审计期望差距构成要素剖析

审计期望差距是指社会公众对注册会计师审计应起作用的理解与注册会计师行为结果及注册会计师业界自身对审计业绩看法之间的差异。     

审计期望差距存在的必然性及发展趋势

近年来,随着大量公司破产倒闭事件的发生,许多会计师事务所及注册会计师被告上法庭。造成这一现象的原因很大程度上是由于审计期望差距的存在。为了减少注册会计师受到不公平诉讼的可能性,同时也为了弄清社会公众的“期望”,促进注册会计师的工作不断向公众要求靠近．深入研究“审计期望差距”就成为一个非常紧迫和重要的问题。本文针对目前这一广受社会各界关注的问题、对审计期望差距存在的必然性及发展趋势展开讨论。     

审计抽样技术在实践中的应用

一、应用审计抽样技术的必要性 （一）从详细审计的局限性来看，随着被审计单位规模的逐步扩大和业务程度的逐渐复杂化，详细审计因其费工费时、效率低下及审计范围仅局限于被审计单位提供的会计资料，难以保证账外资产的安全完整，难以满足社会公众对审计工作的需求。特别是审计署实行审计公告制度以来，审计的社会影响逐渐增强，社会公众对审计工作提出了更高期望，在审计资源有限的情况下，如何尽最大可能缩小社会公众希望审计能够做到的和审计实际做到的之间的期望差距，就成为我们审计人员面临的问题。应用审计抽样技术、提高审计效率成为解决这一问题的途径之一。     

从审计期望差到舞弊专项审计

审计人员所提供的审计服务往往不能完全发现和阻止公司舞弊的发生，然而社会公众对审计服务的期望往往超出审计人员对自身执业的认识，也就是存在所谓的期望差（expectationgap）。公司舞弊问题近年来不断加剧的趋势恶化了审计界的执业环境，间接导致了审计风险的增长。目前，审计期望差的前沿问题是关于检查舞弊行为和不法行为的责任问题，即审计人员是否应该承担发现所有舞弊行为的责任，要正确认识这个问题，首先应该从公司舞弊行为分类出发。一、公司舞弊行为分类和区别公司舞弊行为可以分为虚假财务报表舞弊行为（financialstatementba…     

基于国家审计公告的审计期望差距研究

本文主要是基于国家审计公告来研究审计的期望差距,并通过完善国家审计报告来缩小审计期望差距。首先,分析了西方国家的审计公告制度,并提出了对我国审计公告的启示。然后,分析了我国审计公告制度的几点不足,并总结出由它们所引起的审计期望差距。最后,提出了几点完善国家审计公告的措施,同时也作为缩小国家审计期望差距的对策。     

审计期望差形成的原因分析

审计期望值差是社会公众期望审计师达到的程度与审计师实际业绩间的差距,它直接关系到资本市场上财务信息的质量和公众的信息,是审计研究中的重要问题,事关审计市场供求发展.本文首先运用经济学的供给和需求分析框架,结合信息经济学理论分析了审计需求和审计供给,剖析了审计期望差的经济成因.其次从审计期望差所包舍的内容,即主客观两方面分析审计期望差的原因.     

论审计期望差距

审计期望差距是指公众对审计人员的期望与审计人员对自身执业水平和业绩认识之间的差距。作为一种历史现象,它是无法从根本上得以弥合的。为尽量缩小审计期望差距,应该加强审计理论研究,广泛调查公众的信息需求及其变化,加强审计准则的制定工作和审计职业队伍建设。     

刍议期望审计差距

一、期望差距的产生 审计期望差距表示审计人自己认可的审计职责与社会公众期望的审计职责之间存在距离.公众从自身的信息需求出发认为,审计界除了保证审计报告的真实合法,还必须保证财务报告的正确公允,披露所有重大差错和舞弊,认为审计报告应承诺被审计单位的存续能力.     

