한국기업의 감사보수, 감사시간과 감사품질의 관련성에 관한 연구: Big4와 Non-Big4 비교중심 패널데이터 분석

임형주 한국기업경영학회 2015 기업경영연구 Vol.22 No.6

A fundamental improvement of audit quality has been a important research question for decades. In 2001, high profile accounting scandals such as Enron crisis, rekindled how to protect market participants and restore public confidence. In the U.S., the regulators prepared a legal device, “2002 SOX” to strengthen auditors’ responsibilities to improve audit quality. In South Korea, many regulations have also been introduced such as 3 year auditor retention regime, 3 year audit partner rotation regime, 6 year mandatory audit firm rotation regime etc, in a bid to improve audit quality. However, those regulations have only a marginal effect since high profile accounting scandals such as the SK global crisis, the savings bank crisis and the recent Moneual crisis, repeatedly occurred, suggesting that a fundamental means to improve audit quality is urgent. Since the 3 year auditor retention regime which was originally introduced to protect auditor independence, instigated high audit engagement competition, audit fee started to decrease on average. Furthermore, the 6 year mandatory audit firm rotation rule which was introduced with a purpose of preventing a corrupt relationship, led to dumping audit fees. An audit fee is fixed in advance at an audit engagement whereas audit hours are subsequently determined based on the risk that auditors believe. Given a low audit fee fixed at the beginning of the year, auditors may have less incentives to increase audit hours unless significant audit risks are captured. Rather they may have high incentives to have as many contracts as possible to replenish shortage of their income. Since those auditors may need to audit a high number of client firms, they need to cut the work short for one client and move to a next client firm promptly, which basically creates poor quality of audit after all. In order for a fundamentally increase in audit quality, optimal audit fees should be maintained, NOT introduction of experimental regulations. According to previous literatures, higher audit fees have a positive association with higher audit hours(Park and Park, 2007), suggesting that auditors who are guaranteed with a s표 income, would increase audit hours for close scrutiny. Other previous studies find that increased audit hours lead to increased audit quality(Dye, 1993; Hillegeist, 1999), suggesting that audit hour is a key aspect to improve audit quality given auditors are independent. Though number of studies have investigated the relationship between audit fees, audit hour and audit quality, not many of them did Big4 and Non-Big4 partitioning. Despite audit fees and audit hours are determined by various factors, there may be a systematic difference in audit hours, fees and incentives between Big4 and Non-Big4, thus this study separately analyzes those two groups. This study uses a panel data of 285 firms for 11 years, examining static and dynamic panel data analysis of the effect of 1) audit fee on audit hours and 2) audit hours on audit quality using separate two groups: Big4 and Non-Big4. This was done to ensure whether audit fee↑→ audit hours↑→ audit quality↑ flow is a true. The empirical results are summarized as follow. First, audit fees have significantly strong association with audit hours, suggesting auditors with higher audit fees would spend more hours to audit client firms. Despite this is true, neither audit fee per hour or audit hour per fee have significant association with audit hours. This may be because audit fees are predetermined at the beginning of a year whereas audit hours are subsequently determined after an audit. Both audit hours per fee and audit fees per hour are mechanically determined since they are denominator and numerator. Since audit hourly rate is not set at the beginning, auditors have no incentives to increase audit hours. Second, audit hours have positive association with audit quality for Non-Big4 group(and full sample) only. Other additional ana... 본 연구는 감사법인간의 과당경쟁으로 인하여 감사보수가 정상적으로 증가하지 못하는 우리나라 환경의 문제점을 고찰하기 위하여 285개 기업의 11년간 패널데이터를 이용하여 감사보수, 시간 및 품질의 관련성을 분석하였다. 연구결과를 요약하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 감사보수는 선행연구와 일관되게 감사시간에 유의한 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으나 시간당 감사보수와 감사보수당 투입시간은 감사노력과 관련성이 없는 것으로 나타났다. 이는 보수를 많이 받는 감사인이 더 많은 감사노력을 투입한다는 직관과는 일관되지만 감사보수가 총액으로 사전 결정되고 투입시간이 사후 결정되는 우리나라 환경에서는 시간당 감사보수와 감사보수당 투입시간이 절대감사투입시간 증가를 견인하지 못하는 것을 의미한다. 둘째, 감사시간은 Non-Big4 표본에서만 감사품질과 유의한 양(+)의 관련성을 갖는 것으로 나타났다. 아울러 모든 강건성 분석 및 추가분석에서도 결과가 질적으로 상이하지 않았다. Big4 표본에서 감사시간과 감사품질의 유의한 관련성이 관찰되지 않은 이유는 감사보수 과당경쟁으로 말미암아 철저한 표본검사가 이루어 질 수 없는 환경문제에 기인한 것으로 해석할 수 있다. 저가수주 경쟁으로 인하여 감사보수총액이 기대수준 보다 낮게 고정되면 감사법인 입장에서는 매출을 유지 혹은 증대시키기 위하여 보다 많은 계약을 체결할 유인이 생길 수 있다. 따라서 이러한 환경에서는 절대감사투입 시간이 감소할 수밖에 없으며 이는 감사품질의 저하로 연결될 수 있다. Big4 법인이 사전 결정된 감사보수 하에서 감사시간을 증가시킨다면 이는 감사인이 위험을 인지하고 잠재적 소송위험회피를 위한 최소 시간투입 증가로 해석할 수 있는데 이는 근본적으로 감사품질을 향상시킬 수 없음을 의미한다.

