본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

감사파트너경험이 개별감사업무 차원 및 회계법인 차원 감사품질관리와 결합하여 감사품질에 미친 영향

Effects of Engagement Partner’s Audit Experiences on Audit Quality, as Combined with Auditor Quality Controls at Engagement- and Audit Firm-Levels

이재은|정도삼
한국공인회계사회 (THE KOREAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS)|2019.09|회계ㆍ세무와 감사 연구 (Study on Accounting, Taxation & Auditing)|제61권 제3호|pp. 1-31|DOI 10.22781/kicpa.2019.61.3.1

0

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

감사품질.audit quality.감사파트너감사경험개별감사업무 차원회계법인 차원감사품질관리(QC)audit partneraudit experiencesengagement-levelaudit firm-levelaudit quality control (QC)
주제분류회계학

초록

개정 회계감사기준 700과 미국 PCAOB는 상장회사 감사파트너 이름의 공개를 의무화하였다. 이러한 제도는 감사파트너 개인특성이 감사품질과 체계적으로 관련된다는 논리에 근거한다. 실제로 선행연구는 감사인 경험과 감사품질 관련성을 보고하였으며, 감사파트너 개인별로 체계적인 감사품질 차이를 보고하기도 하였다. 또한, 회계감사기준은 감사품질관리를 회계법인 차원과 개별감사업무 차원으로 구분하였다. 본 연구는 이러한 내용을 결합하여, 감사파트너경험과 두 가지 유형 감사품질관리가 결합하여 감사품질에 미치는 영향을 조사한다. 감사파트너경험 변수에는 해당 파트너가 달성한 감사보수수익비율과 감사고객회사 개수(비상장 포함)를 사용하였고, 회계법인과 개별감사업무 차원 감사품질관리수준 측정변수로는 품질검토시간비율과 비정상감사시간을 각각 사용하였다. 연구 결과, 감사파트너 업무경험과 품질관리 시간이 감사품질에 미치는 영향은 두 가지 유형의 감사품질관리 수준에 따라 다르다. 개별감사업무 차원의 감사투입시간(비정상감사시간)이 증가하면 감사파트너 업무경험이 많을수록 재량발생액이 감소한다. 반면에 회계법인 차원의 품질검토시간비율이 증가하면 감사업무 경험이 적은 감사파트너 담당 회사의 재량발생액 감소 효과가 더 크다. 이 조사결과는 감사파트너경험이 품질관리 차원의 두 유형에 따라 감사품질에 미치는 영향이 차이가 있음을 나타낸다. 이는 향후 회계감독 차원에서 감사인의 개별적･전사적 품질관리시스템 운영에 감사파트너 특성을 함께 고려할 필요가 있음을 나타낸다. 또한 위 실증결과는 회계법인의 입장에서는 감사파트너 개인적 감사품질 영향요소에 대해서 별도의 관리가 필요하다는 점과 피감사기업 입장에서는 회계법인 전체가 아닌 감사파트너 개인의 특성에 대해서도 추가로 관심을 가져야 할 필요성을 제기한다.

Abstract

Recent regulatory changes mandating partner name disclosure are assuming that audit quality is systematically related to individual audit partner's characteristics, such as audit experience. The audit standards mandating partner name disclosure for public company audits include the revised International Audit Standard 700 (IAASB 2015b) as published in January 2015 and applied to financial statements for annual periods ending on or after December 15, 2016, and the consequential amendments to the Korean audit standards (Korean Audit Standards Boards 2017) in 2017 (paragraph 700.45 of the revised audit standards) and reporting standards implemented by U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB 2015b). The revised standards requiring to disclose the names of partners who audit listed companies are based on the logic that "partner characteristics and audit quality are systematically related(IAASB 2015a). In the same context, we can find that PCAOB (2015a) proposed the development of audit quality indicators, and proposed the use of 28 audit quality indicators, among which audit partner experience was included. Also, the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) presents the professional judgment of auditors as a key input to the quality of audit, and explained that “specialized judgment is the application of specialized training, knowledge and experience to the practice of audit.” As such, audit experience is one of the key factors in determining the professional capability of auditors to influence audit quality. DeAngello (1981) explained that the audit quality is "the probability of combining the possibility of detecting errors with the reporting of errors found." Here, the auditor's ability to detect errors and report on errors found are expressed as professional competence and independence, respectively. Audit partners' experience affects auditor’s competence to determine the quality of audit. The previous studies report that audit experience (van Buureen 2009; Bae et al. 2014) or industrial expertise (Choi et al. 2014; Kwon et al. 2015) are related to audit quality and such audit quality varies systematically depending on individual partners (Sundgren and Svanström 2014; Choi et al. 2015). This study focuses on individual partner’s experience among various audit partner characteristics. The audit standards classified audit quality controls (QC) into two dimensional level of audit firm and individual audit engagements. Regarding the QC efforts at the level of individual audit engagements, abnormal audit hours would improve audit qulaity (Mah et al. 2012). Also, audit firm-level QC improve audit quality(Rye et al. 2015) and such firm-level QC efforts vary depending audit risks (Bae et al. 2015). In sum, the experience of audit partners can affect audit quality, and the QC efforts at the individual audit engagement levels and audit firm levels can also affect audit quality. This study investigates how combination of two dimensional audit QC efforts and audit partner’s experiences are associated with audit quality. As specified by ISA 220, two audit QC levels are considered: audit firm- and engagement-levels. Percentage of total audit fee-to-total fees earned by the partner, and number of audit engagements in that year are used as proxies of audit partner experiences. PCAOB (2015a) explains that when using auditors' experience as an indicator of audit quality, it is necessary to consider how much audit work is performed at the same time because of the “potential damage to professional doubts as a result of familiarization” over a long period of experience. In this regards, we focus on the size of audit partner experiences. In addition, we use the abnormal audit hours (AbnHour) and quality review hour ratio (QR) as proxies for the level of individual audit engagement- and audit firm-level QC efforts. As audit quality proxies, the performance-matched discretionary accruals and the modified Jones-model discretionary accruals are used. The results show that the combined effects of audit partner's experience and audit QC hours on audit quality are different across QC levels. Specifically, as the audit engagement-level QC efforts (abnormal audit hours) increase, audit quality improves when partner experience is higher. On the contrary, as the audit firm-level QC hours generally improve audit quality when audit partner experience is lower. These findings indicate that partner experience has a different impact on audit quality depending on the engagement- and firm-level QC dimension. These results have practical implications since it require to consider that audit quality is different across the engagement- and firm-level QC dimensions as combined with audit partner characteristics (i.e. partner experiences) together in the operations of the audit QC system in audit supervision. Further, this paper provides more contributions to show that it is necessary to monitor the individual audit partner’s personal characteristics from the audit firm’s audit quality control perspectives, and also to pay additional attentions to individual audit partner's quality factors from the perspective of the auditee clients.

