http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 이준일(교신저자) ( Joon Il Lee ) (검색결과 1 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
< 연구논문 > : Big 4 회계법인의 글로벌 통합이 감사품질에 미치는 영향: 한영회계법인 사례를 중심으로
김범준 ( Bum Joon Kim ),이준일(교신저자) ( Joon Il Lee ),곽수근 ( Su Keun Kwak ) 한국회계학회 2016 회계저널 Vol.25 No.2
국내 회계감사시장에서 4대 회계법인들은 각각 글로벌 Big 4 회계법인과 업무제휴를 맺고 지적자산과 인적자산을 공유하여 회계감사서비스를 제공하고 있다. 본 연구는 2008년 글로벌 원펌(one-firm)으로 통합된 한영회계법인 사례를 통하여 국내 Big 4 회계법인이 글로벌 회계법인과 하나의 조직으로 통합되는 경우 감사품질에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지를 분석하였다. 한영회계법인은 2008년 Ernst and Young(E&Y)과 원펌으로 통합하였는데 그 결과 E&Y는 제휴관계일 때보다 감사실패시 직접적으로 명성훼손이나 소송위험을 부담하게 되었다. 또한 글로벌 본사와 지적/인적자산의 공유가 확대되고 소속 감사파트너의 보상체계가 글로벌 성과와 연계되었다. 따라서 더 높은 수준의 감사품질관리체계를 도입하고, 감사품질을 제고할 가능성이 있다. 반면, 기존의 Big 4와 제휴관계가 효율적으로 운영되었다면, 통합에 의해 감사품질이 추가적으로 향상되지는 않을 수 있다. 따라서, 이러한 원펌통합이 감사품질에 영향을 미쳤는지에 대한 실증연구가 필요하다. 본 연구에서 감사품질의 대용치로서 재량적 발생액(Dechow and Dichev 2002; Kothari et al. 2005)을 이용하여 분석한 결과 한영회계법인 피감사법인의 재량적 발생액의 유의적인 변화가 글로벌 통합 전후에 발견되지 않았다. 이중차분분석(difference-in-differences)모델을 활용하여 나머지 Big3 감사인과 비교하여 분석한 결과에서도 글로벌 통합 이전과 이후 Big3와 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 분석결과는 한영회계법인이 감사하는 기업만을 대상으로 하거나, 표본을 2008년 전후로 구분하여 각각 분석한 결과 등과도 일치하였다. 즉, 감사인의 글로벌 원펌 통합이 감사품질을 유의적으로 제고한다는 점을 발견하지 못하였다. 단, 글로벌 통합 이후 한영회계법인의 유가증권시장 상장기업에 비해 KOSDAQ 등록 법인 고객수가 급감하는 것이 관찰되어 통합으로 인해 감사위험에 대한 기준치를 보다 엄격하게 적용했음을 추정할 수 있다. 본 연구는 Big 4 회계법인의 글로벌 원펌 통합이 감사품질에 미치는 효과를 최초로 실증분석 하였다는데 의의가 있으며, 향후 글로벌 원펌 통합을 고려하고 있는 Big 3 회계법인의 파트너 뿐만 아니라 학계와 실무계, 투자자들에게 모두 유용한 시사점을 제공하고 있다. Korean audit market is traditionally dominated by 4 large auditors: Anjin, Hanyoung, Samil, and Samjung. These large auditors audit about 2/3 of listed companies while the market share of them increase more for large client firms. These dominant status is similar to the situation in many other developed countries. However, one of the peculiar characteristics of Korean audit market is the large auditor`s affiliation with global Big 4 auditors. They are affiliated with global Big 4 auditors such as Deloitte (Anjin), Ernst & Young (Hanyoung), PriceWaterhousCoopers (Samil), and KPMG (Samjung). For the affiliation, they pay a certain percentage of their revenue to the global Big 4 auditors. In return for it, they share intellectual properties and human resources. For example, they exchange personnels, relevant information, audit technology globally, and help establishing continuous professional education system. However, they maintain their autonomous status independent from global headquarters. This market structure is different from the most of the other countries where Big 4 auditors have direct presence. In 2008, Hanyoung (former affiliate of Ernst & Young) was globally integrated into Ernst & Young as one firm. The partners of Hanyoung voted for the integration. Globally, Ernst & Young is structured to four regional headquarters: Americas, EMEIA(Europe, Middle East, India and Africa), Asia-Pacific, and Japan. As a result of the integration, Hanyoung became the first Korean audit firm that is directly controlled by global audit firms. Hanyoung became the Korean office structured under Asia-Pacific regional headquarters located in Hong Kong. After the integration, Hanyoung experienced various changes. These can be summarized to four categories broadly. First, Asia-Pacific Ernst & Young headquarters perform decision-making for various firm policies, including recruitment and promotion. Thus, the uniform policies are applied to all offices in Asia-Pacific region. Second, more frequent intra-office personnel exchanges are promoted within Ernst & Young Global. Thus, foreign staff members are more frequently visit Seoul office and perform various tasks together with local members. Similarly, chances for Korean staffs to move foreign offices increased also. Third, peer reviews are performed by partners working in other offices located in various countries. This procedure promotes more independent and thorough audit approach. Fourth, the performance evaluation and compensation decisions are performed by headquarters. Thus, the compensation in Korean office became tied to the performance of all global offices. This change promotes Korean staff members to consider big pictures rather than local market only. In addition, more performance-based compensation policy is implemented. These changes can positively influence the audit quality of Hanyoung. However, it is also possible that these changes do not significantly influence audit quality. In Korea, there is not enough evidence that Big 4 auditors provide higher-quality audit service than non-Big 4 auditors do. Francis and Wang (2008) and Khurana and Raman (2004) also suggest that there is no quality differences between Big 4 and non-Big 4 auditors in weak legal regime countries such as Korea. Thus, audit quality is the function of legal regime that the auditors face. If the legal regime does not change, it is difficult to expect any change in audit quality. In sum, whether the integration of Hanyoung caused the improvement in audit quality is an empirical question. This study investigates this important but unexplored issue. In empirical analyses, we define pre-integration period from 2005 to 2007 and post-integration period from 2009 to 2011 and compare how audit quality changes between the two periods. We use two proxies to measure audit quality: performance-adjusted discretionary accruals (Kothari et al. 2005) and accrual quality-adjusted discretionary accruals (Dechow and Dichev 2002). We use the absolute value of the accruals measured by these two methods. To control for the general time trend occurred during the period, we use the audit quality of other Big 4 auditors as benchmarks and perform difference-in-differences analyses. A maximum sample size used for the analysis is 4,490 firm-year observations, among which 638 observations in per-integration period and 406 observations in post-integration period are the clients audited by Hanyoung. Our empirical analyses reveal that the audit quality of Hanyoung was not different from that of other Big 4 auditors in the pre-integration period as well as post-integration period, suggesting that the integration did not significantly improve the audit quality of Hanyoung. These results are robust in various sensitivity checks, including the analyses using signed discretionary accruals. Analysis using the clients of Hanyoung only do not yield any noticeable differences. There exist certain limitations in our analyses. It is possible that audit quality changes in other dimensions that discretionary accruals do. In addition, there may exist long-term effect of the integration, while our study focuses on relative short-term period. Finally, it may be difficult to general the case of Hanyoung to other audit firms. There is no guarantee that Hanyoung`s case is a representative of all other auditors. Subject to these caveats, we believe that our study provides interesting regulatory and practical insights into the effect of the integration.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
