高管团队薪酬差异对盈余管理的影响研究

高管薪酬制度对盈余管理的影响是公司治理领域的热点之一。本研究基于锦标赛理论及社会比较理论,以2091家上市公司为研究样本,分析了高管团队薪酬差异对盈余管理的影响。结果显示:高管团队横向薪酬差异加剧了盈余管理程度;纵向薪酬差异对盈余管理存在着负向影响。本研究为上市公司高管团队薪酬制度的制定提供参考。     

上市公司盈余管理幅度、方向与高管薪酬——来自沪深股市的经验证据

本文以沪深两市2002年-2009年上市公司为研究对象,考察了高管层总体薪酬水平与盈余管理幅度、方向之间的关系.研究发现：在其他条件不变的情况下,盈余管理与高管层薪酬之间存在正相关关系;向下的盈余管理更能促进高管层薪酬的增加,在国有企业这种促进作用更明显.研究结果支持薪酬契约理论,不支持管理层机会主义观点.     

高质量审计如何影响高管薪酬业绩敏感度？

高管薪酬激励是缓解委托代理问题的重要治理机制，高管薪酬业绩敏感度影响着高管薪酬激励的效果。通过实证检验高质量审计影响高管薪酬业绩敏感度的作用渠道与影响机理，发现：高质量审计通过提高会计信息质量，显著增强了高管薪酬业绩敏感度；基于股权结构、市场竞争环境以及竞争战略的异质性检验发现：股权制衡、机构投资者持股、市场竞争地位、创新强度能够强化高质量审计对高管薪酬业绩敏感度的影响，而管理层持股、市场竞争程度、政府关系将弱化这种影响。研究结果丰富了高管薪酬激励影响因素领域、外部审计治理效应领域以及审计信号效用领域的研究，同时对优化高管薪酬激励具有现实指导意义。     

高管薪酬、会计信息透明度与审计收费——基于中国制造业上市公司的数据

选取 2007-2017 年中国制造业上市公司数据,以会计信息透明度为中介效应变量,从新视 角研究了高管薪酬对审计收费产生的影响。研究结果表明：高管薪酬水平与审计收费呈正相关的 关系,与会计信息透明度呈负相关的关系。在高管薪酬激励对审计收费的影响过程中,会计信息 透明度起到了部分中介作用。并且这种影响机制在进行了相关稳健性检验后仍然存在。研究结论 丰富了高管薪酬经济后果以及审计收费影响因素的相关研究。     

国有企业高管薪酬、产品市场竞争与费用粘性

随着经济下行的压力加大,国有企业降本提质增效的迫切性也越来越强。作为企业成本重要组成部分,费用的降低对“降成本”任务的实现有重要影响。基于2007-2015年国有上市公司数据,研究高管薪酬水平和差距对企业费用粘性的影响,及产品市场竞争程度是否发挥治理作用。研究发现：我国国有企业存在显著的费用粘性现象,企业高管薪酬水平越高、薪酬差距越大,费用粘性水平越低。国有企业所处的产品市场竞争环境越激烈,其高管薪酬激励作用越有效,即产品市场竞争与高管薪酬激励之间存在互补性。研究补充了费用粘性和公司治理的相关文献,并揭示了产品市场竞争与高管薪酬激励对费用粘性的治理效应之间的互动关系。     

银行高管薪酬的权力诱因与风险后果研究北大核心CSSCISSCI

近年来,中国金融行业高管的天价薪酬引发舆论热议,国内外学者开始探究银行高管薪酬设计的合理性。鉴于学界和业界对银行业高管薪酬科学性的质疑,本文基于中国沪深上市银行2009—2012年的相关数据,探究银行业高管天价薪酬以及高管—员工薪酬差距的成因,并考察其对银行风险的影响。具体来说,本文首先研究了银行高管权力对高管薪酬的影响,在此基础上,探究了银行公司治理水平对高管权力与高管薪酬关系的调节效应。同时,还研究了银行高管薪酬及高管—员工薪酬差距对银行风险的影响。研究发现,在中国上市银行中,高管权力显著促进了高管薪酬水平的提升,而银行治理水平能够负向调节高管权力与高管薪酬的正相关关系,同时银行内部薪酬差距可以诱发银行风险。研究结论表明,中国银行业应当适度削弱高管权力,努力提高银行治理水平,以此确保高管薪酬设计的科学合理性,同时适当缩小高管—员工薪酬差距,以防范薪酬异常差距导致的银行风险。     

