법집행 및 회계기준이 피투자내국기업의 회계 보수성향과 감사보수 및 감사인 선임에 미치는 영향을 분석한다. 연구결과 법체계, 투자자권리, 법집행 및 회계기준의 네 가지 변수로 측정한 투자자권리가 높은 투자국가가 투자한 피투자내국기업은 보호수준이 낮은 투자국가가 투자한 피투자내국기업에 비해 회계의 보수성향과 감사보수 및 Big5 감사인을 선임하는 경향이 높았다. 또한 외국투자모기업의 피투자내국기업에 대한 지분율이 높을수록 외국투자모기업의 투자자 보호수준이 피투자내국기업의 회계 보수성향과 Big5 감사인 선임에 미치는 영향도 컸다. 그러나 투자자 보호수준이 피투자내국기업의 감사보수에 미치는 영향은 외국투자모기업지분율의 크기에 따라 유의한 차이를 보이지 않았다. 이는 투자국가의 투자자보호와 관련이 있는 법 및 법 집행 수준이 피투자내국기업의 회계보수성과 감사보수 및 감사인 선임에 영향을 미치며, 또한 이러한 영향은 외국인투자자지분율이 높을수록 크다는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. We examine whether shareholder rights and legal enforcement of the foreign investors` home country are systematically associated with the level of financial reporting and audit quality in the target firms after the block acquisition by foreign investors. Shareholder rights and the quality of its enforcement are important determinants of what rights security holders have and how well these rights are protected. We find that shareholder rights of the home country are positively associated with the quality of accounting and auditing in target firms. In addition, we find that the overall enforcement scores as well as four individual enforcement variables, including rule of law, corruption, risk of expropriation, and risk of contract repudiation, are also positively related to financial reporting quality and audit quality of the target firms. However, the results do not suggest that shareholder rights and legal enforcement of the foreign investors` home country are systematically related to audit fees.