审计期望差距的原因及策略建议

与审计同步产生的审计期望,在社会发展变化的过程中也出现了态势上的某些变化,由此形成审计期望差距。现阶段,审计期望差距已日渐成为审计理论及审计实践研究者致力探究的重要课题。本文从导致审计期望差距形成的原因分析入手,在此基础上,对审计期望差距的缩小途径及解决对策加以探索思考,以弥补审计期望差距,提高审计质量水平。     

论审计期望差距的构成与弥合

随着审计市场的不断成熟,以及风险导向审计的引入,公众对审计的期望与按照可能准则得出的审计结果之间的差距将是审计期望差距的主要构成要素,并由审计重要性水平的运用而导致。为弥合审计期望差距,减少审计成本以实现利润最大化,不能仅依靠审计师的专业判断确定重要性水平,而应在被审计单位收集、计算审计报告使用者的实际重要性水平基础上,审计师依此报价、投标并进行审计,并在审计报告中公示本次审计的三种重要性水平。     

The audit expectation gap: existence,causes, and the impact of changes

Recent regulatory initiatives targeting the statutory audit regime support the notion that the audit expectation gap is still a driver of change. This study seeks to analyse causes of the gap as well as the impact of proposed changes to the current statutory audit regime using an approach that differs from those used in prior literature. This approach allows us to attribute the audit expectation gap under the current regime to a failure of the public, the standard-setter, or the auditor. Based on a questionnaire survey conducted in 2011 in Germany, we find the public to have exaggerated expectations of auditors' responsibilities under current standards. Other causes of the gap relate to the public's difficulty in assessing the performance of auditors, but also to deficiencies in auditors' performance. In addition, we find that auditors are not fully aware of their responsibilities. Increasing the information content of the audit opinion is expected to narrow the gap. By contrast, recent proposed changes, such as mandatory rotation and a ban on non-audit services, may reduce the gap only to a lesser extent. Overall, it can be shown that the audit expectation gap is by its nature a persistent phenomenon comprising complex social aspects and interactions with changing accounting requirements, such as increased uncertainties in accounting estimates.     

关于农村审计性质的探讨

农村审计对于发展农村经济、巩固税费改革成果、减轻农民负担、加强社会主义新农村建设是十分必要的。但对于农村审计性质至今尚未形成统一的认识。农村审计不同于内部审计、政府审计和社会审计,农村审计应属于外部审计。     

政府审计质量的衡量研究:基于程序观和结果观的检验

政府审计质量的衡量研究具有重要的理论和现实意义。已有的文献将审计质量区分为程序审计质量与结果审计质量,本文试图进一步从哲学、法学和经济学的视角诠释程序审计质量与结果审计质量的理论基础,并以2005至2007年间参加全国优秀审计项目评选的审计项目为样本,研究发现程序审计质量对于结果审计质量具有显著的正面影响。同时,审计对象、审计主体等因素也在一定程度上影响了结果审计质量。     

审计绩效、审计治理结构与对政府审计制度效率的比较因素分析

审计绩效的提高是以一定的审计制度环境为条件的。本文以新制度学派的组织理论为依据,从审计组织领域的视角探讨了审计绩效、审计治理结构的涵义及其二者之间的关系,明确了完善的审计制度体系、并且得到审计以及相关组织有效的遵循,是提高审计绩效的基本制度条件。在此基础上,提出了对审计制度效率进行测评的一种经验研究的方法,并运用此方法对我国审计行政管理体制的制度效率进行了比较因素分析,提出了我国提高审计绩效的政策建议。     

审计机关审计项目审理工作的实践与理论探讨

根据审计法、审计法实施条例和国家审计准则规定,审计机关审计项目应当实行审理制度。这一制度对审计机关提高审计质量、控制审计风险、发挥免疫系统功能和建设性作用都极其重要。本文结合现代审计发展规律和内部控制制度需求,对审计机关审计项目审理工作的实践和理论探讨进行了较系统的研究,以期通过建立审理机构、配备审理人员、完善审理制度和优化审计机关审计项目审理程序为全面提高审计质量和控制审计风险提供保障。同时,还针对目前审理工作中存在的问题提出具体对策,与审计同仁进行探讨。     