会计师事务所声誉、审计费用与创业板IPO盈余管理

就我国创业板上市公司首次公开发行股票中盈余管理和会计师事务所声誉以及审计费用之间的关系进行研究。通过实证研究发现:创业板市场同主板和中小板相同,IPO过程中存在着盈余管理行为。此外,高声誉会计师事务审计的上市公司IPO盈余管理程度低于低声誉组;高审计费用组盈余管理程度低于低审计费用组,但在统计上均不显著。从而得出,在创业板市场,会计事务所声誉和审计费用对上市公司盈余管理行为有一定的抑制作用,但作用不显著。     

高管薪酬、股权结构与公司业绩关系研究

高管在企业的运营中起着至关重要的作用,通过分析2015—2019年沪深A股上市公司的数据,来研究高管薪酬和股权结构对公司业绩的影响以及股权结构对高管薪酬和公司业绩关系的调节作用。研究结果表明:上市公司的高管薪酬与公司业绩呈显著正相关,高管薪酬越高,公司的业绩越好;股权集中度与公司业绩呈显著正相关,而股权制衡度与公司业绩呈负相关,股权制衡度削弱高管薪酬与公司业绩的正相关关系,股权集中度增强高管薪酬与公司业绩的正相关关系。     

薪酬政策、经营业绩与国有上市公司高管薪酬——基于国有上市公司分类的实证研究

国有企业员工薪酬体系优化与员工激励机制建设一直是国企改革的重点。为此,对高管薪酬制度现状以及国有企业高管薪酬政策等相关文献进行系统分析,梳理影响国有上市公司高管薪酬的因素,建立面板数据分析模型,选取2010—2020年中国国有上市公司样本,探究不同类型的国有上市公司高管薪酬与经营业绩、薪酬政策的关系。研究发现,高管薪酬政策与经营业绩对两种类型的国有上市公司的高管薪酬具有显著的正向影响。基于研究结论,从政府薪酬管制、公司治理、增强高管薪酬的业绩敏感性、改进薪酬激励的方式等角度,分别对两类国有上市公司提出管理建议。     

中国银行业高管更迭、高管权力与薪酬的相关性研究

长期以来,高管权力与薪酬的关系一直是众多学者研究的焦点内容.现代企业中,所有权与经营权的分离造成了企业管理者与股东之间的利益冲突,并由此产生了大量的代理成本(Jensen&Meckling,1976).在这种情况下,薪酬机制应运而生.文章针对银行业这一特殊金融行业,从高管更迭的角度深入探究管理层权力与薪酬的关系,选取中国沪深两市16家上市银行自上市前两年至2010年的数据进行统计分析.在控制了其他可能影响高管薪酬的指标之后,实证研究结果表明,管理层成员的规模与高管薪酬水平负相关;管理层数量变化率与高管薪酬水平负相关;管理层变化质量与高管薪酬水平正相关.基于以上结论的改进措施有助于完善银行业的治理结构,规范银行业高管的薪酬激励机制.     

Discretionary Accounting Accruals,Managers' Incentives,and Audit Fees*

This paper examines the linkages between discretionary accruals (DAs), managerial share ownership, management compensation, and audit fees. It draws on the theory that managers of firms with high management ownership are likely to use DAs to communicate value‐relevant information, while managers of firms with high accounting‐based compensation are likely to use DAs opportunistically to manage earnings to improve their compensation. OLS regression results of 648 Australian firms show that (1) there is a positive association between DAs and audit fees; (2) managerial ownership negatively affects the positive relationship between DAs and audit fees; and (3) this negative impact is further found to be weaker for firms with high accounting‐based management compensation.     