회계실패사례 분석 및 회계실패 방지를 위한 개선방안: 경영환경, 회계환경, 감사환경 및 감리환경을 중심으로

노준화 ( Joon Hwa Rho ),배길수 ( Gil S. Bae ) 한국회계학회 2004 회계저널 Vol.13 No.2

감사인의 규모가 회계정보의 가치관련성에 미치는 영향

김정옥 ( Jeong Ok Kim ),배길수 ( Gil S Bae ) 한국회계학회 2013 회계학연구 Vol.38 No.3

감사인 규모는 감사품질의 대용치로 널리 사용되고 있지만 투자자들이 감사인 규모에 따른 품질의 차이를 인식하고 이를 그들의 의사결정 과정에 반영하고 있는지에 대한 증거는 매우 드물다. 본 연구는 감사인 규모에 따라 시장에서 인식하는 회계정보의 가치관련성에 체계적인 차이가 있는 지를 조사한다. 구체적으로 본 연구는 기업이 대형감사인으로부터 감사서비스를 받았을 때와 그렇지 않을 때 투자자들이 해당 기업의 회계정보에 부여하는 신뢰도에 차이가 존재하는 지를 조사한다. 본 연구의 결과는 다음과 같다. 첫째, Big4 감사인이 감사를 하면 주당장부가치와 주당순이익으로 측정한 회계정보의 가치관련성은 non-Big4 감사인이 감사한 때 보다 유의하게 높았다. 이는 Big4 감사인이 감사한 회계정보에 대해 투자자들이 전반적으로 더 높은 신뢰성을 부여한다는 것을 의미한다. 둘째, 감사인 규모 그룹별로 각각 회계정보의 상대적인 가치관련성이 차이를 보이는지 분석한 결과 Big4 감사인이 감사한 회계정보에 대해서는 주당순이익의 상대적인 가치관련성이 주당장부가치보다 높았다. 반면에 non-Big4 감사인이 감사를 하면 주당장부가치의 상대적인 가치관련성이 주당순이익에 비해 높았다. 투자자들은 상대적으로 신뢰성이 높은 회계정보에 대해서는 주당순이익에 그렇지 않으면 주당장부가치에 더 높은 신뢰성을 부여한다는 선행연구의 결과를 미루어 볼 때, 투자자들이 non-Big4 감사인에 비해 Big4 감사인이 제공한 서비스에 대해 더 높은 신뢰성을 부여한다는 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 셋째, 주당현금흐름을 포함하여 분석한 결과 주당현금흐름 역시 Big4 감사인이 감사를 하면 non- Big4 감사인이 감사를 했을 때에 비해 가치관련성이 높았다. 넷째, 감사인 규모 그룹별로 회계정보의 상대적인 가치관련성을 분석한 결과 Big4 감사인이 감사를 하면 주당순이익의 상대적인 가치관련성이 주당현금흐름에 비해 높았으며, non-Big4 감사인이 감사를 하면 주당현금흐름의 상대적인 가치관련성이 주당순이익에 비해 높았다. 이와 같은 결과는 기업이 제공하는 회계정보의 신뢰성이 높을수록 주당순이익의 신뢰성이 주당현금흐름에 비해 높고, 반대의 경우는 주당현금흐름의 신뢰성이 더 높아진다는 선행연구의 결과와 일치하는 것이다. The association between of audit firm size and audit quality has long been of interest to researchers and policy makers in auditing. In a pioneering study, DeAngelo (1981) posits that audit firm size could be a proxy for auditor quality because larger audit firms are less likely to compromise their independence than smaller audit firms due to the larger collateral effect. Dopuch and Simunic (1980) and Lennox (1999) reach a similar conclusion by appealing respectively to the higher brand-value and higher litigation rate associated with audit firm size. Lawrence et al. (2011) observe that audit firm size is associated with more robust training programs, standardized audit methodologies, and more options for appropriate second partner reviews, leading to a positive association with superior audit quality. Subsequent empirical studies have largely validated the theoretical prediction that larger audit firms provide higher quality audits than do smaller audit firms (Palmrose 1988; Becker et al. 1998; Krishnan and Schauer 2000; Behn et al. 2008). The effect of audit firm size on audit quality and audit fees has been discussed largely in terms of the Big4/non-Big4 dichotomy in the extant literature. In fact, DeAngelo (1981) frames the theoretical prediction about the role of audit firm size on audit quality using an example based on the then Big8/non-Big8 dichotomy. A recent extension of the investigation of audit quality to the audit firm office is no exception (Francis et al. 2006; Francis and Yu 2009; Francis and Michas 2011). While auditor size has been widely accepted and employed as an important audit quality proxy, only limited evidence is currently available whether investors indeed interpret auditor size as representing audit quality. In order to shed lights to understanding the market`s interpretation of audit firm size in terms of audit quality, we investigate the relationship between the investors` perception of the value relevance of accounting information and auditor size proxied by Big4/non-Big4 following the previous studies. More specifically, we investigate whether the market assigns predictably differential credibility to accounting information based on audit firm size. Our findings are as follows. If a firm receives audits from a Big4 auditor, the value relevance of book value per share and the value relevance of earnings per share are higher than those of a firm that receives audits from a non-Big4 auditor. This provides compelling evidence that investors interpret the financial statements as more credible when they are audited by a Big4 auditor than by a non-Big4 auditor. Moreover, the value relevance of net income per share is higher than that of book value per share if the firm receives audits from a Big4 auditor. However, the opposite is the case if the firm receives audits from a Non-big4 auditor. In addition, the value relevance of cash flows per share is also higher when the firm is audited by a Big4 auditor than by a non-Big4 auditor. We also find that the value relevance of net income per share is higher than cash flows per share of the firm when the firm is audited by a Big4 auditor. This is consistent with the interpretation that investors assign more weights to net income when they find net income is more credible (i.e., the financial statements are audited by a Big4 auditor), and thereby cash flows become less value relevant, and vice versa. When two additional dimensions, debt ratio and the sources of debts, are considered together with auditor size in the analysis, the results reveal that investors incorporate these factors as well in determining the relative value relevance of each item in the model.