审计重要性是否具有参考价值?来自中国的证据

IF 1.9 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
{"title":"审计重要性是否具有参考价值?来自中国的证据","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cjar.2024.100373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To improve the usefulness of audit opinions, on 23 March 2021, the China Securities Regulatory Commission mandated that auditors disclose overall quantitative materiality of consolidated financial statements in special explanations of modified audit opinions. This paper selects Chinese A-share companies issued with modified audit opinions for the period of 2020–2022 as the research sample and analyzes the assessment of materiality in audit practice and the informativeness of audit materiality. Our findings are as follows. (1) The most commonly used bases for materiality by auditors are profit and income, with considerable differences in the percentages applied to the different bases and variations even within the same base. (2) The higher the materiality amount, the poorer the audit quality. This negative correlation is mainly observed in scenarios where the audited companies engage in downward earnings management and where the competency of audit firms or auditors is relatively low. (3) Companies that disclose quantitative materiality in the special explanations of modified audit opinions have a lower earnings response coefficient than companies that do not disclose audit materiality. This research sheds light on the “black box” of the audit process and verifies the information value of audit materiality. The conclusions are of significant value to auditing standard-setters, investors and regulators.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":45688,"journal":{"name":"China Journal of Accounting Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755309124000315/pdfft?md5=9839298c039c85ddd4fd1c3b87950d85&pid=1-s2.0-S1755309124000315-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is audit materiality informative? Evidence from China\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cjar.2024.100373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>To improve the usefulness of audit opinions, on 23 March 2021, the China Securities Regulatory Commission mandated that auditors disclose overall quantitative materiality of consolidated financial statements in special explanations of modified audit opinions. This paper selects Chinese A-share companies issued with modified audit opinions for the period of 2020–2022 as the research sample and analyzes the assessment of materiality in audit practice and the informativeness of audit materiality. Our findings are as follows. (1) The most commonly used bases for materiality by auditors are profit and income, with considerable differences in the percentages applied to the different bases and variations even within the same base. (2) The higher the materiality amount, the poorer the audit quality. This negative correlation is mainly observed in scenarios where the audited companies engage in downward earnings management and where the competency of audit firms or auditors is relatively low. (3) Companies that disclose quantitative materiality in the special explanations of modified audit opinions have a lower earnings response coefficient than companies that do not disclose audit materiality. This research sheds light on the “black box” of the audit process and verifies the information value of audit materiality. The conclusions are of significant value to auditing standard-setters, investors and regulators.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45688,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"China Journal of Accounting Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755309124000315/pdfft?md5=9839298c039c85ddd4fd1c3b87950d85&pid=1-s2.0-S1755309124000315-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"China Journal of Accounting Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755309124000315\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"China Journal of Accounting Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1755309124000315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为提高审计意见的有用性,2021 年 3 月 23 日,中国证监会规定审计师在非标准审计意见的专项说明中披露合并财务报表整体量化重要性。本文选取 2020-2022 年期间被出具非标准审计意见的中国 A 股公司作为研究样本,分析了审计实务中对重要性的评估以及审计重要性的信息性。我们的研究结果如下。(1)审计人员最常用的重要性基础是利润和收入,不同基础所适用的百分比差异较大,即使在同一基础上也存在差异。(2) 重要性金额越高,审计质量越差。这种负相关关系主要体现在被审计公司进行向下收益管理以及审计事务所或审计师的胜任能力相对较低的情况下。(3)与未披露审计重要性的公司相比,在非标准审计意见的特别解释中披露量化重要性的公司具有更低的收益反应系数。这项研究揭示了审计过程中的 "黑箱",验证了审计重要性的信息价值。研究结论对审计准则制定者、投资者和监管机构具有重要价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is audit materiality informative? Evidence from China

To improve the usefulness of audit opinions, on 23 March 2021, the China Securities Regulatory Commission mandated that auditors disclose overall quantitative materiality of consolidated financial statements in special explanations of modified audit opinions. This paper selects Chinese A-share companies issued with modified audit opinions for the period of 2020–2022 as the research sample and analyzes the assessment of materiality in audit practice and the informativeness of audit materiality. Our findings are as follows. (1) The most commonly used bases for materiality by auditors are profit and income, with considerable differences in the percentages applied to the different bases and variations even within the same base. (2) The higher the materiality amount, the poorer the audit quality. This negative correlation is mainly observed in scenarios where the audited companies engage in downward earnings management and where the competency of audit firms or auditors is relatively low. (3) Companies that disclose quantitative materiality in the special explanations of modified audit opinions have a lower earnings response coefficient than companies that do not disclose audit materiality. This research sheds light on the “black box” of the audit process and verifies the information value of audit materiality. The conclusions are of significant value to auditing standard-setters, investors and regulators.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
295
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: The focus of the China Journal of Accounting Research is to publish theoretical and empirical research papers that use contemporary research methodologies to investigate issues about accounting, corporate finance, auditing and corporate governance in the Greater China region, countries related to the Belt and Road Initiative, and other emerging and developed markets. The Journal encourages the applications of economic and sociological theories to analyze and explain accounting issues within the legal and institutional framework, and to explore accounting issues under different capital markets accurately and succinctly. The published research articles of the Journal will enable scholars to extract relevant issues about accounting, corporate finance, auditing and corporate governance related to the capital markets and institutional environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信