博達案對會計師簽發繼續經營有重大疑慮查核意見之影響：調節效果之探討

The Effects of the Procomp Scandal on Going Concern Audit Opinions: An Investigation of the Moderating Effects

10.6226/NTURM2009.19.2.75

張瑞當(Ruey-Dang Chang)；沈文華(Wen-Hua Shen)；方俊儒(Chun-Ju Fang)

博達案 ； 繼續經營假設 ； 審計品質 ； procomp scandal ； going concern assumption ； audit quality

臺大管理論叢

19卷2期（2009 / 06 / 01）

75 - 108

繁體中文

本研究發現博達案發生後，非四大事務所會計師對受查公司簽發繼續經營假設有重大疑慮查核意見之可能性，顯著高於博達案發生之前；但是對四大事務所之會計師而言，此項結果並未達到顯著水準，顯示四大事務所會計師對其客戶簽發繼續經營假設有重大疑慮查核意見之可能性，並未受到博達案之影響，其審計品質較具有一致性。另外，本研究亦發現，相對於博達案發生前之正向關係，博達案發生之後，受查公司資產規模與會計師簽發繼續經營假設有重大疑慮查核意見之可能性呈現顯著負向關係；而當受查公司當年度營業活動現金流量呈現淨流出時，則會提高會計師簽發繼續經營假設有重大疑慮查核意見之可能性。

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effects of the Procomp scandal (2004) on subsequent issuances of qualified audit opinions on the basis of going concern. To ensure the results reflect effects of the scandal on issuances of going concern opinions, this study includes several moderating variables reported in the literature. The empirical results indicate that non-Big 4 firms have issued more going concern audit opinions after the Procomp scandal than before the scandal while there was no significant difference in audit opinions issued by the Big 4 firms before and after the Procomp scandal. The Procomp scandal appears to have no effect on issuing going concern opinions by Big 4 firms, possibly a result of having a more consistent audit quality or having confidence on their audit practices and quality. The results also indicate that clients' assets have a negative relationship with the possibility of issuing going concern opinions after the scandal, compared to a positive relationship before the scandal, and when clients had net negative operating cash flows, more going concern audit opinions were issued by auditors.

1. 劉嘉雯、王泰昌(2005)。繼續經營有重大疑慮審計意見：第33號審計準則公報之影響。管理學報，22(4)，525-548。
   連結：
2. Altman, E. I.(1982).Accounting implications of failure prediction models.Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance,6(1),4-19.
3. Altman, E. I.,McGough, T. P.(1974).Evaluation of a company as a going concern.Journal of Accountancy,138(6),50-57.
4. Asare, S. K.(1990).The auditor's going concern decision: A review and implications for future research.Journal of Accounting Literature,9,39-64.
5. Behn, B. K.,Kaplan, S. E.,Krumwiede, K. R.(2001).Further evidence on the auditor's going concern report: The influence of management plans.Auditing: A Journal of Practice& Theory,20(1),13-28.
6. Blacconiere, W. G.,DeFond, M. L.(1997).An investigation of independent audit opinions and subsequent independent auditor litigation of publicly-traded failed savings and loans.Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,16(4),415-454.
7. Carcello, J. V.,Hermanson, D. R.,Huss, H. F.(2000).Going-concern opinions: The effects of partner compensation plans and client size.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,19(1),67-77.
8. Chen, K. C. W.,Church, B. K.(1992).Default on debt obligations and the issuance of going concern opinions.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,11(2),30-49.
9. Citron, D. B.,Taffler, R. J.(2004).The comparative impact of an audit report standard and an audit going-concern standard on going-concern disclosure rates.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,23(2),119-130.
10. DeAngelo, L. E.(1981).Auditor size and audit quality.Journal of Accounting and Economies,3(3),183-199.
11. DeFond, M. L.,Raghunandan, K.,Subramanyam, K. R.(2002).Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions.Journal of Accounting Research,40(4),1247-1274.
12. Francis, J. R.(2004).What do we know about audit quality?.British Accounting Review,36(4),345-368.
13. Geiger, M. A.,Raghunandan, K.(2002).Going-concern opinions in the "new" legal environment.Accounting Horizons,16(1),17-26.
14. Geiger, M. A.,Raghunandan, K.,Rama, D.(2005).Recent changes in the association between bankruptcies and prior audit opinions.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,24(1),21-35.
15. Geiger, M. A.,Rama, D. V.(2003).Audit fees, nonaudit fees, and auditor reporting on stressed companies.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,22(2),53-69.
16. Holder-Webb, L. M.,Willkins, M.S.(2000).The incremental information content of SAS No. 59 going-concern opinions.Journal of Accounting Research,38(1),209-219.
17. Hopwood, W.,McKeown, J.,Mutchler, J.(1988).The sensitivity of financial distress prediction models to departures from normality.Contemporary Accounting Research,5(1),284-298.
18. Hopwood, W.,McKeown, J.,Mutchler, J.(1989).A test of the incremental explanatory power of opinions qualified for consistency and uncertainty.Accounting Review,64(1),28-48.
19. Hopwood, W.,McKeown, J.,Mutchler, J.(1994).A reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision.Contemporary Accounting Research,10(2),409-431.
20. Krishnan, J.,Krishnan, J.(1997).Litigation risk and auditor resignations.The Accounting Review,72(4),539-560.
21. Louwers, T. J.(1998).The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditor's loss function.Journal of Accounting Research,36(1),143-156.
22. Louwers, T. J.,Messina, F. M.,Richard, M. D.(1999).The auditor's going-concern disclosure as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A discrete-time survival analysis.Decision Sciences,30(3),805-824.
23. Menon, K.,Schwartz, K. B.(1987).An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties.Contemporary Accounting Research,3(2),302-315.
24. Mutchler, J. F.(1986).Empirical evidence regarding the auditor's going-concern opinion decision.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,6(1),148-163.
25. Mutchler, J. F.,Hopwood, W.,McKeown, J. M.(1997).The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies.Journal of Accounting Research,35(2),295-310.
26. Raghunandan, K.,Rama, D. V.(1995).Audit reports for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,14(1),50-63.
27. Reynolds, J. K.,Francis, J. R.(2001).Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions.Journal of Accounting and Economics,30(3),375-400.
28. Zmijewski, M. E.(1984).Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models.Journal of Accounting Research,22,59-82.
29. 侍台誠、游子慧(2007)。影響我國會計師終止財務報表查核委任之決策因索實證研究。2007會計理論與實務研討會，台北:
30. 工商時報(2004/11/28)

1. 李宛蕙(2016)。博達案前後會計師業審計人員品質與經營策略對經營績效影響之研究。長榮大學經營管理研究所學位論文。2016。1-48。