Big4 감사품질의 우수성은 모든 규모의 기업에 적용되는가?

황인태(In Tae Hwang),강선민(Sun Min Kang),정도진(Do Jin Jung) 한국경영학회 2009 經營學硏究 Vol.38 No.1

In general, audit firm size has widely been used as a substitute measure for audit quality. A number of studies have been conducted to evaluate if such measure were appropriately reflected upon the true face of audit quality. According to precedent studies on audit quality of other countries, those scholars assert that highly reputable and large scale audit corporations like Big 4 provide their clients with a higher-quality audit than other smaller audit firms. Unlike those foreign countries, outstanding audit quality of Big 4 in Korea has not consistently been exhibited according to prior studies on the differences in audit quality with respect to the size of audit corporations. The aim of this study is to display that Big 4 audit firms do not provide corporations at all sizes with higher audit quality than other auditors. Instead, we will positively analyze how audit firm size with high audit quality changes directly proportional to the size of audited corporations. There have been many direct or indirect studies on the relationship between an auditor's reputation or size and the audit quality, but they have not yielded any satisfactory results. That is, most studies from other countries including the US have exhibited that audit quality of Big 4 was significantly higher than the others. Such differences in audit quality, however, have been not only inconsistent, but also negligible sometimes according to the domestic research. In most precedent studies on audit quality, researchers dichotomized audit corporations as Big 4 in cooperation with internationally reputable audit firms and non-Big 4, and conducted their analysis to prove their hypothesis that audit quality of large audit firms was consistently better than that of non-Big 4 regardless of the size of audited corporations. However, the above research method took the prior studies of other countries for granted without considering the reality of audit market in Korea. For this constraint in the research method, differences in audit quality among audit firms were not fairly determined. In Korea, the government has given various benefits to large audit firms by enacting laws and regulations to cultivate them. On the other hand, other audit firms without receiving such benefits have provided with their unique service, that’s not possessed by the large corporations, in specialized audit service market and satisfied the market demand for their pursuit of survival and development. In Korea, the size of audited corporations has been constrained by an auditor's size and structure. Various sizes of companies exist even among the listed corporations, the users of audit service. For instance, 46.78% of those companies have the total asset of less than 50 billion won. Thus, various audit organizations have provided their clients with their specialized service. Moreover, it is thought to be an extremely strong assumption to classify the audit corporations into Big 4 and non-Big 4 and assert that audit quality of the former was proven to be higher than that of the latter for corporations at all levels without considering such aforementioned heterogeneous audit service market. Therefore, this research is to find reasons why the audit quality of large audit firms in cooperation with internationally reputable audit corporations is not proven to be consistent. Moreover, we will attempt to figure out if audit quality is affected by the correlation between an audit firm as the auditor in the audit service market and an audited corporation as a user. Upon specifically categorizing the audit corporations into Big 4, Local Big, Local Small and audit team and dividing corporations into five categories based on their total asset, we examined if selective audit quality according to audit firm size changed depending on the size of an audited corporation. In other words, the aim of this paper is to positively analyze that audit firm size should change directly proportional to the size of an audi