Performance Audit Scope and the Independence of the Australian Commonwealth Auditor-General

The introduction of performance auditing through the 1979 Australian Audit Act amendments continues to challenge the Australian Commonwealth Auditor-General's independence. By international consensus, performance auditing includes effectiveness issues. In contrast, the Australian amendments omit reference to 'effectiveness' issues and do not define 'efficiency' audit. Interpretation of these omissions varies. The Australian National Audit Office sees no prohibition on including effectiveness audit. But successive governments have attempted to curb the CAG's independence by excluding effectiveness auditing as a forbidden intrusion into policy areas; an exclusion that the ANAO rejects in relation to audit of effectiveness at operational levels. This study investigates the practical effect of these conflicts on performance audit scope. The results show that the ANAO consistently goes beyond audit of economy and efficiency to make substantive recommendations on effectiveness issues.     

中国通货膨胀预期记忆性研究——基于2003-2017年央行数据的实证分析

基于央行发布的居民对下季度物价预期数据,构建净差额法、正态分布、均匀分布以及逻辑分布下的通货膨胀预期,实证检验不同分布下通胀预期的记忆性,并在此基础上研究北京、河北、江西、云南等四个省市之间记忆性差异及其微观原因.结果表明:当我国居民通胀预期服从均匀分布时,通胀预期有可能存在记忆性,并且具有"长记忆"特征.其中北京通胀预期记忆性最短,其次是河北和云南,江西通胀预期记忆性最长.这种通胀预期记忆性的差异来源于各省市居民对未来收入信心、金融参与程度以及人均收入等微观因素的差别.     

Efficiency,economy and effectiveness—but what about ethics? Supreme audit institutions at a critical juncture

Ethics is increasingly recognized as one of several important dimensions of performance. Yet, performance audit, or value-for-money audit, as conducted by supreme audit institutions (SAIs), does not typically include this dimension. Instead, the focus is on the classical ‘three Es’ (efficiency, economy and effectiveness). The reluctance to address issues of ethical misconduct has taken the audit practice of SAIs to a critical juncture, where the legitimacy of these audits ultimately is at stake. This paper explains why SAIs need to add a fourth ‘E’— ethical audit. Possible implications are discussed.     

Auditor–Provided Consultancy Services and their Associations with Audit Fees and Audit Opinions

This study examines the relationships between non–audit services fees (consultancy fees) paid to auditors and (1) audit fees, and (2) the occurrence of qualified audit opinions. The positive association between consultancy fees and audit fees is shown to be due to certain company specific events that generate a demand for consultancy services as well as requiring additional audit effort. Identified company specific events are mergers and acquisitions, new share issues, new accounting and information systems, new CEOs, and corporate restructurings. When these events are absent, there is no statistically significant relationship between audit fees and consultancy fees after controlling for company size. Companies that have relatively high consultancy fees are more likely to receive a clean audit opinion. This may be due to the non–audit work clearing up problem areas at the client company or it may be due to high consultancy fees impairing auditor independence. With the available data it is not possible to distinguish between these two reasons.     

Joint Audits: Does the Allocation of Audit Work Affect Audit Quality and Audit Fees?

Audit quality and cost consequences of joint audits have been continually discussed, especially since the publication of the European Commission’s Green Paper in 2010. We provide new empirical evidence for the French audit market. We show that a more balanced audit work allocation between the engaged audit firms reduces the audit quality and enhances the audit fees as compared to an unbalanced work allocation. We measure the quality effects following the concept of abnormal accruals and the concept of cosmetic earnings management. As unbalanced joint audits have parallels to single audits, our results have interest to those debating the benefits and costs of joint audits as compared to single audits.