참고문헌 (45)

  1. "금융위원회", 2018
  2. "금융감독원", 2018
  3. 류승우, "감사시간과 내부심리시간이 감사품질(재량적 발생액)에 미치는 영향", 회계학연구, 40(4), pp.213~246 (2015), 한국회계학회
  4. 마희영, "비정상 감사시간 및 감사보수가 오류발생에 미치는 영향", 회계ㆍ세무와 감사 연구, (51), pp.119~155 (2010), 한국공인회계사회[DOI]
  5. 배길수, "감사파트너 경험에 따른 감사시간·감사보수 및 감사품질의 차이", 회계저널, 23(6), pp.175~235 (2014), 한국회계학회
  6. 배길수, "품질관리검토시간을 통한 감사위험에 대한 감사인의 차별적 대응", 회계학연구, 40(6), pp.81~117 (2015), 한국회계학회
  7. 이재은, "감사법인특성과 감사시간․감사법인특성 결합효과의 감사품질 관련성", 회계학연구, 37(2), pp.63~97 (2012), 한국회계학회[DOI]
  8. 이재은, "감사법인 감사품질지표와 공시에 대한 회계제도 비교연구", 회계저널, 22(1), pp.107~146 (2013), 한국회계학회
  9. 최승욱, "감사파트너 산업전문성과 감사품질", 회계학연구, 39(6), pp.101~138 (2014), 한국회계학회
  10. 회계감사기준위원회, "｢감사기준서｣ 200, 독립된 감사인의 전반적인 목적 및 감사기준에 따른 감사의 수행 (개정의결 2013.8.20)", 한국공인회계사회, ~ (2013)
  11. 회계감사기준위원회, "｢감사기준서｣ 220, 재무제표감사의 품질관리 (개정의결 2013.8.20)", 한국공인회계사회, ~ (2013)
  12. 회계감사기준위원회, "｢감사기준서｣ 700, 재무제표에 대한 의견형성과 보고 (의결 2017.12.13, 금융위원회승인 2017.12.20)", 한국공인회계사회, ~ (2017)
  13. 회계감사기준위원회, "｢품질관리기준서 1｣ 재무제표 감사와 검토, 그리고 기타 인증 및 관련 서비스 업무를수행하는 회계법인의 품질관리 (의결 2018.10.10. 금융위원회 승인 2018.12.19)", 한국공인회계사회, ~ (2018)
  14. Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority, "Audit quality indicators disclosure framework", ACRA, ~ (2015)
  15. Final report of the Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, "Advisory Committee on the Auditing Profession", ACAP, ~ (2008)
  16. Balsam, S., "Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality", Auditing:A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(2), pp.71~97 (2003)
  17. Bedard J., "Audit quality indicators : A status update on possible public disclosures and insights from audit practice", Current Issues in Auditing, 4(1), pp.12~19 (2010)
  18. Audit firm tenure and audit quality: Evidence from U. S. firms, "Brooks, L.", Louisiana State University, ~ (2013)
  19. Carey, P., "Audit partner tenure and audit quality", The Accounting Review, 81(3), pp.653~676 (2006)
  20. Chi, H., "Firm versus partner measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on auditor quality", Auditing : A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), pp.201~229 (2011)
  21. Chen, C., "Audit partner tenure, audit firm tenure and discretionary accruals : does long auditor tenure impair earnings quality?", Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(2), pp.415~445 (2008)
  22. Auditor tenure, auditor independence and earnings management, "Davis, L.", Boston College, ~ (2009)
  23. DeAngelo, L., "Auditor size and audit quality", Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), pp.183~199 (1981)
  24. Dechow, P., "Detecting earnings management", The Accounting Review, 70(2), pp.193~226 (1995)
  25. DeFond, M., "Auditor industry specialization and market segmentation:Evidence from Hong Kong", Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), pp.49~66 (2000)
  26. European Union, "Directive 2006", 43, 660, pp.EEC and 83, 349[DOI]
  27. Financial Reporting Council, "Discussion paper-Promoting audit quality", The FRC, ~ (2006)
  28. Francis. J., "A framework for understanding and researching audit quality", Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), pp.125~152 (2011)
  29. Francis. J., "Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism", Contemporary Accounting Research, 16(1), pp.135~165 (1999)