감사법인특성과 감사시간,감사법인특성 결합효과의 감사품질 관련성

이재은 ( Jae Eun Lee ) 한국회계학회 2012 회계학연구 Vol.37 No.2

감사인의 품질관리감리 결과에 기초한 선행연구(Hermanson et al. 2007; 김문철·전영순 2010)에서는 감사인의 품질관리시스템 구성요소 중 인적자원관리 항목이 양호한 감사품질과 관련이 있음을 보고하였다. 본 연구는 위 선행연구에서 설명한 감사법인특성 및 감사인 소속 전문인력의 전문경력기간의 감사품질 관련성을 실증조사한다. 또한 위 감사법인특성들(감사인조직차원 감사품질지표)과 초과감사시간(개별감사업무차원 감사품질지표)의 결합효과가 갖는 감사품질 관련성도 추가조사한다. 감사품질의 대용치로는 다음 사업연도 재무제표에 전기오류수정손익을 보고했는지 여부를 사용하였다. 연구 결과, 감사법인특성들의 회계오류 관련성은 항목별로 차이가 있었다. 즉, 감사인의 전문성과 인력레버리지 관련 지표는 회계오류 감소와 유의한 관련이 있고, 비감사업무 부담 관련 지표는 회계오류 증가와 유의한 관련이 있었다. 반면에, 감사경험기간과 회계사 1인당 상장회사 수는 회계오류발생과 유의한 관련이 없었지만 초과감사시간과 상호작용효과는 회계오류 감소와 유의한 관련이 있었다. 또한 인력레버리지 비율과 파트너 1인당 비감사보수가 높을 경우에는, 초과감사시간 변수가 유의한 음의 계수 값을 가졌지만 이 변수들과 초과감사시간의 상호작용은 이러한 회계오류 개선정도를 일부 줄이는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 조사결과는, 선행연구에서 보고한 인적자원관리 관련 감사법인특성들의 감사품질 관련성이 항목 별로 차이가 있으므로, 이들을 감사인의 감사품질지표로 사용하기 위해서는 주요 특성변수 별로 상이한 고려가 필요함 을 나타낸다. 이 결과는 감사품질지표로 단일지표보다는 다양한 지표를 활용하는 것이 필요하다는 선행연구(Bedard et al. 2010)의 주장을 뒷받침하는 것이다. 본 연구의 공헌점은 감사법인특성들이 항목별로 감사품질과 관련성이 상이함을 실증 확인한 것이다. 대표적으로, 선행연구에서 감사인의 인력레버리지 지표인 보조자-파트너 비율이 감사인의 감사품질지표로 활용 가능함과, 감사인 소속 회계사의 전문경력기간이 길더라도 그 자체로는 감사품질 개선효과가 없고 개별감사업무차원의 감사투입노력이 동시에 증가하는 경우에는 감사품질 개선효과가 있음을 확인하였다. Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession(ACAP)(2008) and International Organization of Securities Commission(IOSCO)(2009) suggested that it is necessary to develop audit quality indicators to be included in the transparency reports of the audit firms. It also presented possible examples of the audit quality indicators classified into input and output measures. Input measures include experience (including industry experience), competency, technical resources, employee workloads, and leverage (such as associate-to-partner ratios and the percentage of senior engagement team member time spent on an audit to the total audit time for all team members). Output measures include revenue information (such as revenues by service line [e.g., audit, tax, consulting, and other], geographic region, and industry), independence violation, disciplinary proceedings and legal matters. Bedard et al.(2010) categorized the audit quality indicators in terms of firm-level versus engagement-level indicators, as well as in terms of inputs and output measures, which are consistent with the quality control standards defined by ISQC 1 (International Standard on Quality Control No. 1)(International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board[IAASB] 2004). They argued that a single audit quality indicator is not a focus, rather they are to require reporting a number of different indicators so that the combination gives a multi-dimensional picture of audit quality. Researches related to audit quality in line with the argument include Hermanson et al.(2007) and Kim and Cheon(2010) which reported that, according to quality control investigations by U. S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), certain audit firm characteristics related to human capital management could affect the auditors` quality control system, and, accordingly, are significantly associated with their audit quality. The above studies referred to various audit firm characteristics such as the associate-to-partner ratio, the professional staff-to-total employee ratio, and average involvement of partners or professional staffs per public company client. Based on these studies, I empirically tested what audit firm characteristics are significantly associated with the audit quality. Also, I see whether the average length of audit experience by the audit firms` professionals are associated with the audit quality. This is to examine controversy in Korea whether audit quality of large- and small-sized audit firms are different or not; ones argue that large firms have better quality while the others explain that their quality differences are not significant since small firms` professionals have longer experiences in average to compensate for the less organized firm. In addition, I note that the above audit firm characteristics are firm-level indicators as categorized by International Standard on Quality Control No 1.(ISQC 1)(IAASB 2004) and Bedard et al.(2010); I examined the combined effects of the firm-level indicators and (excess) audit hours on audit quality. Audit hour is an engagement-level indicator explained by Bedard et al. (2010) representing input of audit efforts in the engagement level. Prior period adjustments reported in the subsequent year were used as audit quality proxy. Samples are 1,584 firm-years of non-financial public companies listed in the Korea Stock Exchange with fiscal years ending December 31 from 2003 to 2009, which comprise of 503 firm-year of test samples (error firms) and 1,081 firm-year of control samples. I found that various audit firm characteristics are differently associated with audit quality; i.e. their significance and directions (positive or negative relationship) are not consistent. Specifically, variables representing auditor competency (average audit fees per partner) and audit firm`s human capital leverage (the associate-to- partner ratio, the registered CPA-to-partner ratio, and the professional staff-to- total employee ratio) are significantly associated with good audit quality (i.e. lower prior period adjustments reported in the subsequent year). A variable representing auditor workloads (average non-audit fees per professionals) is significantly associated with bad audit quality. The numbers of public company clients per professional staff or partner do not have significant relationship with audit quality. In addition, the combined effects of the audit firm characteristics and excess audit hours are not consistent, either. Specifically, if the average number of listed company clients per professionals are larger, then incremental improvements in audit quality upon more excess audit hours become higher. However, if the audit firm`s human capital leverages are higher, then the combined effects of the characteristics and excess audit hours made their aggregate audit quality improvements smaller. Similarly, if the average non-audit fees per partner is larger, then the combined effects of the characteristics and excess audit hours made their aggregate audit quality improvements smaller, too. These results indicate that various audit firm characteristics, and excess audit hours combined therewith, have different associations with the auditors` audit quality in terms of significance and directions (positive or negative relationship). Meanwhile, average length of audit experience of professionals belong to the auditors didn`t show significant relationship with audit quality, but its combined effect with excess audit hours is significantly associated with good audit quality. This result also has regulatory implication because it negates the argument that small or medium-sized audit firms do not necessarily have worse audit quality because of length of audit experience are longer than those of large audit firms. This study`s contribution is to find that various audit firm characteristics have different association with audit quality in terms of significance and directions. Specifically, I found that associate-to-partner ratio, a proxy for audit firm`s human capital leverage, could be used as an audit quality indicator. Also, average length of audit experiences of the individual professionals who belong to the audit firms, is not associated with audit quality; rather its combined effects with excess audit hours representing the audit efforts in the engagement-levels only showed significant association with good audit quality.

감사품질의 정의, 측정과 결정요인에 대한 인식 연구

이영한,정영기,김광윤 한국공인회계사회 2019 회계·세무와 감사 연구 Vol.61 No.4

The purpose of this study is to understand how the stakeholders in audit work recognize the definition of audit quality, measurement method, and factors that determine audit quality. In addition, this study examined the concept of audit quality, how to measure audit quality, and how to control audit quality. In this study, we explored the meaning, contents and enhancement methods of audit quality from the viewpoint of auditor who is producer of audit service. This study surveyed auditors, financial information users group (audited company, financial institution, supervisory agency) and scholar group. In addition, we conducted in-depth interviews with accounting firm representatives or quality control representatives by type of accounting firm. As a result of this study, audit hour calculated by weighted average of career, turnover of CPAs in accounting firm, and continuity of audit team were important indicators of audit quality. In order to improve audit quality, internal quality control and independence policy of accounting firm, compensation system and career management policy in accounting firm are important. There is a difference in recognition of audit quality determinants between large accounting firms and small/medium sized accounting firms. Therefore, the audit quality management method considering such differences is required. Large accounting firms have a higher proportion of accountants with shorter careers and higher turnover than small and medium-sized accounting firms. Since large accounting firms have a small percentage of partners and executive directors with many years of experience, the senior managers' involvement in auditing and the review function of audit documents have a significant impact on audit quality. On the other hand, in the case of small and medium-sized accounting firms, the members of the individual audit teams have a high level of audit performance, so it is important to document their audit tasks and to build an archive systematically. The limitation of this study was that it was conducted by the methodology of the survey, and there is a possibility that survey respondents may not represent the opinion of the group as a whole. This study surveyed members of the Korean Accounting Association, Korean Taxation Association, and Korea Certified Public Accountants Association, and tried to investigate as many respondents as possible. In addition, through in-depth interviews with representatives of the accounting firm and the heads of the hearing, efforts were made to overcome these problems. 본 연구의 목적은 감사인, 감사보고서 이용자, 학계 등 이해관계자들이 감사품질에 대한 정의, 측정방법, 감사품질을 결정하는 요인에 대하여 어떻게 인식하고 있는지를 조사, 분석하고 이를 토대로 감사품질이 무엇인지에 대한 개념정립과 감사품질의 측정방법과 감사품질 결정요인에 대한 관리방안을 살펴보고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 본 연구는 감사인, 재무정보 이용자 집단(일반 피감사회사, 금융기관, 감독기관), 한국회계학회 및 한국세무학회 회원 학자 집단를 대상으로 설문조사를 시행하고, 회계법인 유형별로 회계법인 대표 혹은 품질관리 담당조직(심리실) 대표에 대한 심층면담조사를 시행하였다. 본 연구의 조사결과 응답자들은 대체적으로 감사가 절대적 확신이 아닌 합리적 확신을 제공하는 한계를 가지고 있으며, 독립성 유지가 감사품질의 핵심적 요소라고 생각하고 있으며, 감사품질의 적정한 측정치에 대해서 경력기간을 가중한 감사시간과 회계법인내의 회계사의 이직률 및 감사팀 구성원 지속성(continuity)을 중요한 감사품질의 지표로 보고 있으며, 감사품질의 영향요소로서 회계법인 차원에서는 회계법인의 내부품질관리의 유효성을, 감사업무 수행팀 차원에서는 담당파트너 및 매니저의 산업에 대한 전문성, 투입인력의 등록회계사로서의 경력기간, 매니저 및 스탭의 업무 부담이 중요하다고 인식하였다.

감사품질과 발생액 이례현상

김태완(Kim Tae-Wan),권영도(Kwon Young-Do) 한국국제회계학회 2010 국제회계연구 Vol.0 No.29

Sloan(1996)과 Xie(2001) 등의 연구에 따르면 발생액은 주관적 판단 및 추정요소를 많이 포함하기 때문에 미래이익에 대해 현금흐름과 다른 지속성을 가지고 있으며 이에 대해 시장참여자들은 지속성의 차이를 주식가격결정에 충분히 반영하지 못한다고 할수 있다. 발생액의 특성은 회계정보의 신뢰성과 관련 되고, 감사인의 감사품질은 이러한 발생액의 신뢰성에 차별적으로 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상할 수 있다. 높은 품질의 감사인은 경영자의 회계과정에서의 추정이나 예측에 대한 정확성을 증가시키므로 인해 회계정보의 신뢰성 회복시킬 수 있을 것으로 판단된다. 한편 시장참여자들이 이러한 감사품질과 관련된 발생액의 지속성 차이를 주식가격결정에 적절히 그리고 효율적으로 반영하는지를 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 감사품질이 높은 기업과 감사품질이 낮은 기업의 발생액에 대한 지속성의 차이를 시장에 주식가격결정에 충분히 반영하지 못한다면 감사품질과 관련한 발생액에 대한 시장이례현상으로 해석할 수 있다. 또한 높은 감사품질과 낮은 감사품질에 기인한 발생액의 지속성 차이에 대한 주식시장에서의 가격결정 오류의 정도가 차별적인지도 분석하였다. 이에 본 연구는 감사품질을 감사인의 산업전문성을 통해 측정하고, 감사품질의 차이에 따라 발생액의 신뢰성이 차이가 나타나는지를 확인하였다. 그리고 감사품질과 관련한 발생액의 신뢰성 차이를 시장참여자들이 주식가격결정에 얼마나 합리적으로 반영하는지에 대해 분석하였다. 분석결과, 산업전문감사인에 의한 높은 감사품질의 발생액은 상대적으로 낮은 감사품질의 발생액에 비해 지속성 회귀계수가 유의적으로 높은 값을 가진다. 그리고 자본시장에서는 높은 감사품질의 발생액 지속성과 낮은 감사품질의 발생액 지속성 모두에 대해 과대평가하고, 차별적 감사품질과 관련된 발생액의 경우 시장의 가격결정오류의정도 차이는 유의적인 차이가 없는 것으로 나타났다. Prior papers often assume the efficient market and they view the significant relation between stock prices and accounting data as evidence of the contribution of such data to future earnings. The role of auditing in ensuring the appropriateness of financial statements has come under considerable scrutiny because of recent audit failure and earnings management. in this context, audit quality has been associated with industry specialization. Previous studies reported that Auditor industry specialization increase the audit quality. We study whether the three components(cash flows from operating activities, high quality audit-related accruals, low quality audit-related accruals) of earnings forecast future earnings with differential persistence and whether market participants fully reflect their predictive abilities when they sets share prices(Mishkin test, 1983). This paper reveals that the contribution(persistence) of high quality audit-related accruals for future earnings is higher than low quality audit-related accruals. This paper reports that the participants of stock market overprices the contribution(persistence) of high quality audit-related accruals accruals when predicting future earnings, and they overprices the contribution(persistence) of low quality audit-related accruals when predicting future earnings. Our results also show that the persistences of both the high quality audit-related accruals and low quality audit-related accruals are almost the same. This study first demonstrates an association between audit quality and accrual reliability. It then links this result and the prior literature to demonstrate an association between audit quality and the accrual anomaly.