  30. Frankel, R., "The relation between auditors’ fees for non-audit services and earnings quality", The Accounting Review, 77(Supplement), pp.71~105 (2002)
  31. Gul, F., "Do individual auditors affect audit quality? Evidence from archival data", The Accounting Review, 88(6), pp.1993~2023 (2013)
  32. Final report: Transparency of firms that audit public companies (Nov.), "The International Organization of Securities Commissions", IOSCO, ~ (2015)
  33. Basis for conclusions: Reporting on audited financial statements - New and revised auditor reporting standards and related conforming amendments, "International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board", IAASB, ~ (2015)
  34. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board, "Forming an opinion and reporting on financial statements", IAASB, ~ (2015)
  35. Johnson, E., "Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports", Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4), pp.637~660 (2002)
  36. Kasznik, R., "On the association between voluntary disclosure and earnings management", Journal of Accounting Research, 37(1), pp.57~81 (1999)
  37. Kothari, S., "Performance matched discretionary accrual measures", Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), pp.163~197 (2005)
  38. Krishnan, J., "The differentiation of quality among auditors: Evidence from the not-for-profit sector", Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(2), pp.9~25 (2000)
  39. Myers, J., "Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation", The Accounting Review, 78(3), pp.779~799 (2003)
  40. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, "Concept release on audit quality indicators (AQIs), PCAOB Release No. 2015-005 (July 1)", PCAOB, ~ (2015)
  41. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, "Improving the transparency of audits: Rules to require disclosure of certain audit participants on a new PCAOB form and related amendments to auditing standards, PCAOB Release No. 2015-008 (December 15)", PCAOB, ~ (2015)
  42. Skinner, D., "Earnings surprises, growth expectations, and stock returns or don’t let an earnings torpedo sink your portfolio", Review of Accounting Studies, 7(2), pp.289~312 (2002)
  43. Sundgren, S., "Auditor-in-charge characteristics and going-concern reporting", Contemporary Accounting Research, 31(2), pp.531~550 (2014)
  44. van Buuren, J., "The audit partner effect", Ph.D., pp.2009
  45. Zerni, M., "Audit partner specialization and audit fees: Some evidence from Sweden", Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), pp.312~340 (2012)

관련 논문AI추천

파트너 감사시간이 감사품질에 미치는 영향: 계속감사기간을 중심으로김경태한국공인회계사회 · 회계ㆍ세무와 감사 연구2018 · 제60권 제4호감사파트너의 비정상 감사시간 및 감사시간 비중이 계속감사기간과 감사품질의 관계에 미치는 영향권수영, 김효은, 정경철한국공인회계사회 · 회계ㆍ세무와 감사 연구2018 · 제60권 제4호감사파트너 교체와 감사시간 및 감사품질간의 관계에 관한 연구임영제지식경영연구원 · 기업과혁신연구2023 · 제46권 제3호파트너개인연고를 따라 감사법인을 변경선임한 기업의 차별적 감사시간·감사보수 및 감사품질양일수, 이재은, 정도삼한국공인회계사회 · 회계ㆍ세무와 감사 연구2015 · 제57권 제3호파트너의 감사시간 비중이 재무보고품질에 미치는 영향김효은한국국제회계학회 · 국제회계연구2020 · 제93호감사파트너의 업무과부하가 감사품질에 미치는 영향강소현, 김상미, 한종수한국국제회계학회 · 국제회계연구2024 · 제114호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (8건)

감사인의 감사노력이 기업의 투자효율성에 미치는 영향권선국, 이서연, 이현주pp. 33-62기업집단에 속한 기업의 고품질 감사에 대한 수요와 감사인이 인지하는 감사위험: 상장사와 비상장사의 비교를 중심으로배길수, 최승욱pp. 63-99핵심감사제의 도입효과에 관한 연구인창열, 이명곤pp. 101-146사업다각화와 자발적공시 빈도 간의관련성 연구권오진pp. 147-178내부회계관리제도의 취약점과 주가표류현상조은혜, 문해원pp. 179-218
원문 보기