낮은 감사보수 현실화율이 감사품질의 하락을 초래하는가? -BIG4 회계법인의 상장회사 고객을 중심으로-

이광숙,기은선 한국회계정보학회 2018 회계정보연구 Vol.36 No.1

This study examines whether lower auditor realization rates undermine audit quality. Recently, there is great public concern about audit quality decline due to too low profitability of audit engagement. Increased responsibility of auditor for audit failure leads to an increase in audit hours, but audit fee increase does not keep up with audit hour increase, resulting in worsening profitability of audit engagement. Low auditor realization rate may indicate that auditors have low negotiation power in an audit engagement. If client firms are in a superior position to auditors in the engagement, auditors are difficult to report fraud or errors in the financial statement. Therefore, low auditor realization rates may be linked to low audit quality. We analyze this conjecture using listed client firms of BIG4 auditors over 2014-2015. We show that the group with lower auditor realization rates has smaller discretionary accruals than other groups. Furthermore, the more abnormal audit hours are, the more stronger this relation is. When auditors spend more audit hours than expected, audit costs increase and auditor realization rates decrease. In this case, low auditor realization rates may not be an indicator of audit quality decline. It means that market participants or financial supervisory authorities should consider not only auditor realization rates but also audit effort in order to judge a firm’s audit quality accurately. Meanwhile, we investigate the interaction of BIG4 auditors’ market concentration and auditor realization rates. When BIG4 auditors’ market concentration ratio is high, audit quality decreases. However, the negative relation between market concentration ratio and audit quality is weakened for the group with high auditor realization rates. A high market concentration may lead to a vicious price war among BIG4 auditors, resulting in audit quality decline. In this case, client firms with high auditor realization rates are more likely to maintain high audit quality because they are less sensitive to price war. Also, we investigate the interaction between auditor tenure and auditor realization rate. We find that the negative relation between auditor realization rate and audit quality and the reinforcing effect of audit effort is more noticeable when auditor tenure is long. As we know, our study is the first study to examine the impact of audit engagement’s profitability on audit quality. We hope our empirical evidence sheds light on the current debate on insufficient audit fees. 본 연구는 BIG4 회계법인의 고객을 대상으로 낮은 감사보수 현실화율이 감사품질의 저하를 가져오는지 살펴본다. 감사보수 현실화율은 정상보수 대비 실제보수의 비율로, 감사계약의 수익성을 나타낸다. 감사보수 현실화율이 낮다는 것은 그만큼 감사인의 협상력이 약하다는 것을 의미한다. 감사인이 을의 입장에 있으면 회계감사 과정에서 부정이나 오류를 발견하더라도 이를 보고할 가능성이 낮아지기 때문에 감사품질에 부정적 영향을 미칠 수 있다. 본 연구는 직급별 감사투입시간 및 회계법인의 직급별 시간당 청구액 자료를 이용하여 감사보수 현실화율을 계산한 후, 감사보수 현실화율과 재량적 발생액의 관계를 살펴보았다. 분석결과 예상과 달리 감사보수 현실화율이 낮은 그룹이 그렇지 않은 그룹에 비해 재량적 발생액이 유의하게 더 작은 것으로 나타났다. 또한 감사보수 현실화율이 낮은 그룹이 감사품질이 높은 현상은 비정상감사시간이 커질수록 강화되었다. 이러한 분석결과는 감사보수 현실화율이 낮은 그룹이 항상 감사품질이 낮은 것은 아니며, 재무제표이용자 및 규제당국이 감사보수 현실화율과 감사인의 감사노력을 통합적으로 고려하여 감사품질을 판단할 필요성이 있다는 시사점을 제공하여 준다. 본 연구는 그 동안의 선행연구에서 잘 다루어지지 않았던, 감사계약의 수익성과 감사품질의 관계를 살펴봄으로써 감사보수 할인을 둘러싼 최근의 논란에 중요한 정책적 시사점을 제시해 줄 수 있을 것으로 기대된다.

중소회계법인의 품질관리감리와 감사품질

장금주,박현영,정주렴,강민정 한국공인회계사회 2021 회계·세무와 감사 연구 Vol.63 No.1

Recently audit environment has changed greatly due to the revision of external audit of the corporations law, and the quality control requirements for a audit firm's accounting and auditing practice has been enhanced due to increased audit risks such as lawsuits. With the implementation of new systems such as the standard audit hour policy and the auditor registration system, accounting firms faced unprecedented changes in the audit environment. In particular, there has been a constant need to improve internal quality control of small and medium-sized accounting firms, which are likely to have insufficient quality control systems compared to large accounting firms. In this study, we examined the audit quality control status of small and medium-sized accounting firms and also analyzed the relationship between the elements of an audit firm's system of quality control and audit quality. For data, we conducted a survey of small and medium-sized accounting firms to find out the results of inspection of Auditing Firms’ quality control system by the Korean Institute of Certified Public Accountants(KICPA) from 2011 to 2017. Among the elements of audit firm’s system of quality control, elements with high violations were 1)independence requirements, 2)acceptance and continuance of client relationships, 3)appropriate action against violators, 4)a monitoring process, 5)management of audit time. For KSE and KOSDAQ listed companies audited by small and medium-sized accounting firms from 2011 to 2017, we analyzed whether the results of inspection of Auditing Firms’ quality control system presented above had a significant relationship with the final audit quality. In the regression analysis results, we find that management responsibility, independence confirmations procedures, acceptance and continuance of client relationships, education and training, sufficient amount of audit hours, and engagement documentation showed a significant relationship with audit quality. In addition, we find that the smaller the number of comments on violations, the higher the audit quality. As a limitation of this study, data from accounting firms that did not respond to the survey were excluded from the study, so the audit quality control status of the entire small and medium-sized accounting firms cannot be identified, and the results of analysis between the results of inspection of Auditing Firms’ quality control and audit quality could not be generalized. In addition, in this study, the results of inspection of Auditing Firms' quality control are analyzed by elements of a system of quality control under KSQC1(Korean Standard on Quality Control 1), and it will be difficult to ascertain whether elements on QC with many violation affect the deterioration of auditing quality. This is because some elements that are found to be insufficient during inspection of Auditing Firms’ quality control may or may not have a significant impact on audit quality. For example, although there is a lack of monitoring procedures for the quality control system, but if the internal preliminary review is properly conducted, the final audit quality can be good. Therefore, it will be necessary to comprehensively analyze each quality control elements and identify the factors that have more influence on the audit quality, but this study was not performed due to the limitations of data. If these limitations are supplemented in future studies, it is expected that the relationship between elements on quality control and audit quality will be revealed in greater depth. This study gives implications to academia and regulators by identifying the status of quality control of small and medium-sized accounting firms that need improvement and reporting the relationship between the elements of an audit firm's system of quality control and audit quality. 최근 주식회사등의 외부감사에 대한 법률 개정 등으로 회계법인의 감사환경이 크게 변화하고 회계법인의 품질관리에 대한 제도가 강화되고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 대형회계법인에 비해 품질관리 시스템이 미흡할 가능성이 높은 중소회계법인의 내부 품질관리 개선 필요성이 지속적으로 제시되어 왔다. 이에 본 연구에서는 한국공인회계사회 품질관리감리 수검대상인 중소회계법인을 대상으로 품질관리감리 결과를 통해 품질관리 현황을 파악하고, 품질관리감리에서 나타난 세부 요소별 품질관리결과와 최종 감사품질의 관련성을 분석하였다. 우선, 중소회계법인을 대상으로 2011년부터 2017년까지 한국공인회계사회에서 실시한 품질관리감리 결과에 대한 설문조사를 실시하였다. 그 결과 중소회계법인은 독립성 확인, 품질관리위반자에 대한 조치, 모니터링, 감사시간 관리, 업무수임 및 유지절차 구축에서 지적받은 횟수가 높았다. 그 다음 품질관리감리에서 지적을 받은 세부 항목과 재량적발생액과의 관계를 회귀분석을 통해 검토하였는데, 경영진 운영책임, 독립성 절차, 업무의 수임 및 유지, 교육, 감사시간 및 조서관리 절차가 감사품질과 유의한 관계를 보였으며, 전반적인 지적사항이 적을수록 감사품질이 높았다. 이러한 결과는 중소회계법인의 감사품질은 전반적인 품질관리시스템 개선으로 제고될 수 있다는 것을 실증적으로 제시한다. 본 연구는 이미 시스템을 구축하고 있는 대형회계법인에 비해 시스템적 개선이 필요한 중소회계법인의 현황을 제시하고 품질관리요소별 감사품질간의 관계를 보고함으로써 학계 및 규제기관에 시사점을 제시하고 있다.

감사시장 집중도와 감사품질 - 산업별 시장점유 1위 감사인을 중심으로 -

조태현,김병호 한국공인회계사회 2016 회계·세무와 감사 연구 Vol.58 No.4

Policy makers have expressed concern about the risk posed by the auditor concentration. In this paper, we examine whether concentration in Korean audit market affects the auditor's tolerance for earnings management by audit clients. Auditor concentration could result in a more lenient and less skeptical approach to audits, and accordingly lower audit service quality. Concentration also could have a beneficial effect on audit quality due to reduced fear of being replaced by a more compliant auditor. Some prior studies suggest a positive association between audit quality and concentration while the others, including a recent Korean study, indicate a negative association. Hence, the relation between auditor concentration and audit quality remains an empirical question. The results of previous empirical studies on differential audit quality of Big 4 auditors and industry specialized auditors are mixed in Korea. Accounting scandals have repeated in spite of the internationally recognized Big 4 auditors operating in Korea. Demand for enhancement of audit quality in Korea has also continued. In Korea, each Big 4 auditor has one engagement office; four engagement offices of Big 4 auditors cover the entire country; the biggest market share auditor is outstandingly notable; and auditor concentration by industry is varying. Concentration could have more negative effect to the biggest industry market share auditors on audit quality due to the fear of loosing market share in Korea. To examine the effects of audit market concentration on audit quality in Korea, we focus on the biggest market share auditor by industry. This paper investigates whether the biggest industry market share auditors are associated with audit quality in connection with the degree of concentration by industry. Our sample covers the 1996-2013 time period and consists of 18,407 firm-year observations. We also examine a sample of 9,936 firm-year observations where the clients are audited by Big 4 auditors. Following prior studies, we use accrual-based earnings quality as a proxy for audit quality. Our primary measure is absolute value of performance matched discretionary accruals by Kothari et al. (2005). Our results indicate that higher concentration (as measured by the Herfindahl index) is associated with the likelihood of the client having higher absolute value of performance matched discretionary accruals, only if the auditor is the biggest market share auditor by industry. We are unable to detect a relation between auditor concentration and audit quality in Korean audit market, which is different from the previous study. This implies that auditor concentration itself does not have an effect on audit quality. Instead, audit quality of the biggest market share auditor by industry is lower than quality of the other auditors. As a matter of primary interest, audit quality of the biggest industry market share auditor becomes lower as the auditor concentration by industry becomes higher. Our results hold across alternative measure of Herfindahl index based on sales as well as on total assets. Specifically, audit quality is lower as auditor concentration becomes higher, but only for firms audited by the biggest market share auditors. In the absence of stricter investor protection, the biggest market share auditors simply do not have incentives to enforce high quality earnings and risk dismissal by their client in Korea. Thus our findings refute the view audit quality of the biggest market share auditors is higher as a industry specialist auditors. Our results also hold across the sample clients audited by Big 4 auditors. This paper explains why audit quality of the big size auditors and industry specialized auditors are not higher than audit quality of other auditors in Korea. The biggest market share auditor by industry is unable to provide higher quality audit due to the fear of loosing market share in Korea. 본 연구는 감사시장 집중도가 감사품질에 미치는 영향을 산업별 시장점유 1위 감사인을 중심으로 분석하였다. 산업별 시장점유 1위 감사인은 산업전문성을 가진 감사인으로 가정되지만 시장점유를 상실할 경우에 잃게 되는 혜택이 크기 때문에 시장점유의 상실을 우려하여 감사품질의 하락을 감수할 유인을 가질 수 있으며, 그 유인은 감사업무를 수행하는 오피스의 수효가 적은 시장에서 집중도가 클수록 증가할 수 있다. 감사시장 집중도는 허핀달 지수를, 감사품질은 성과조정 재량적 발생액의 절댓값을 이용하였다. 자료는 1996년부터 2013년까지 18년간 유가증권 및 코스닥 시장 상장기업 중 금융업을 제외한 12월 결산법인을 표본으로 18,407 기업-연도를 분석하였다. 실증분석 결과, 시장점유 1위 감사인의 감사품질은 다른 감사인보다 낮았으며, 감사시장 집중도가 높아질수록 시장점유 1위 감사인의 감사품질이 하락하였다. 이 현상은 전체표본기업에서는 물론 Big 4 감사인의 감사기업에 대하여도 유사하게 나타났으며, 국내 감사시장이 정상적인 시장원리에 따라 작동되지 아니하고 있음을 시사한다. Big 4 감사인은 총 4개의 오피스가 경쟁하면서 국내에서 모든 산업을 감사하므로 시장점유 1위 감사인은 산업전문성으로 감사품질을 높이기에 앞서 시장점유 상실을 우려한다. 선행연구에서는 국내감사시장에서 감사시장 집중도가 높아지면 감사인이 나태하고 안주하게 되어 감사품질이 저하된다고 보았으나, 본 연구에서는 시장점유 1위 감사인이 시장점유 상실을 우려하여 감사보수의 실질적인 인하와 감사품질 저하를 감내한다고 예상하였고 실증하였다. 본 연구는 국내에서 지속적으로 제기되는 감사품질에 관한 문제의 원인을 새로운 가설에 의하여 밝히는 점에서 의미를 갖는다.

The Effect of Initial Audit Fee Discounting on Audit Quality: Using Rank-Specific Audit Hours

박선영,선우혜정,이유진 한국국제회계학회 2022 국제회계연구 Vol.- No.104

[Purpose]This study reexamines the audit quality effect of audit fee discounting of initial-year audit fees (“low-balling”) and delves into the reasons behind it using rank-specific audit hours. While prior studies examine the relation between initial-year audit fee discounts and audit quality, the results are inconclusive. The availability of information on rank-specific audit hours provides an opportunity to conduct more in-depth analyses on the reasons for the documented results on the audit quality effect of low-balling in Korea. [Methodology]For the period 2005-2015, we use a final sample of 11,676 firm-year observations to analyze the effect of low-balling of audit fees on audit quality. Audit quality is measured by (performance-matched) discretionary accruals, and the level of audit team experience is measured by audit hours of various ranks of audit engagement team personnel, such as quality reviewers, audit partners, licensed accountants, unlicensed staff, and specialists. [Findings]We find weak evidence that audit quality is significantly lower in the first year of an audit engagement compared to continuing engagements. However, among initial-year audit engagements, we find no evidence of any incremental impairment in audit quality for engagements with fee discounts. To examine how auditors secure the level of audit quality, we further examine the characteristics of the engagement team of low-balling auditors. We find that low-balling auditors do not exhibit any systematic tendency to spend lower audit hours or assign less experienced personnel to the engagement. [Implications]The finding suggests that auditors internalize temporary losses from initial-year fee discounting to attract new audit contracts, rather than transferring the cost to clients by exerting less effort, and thus are able to maintain their audit quality. This study demonstrates how auditors tackle the regulatory concerns over audit fee low-balling causing low audit quality.

주기적 감사인 지정제 도입과 이로 인한 감사보수의 인상이 감사인의 독립성을 제고하나?

이광숙,기은선 한국세무학회 2022 세무와 회계저널 Vol.23 No.6

I examine the effect of the increase in audit fees due to the introduction of the periodic auditor designation system on audit quality, using 2019 and 2020 financial statements data and audit fee data of listed companies with total assets of 182.6 billion won or more at the end of 2019. The first hypothesis is about the effect of the periodic auditor designation system on audit quality. Under the periodic auditor designation system, companies are not free to appoint auditors, so it is unlikely that audit fees will be discounted due to competition to attract new clients. If the auditor receives an appropriate compensation for the input time without a discount, he/she will spend more time understanding the new client, thereby preventing the deterioration of the audit quality during the initial audit. However, since the companies subject to the periodic designation system in 2020 are large listed companies, it can be difficult for auditors to fully understand the complex business structure of new clients, even if they input the most of their available time during the busy season. Therefore, it is necessary to empirically examine the effect of the introduction of the periodic auditor designation system on the audit quality. In this study, we measure audit quality by the absolute value of discretionary accruals. The second hypothesis directly investigates the effect of increased audit fees on audit quality after the periodic auditor designation system. When an auditor is assigned, it is common for audit fees to increase because there is no competition to attract new clients. Prior studies focused on whether the initial audit fee discount under the free audit engagement system affects audit quality. There has never been a study directly examining whether an increase in audit fee due to the designation of an auditor leads to the improvement of audit quality. If such an increase in audit fee simply compensates for the audit cost incurred by the auditor to understand new clients and does not contribute to the improvement of audit quality, the social cost of the periodic auditor designation system can be seen as greater than the benefit. I examine whether there is a difference between the periodic auditor designation company and the matched company in the effect of the audit fee increase on the audit quality. Main empirical results are as follows. I find that the periodic auditor designation system do not have a significant effect on the audit quality. In addition, after the introduction of the periodic auditor designation system, audit fees were significantly increased not only for companies that subject to the periodic auditor designation system but also for other companies, but the audit fee increase rate does not have a significant effect on the audit quality. These results show that although the periodic auditor designation system had the effect of realizing the audit fee, which was insufficient compared to the audit efforts, this did not lead to the improvement of the audit quality 본 연구는 2019년 말 자산총액이 1,826억원 이상인 유가증권 및 코스닥시장 상장기업의 2019년과 2020년 재무자료 및 감사보수 자료를 이용하여 주기적 감사인 지정제 도입으로 인한 감사보수증가가 감사품질에 미친 효과를 살펴본다. 감사인을 지정하면 신규고객 유치를 위한 경쟁이 없으므로 감사보수가 증가하는 것이 일반적이다. 선행연구는 자유수임제 하에서 초도감사 보수할인이감사품질의 하락을 가져오는지를 주로 살펴보았으며, 감사인 지정으로 인한 감사보수의 인상이 궁극적으로 감사품질 제고로 이어지는지를 직접적으로 살펴본 연구는 이제까지 없다. 주기적 감사인지정대상기업이 대응기업에 비하여 감사보수가 크게 인상되었으나, 이러한 감사보수의 증가가 신규고객에 대한 감사인의 단순이해 증진에 들어간 감사비용의 보상에 그치고 본래의 도입 목적인감사품질의 제고에 기여하지 못한다면 주기적 지정제로 인한 사회적 비용이 효익보다 큰 것으로판단할 수 있다. 본 연구는 감사보수 인상이 감사품질에 미치는 영향이 주기적 지정기업과 대응기업 사이에 차이가 있는지를 검증한다. 주요 실증결과는 다음과 같다. 자산총액 1,826억원 이상 대규모 상장기업을 대상으로 실증분석을 수행한 결과, 주기적 지정제는 감사품질에 유의한 영향을미치지 못한 것으로 나타났다. 또한 주기적 지정제 도입 후 주기적 지정제 적용기업뿐 아니라 그외 기업도 유의하게 감사보수가 인상되었으나, 감사보수인상률은 감사품질에 유의한 영향을 미치지 못한 것으로 분석되었다. 이러한 실증결과는 대형 상장기업의 경우 주기적 지정제의 도입이 감사투입시간에 비하여 부족한 감사보수를 현실화하는 효과는 있었지만, 이것이 감사품질의 증가로이어지지 못했음을 시사한다.