Is Audit Committee Equity Compensation Related to Audit Fees?*

Section 301 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) implicitly assumes that audit committees can independently determine audit fees. Critics of section 301 have questioned this assumption in particular, and the efficacy of section 301 more generally. In response, the SEC issued a concept release in 2015 calling for public disclosure of the process that audit committees follow for determining auditor compensation. Motivated by these calls and the widespread use of stocks and options to compensate firms' independent directors, we examine the relation between equity compensation granted to audit committee members and audit fees. Using a sample of 3,685 firm‐year observations during 2007–2015, we find a negative relation between audit committee equity compensation and audit fees, consistent with larger equity pay inducing audit committee members to compromise independence by paying lower audit fees. These findings are robust to controlling for endogeneity, firm size, alternative measures of equity compensation, alternative samples, and an alternative treatment of extreme values. We further show that larger equity compensation is associated with lower earnings quality. We also find that the negative effect of equity compensation on audit fees is stronger when city‐level audit market competition is high. However, this negative relation disappears when (i) firms face high litigation risk, (ii) auditors have stronger bargaining power, (iii) the audit committee includes a high proportion of accounting experts, and (iv) auditors are industry experts. Our results are relevant for regulators and investors.     

Future Nonaudit Service Fees and Audit Quality

Prior to the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, audit partners experienced economic pressure to grow revenue from the sale of nonaudit services to their audit clients. To an auditor who is highly rewarded for revenue generation and growth, nonaudit services may represent a particularly strengthened economic bond with the client. Prior research shows that, in general, nonaudit service fees received in the current period do not impair audit quality. We examine a different setting. We propose that auditor independence can become impaired, and audit quality compromised, when clients that currently purchase relatively low amounts of nonaudit services, increase their purchases of nonaudit services from the auditor in the subsequent period. We test our prediction in the context of earnings management as a proxy for audit quality, measured by (a) performance‐adjusted discretionary accruals and (b) classification shifting of core expenses. Our results indicate that prior to the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act, rewards to the auditor in the form of future additional nonaudit service fees from current‐year high fee‐growth‐opportunity clients adversely affects audit quality. This effect is particularly strong among companies with powerful incentives to manage earnings. Our findings indicate that regulators should consider the multiperiod nature of the client–auditor relationship when contemplating policies that restrict nonaudit services, as well as the overall environment in which audit partners operate. This might include partner compensation arrangements that put pressure on audit partners to focus on increasing revenue at the expense of audit quality.     

The Earnings Quality Information Content of Dividend Policies and Audit Pricing

Recent studies indicate dividends are associated with higher‐quality earnings. Our study extends the literature by examining whether dividends' information is associated with auditors' assessment of their clients' earnings quality. Our results show that auditors charge lower fees to dividend‐paying clients than to nondividend‐paying clients and the average fee discount ranges from 6.0 to 10.6 percent. More importantly, we find dividends have an interactive effect with respect to earnings persistence and earnings manipulation: the negative association between audit fees and earnings persistence is more pronounced for dividend firms; and dividend payouts mitigate the positive relation between earnings manipulation risk and audit fees. Our results imply dividends reduce audit risk by enhancing clients' earnings quality information. We contribute to the literature by showing that auditors reflect the earnings quality information content of firms' dividend policies in their pricing decisions.     

上市公司审计费用影响因素的实证研究——基于沪、深两市上市公司的经验证据

文章以我国2005、2006年沪、深两市上市公司为研究对象,对影响我国上市公司审计费用的影响因素进行了实证分析,实证研究发现：被审计单位资产规模、子公司个数、事务所的规模与我国证券市场的审计费用显著相关,而存货与应收账款之和与总资产之比、被审计单位在经济区域发达与否、盈余管理行为以及被审计单位被出具的意见类型对审计费用不具有显著影响。     

Nonaudit Services and Earnings Management: UK Evidence*

Using a sample of UK firms for the period 1996‐98, we provide empirical evidence on the relation between nonaudit services (NAS) purchase and three proxies for earnings management: (1) the likelihood that client firm accounting practices during the sample period were publicly criticized or subject to regulatory investigation; (2) the likelihood that client firms were required to restate prior financial statements or adjust current year results upon adoption of Financial Reporting Standard (FRS) No. 12, which was intended to curb opportunistic use of provisions; and (3) the mean absolute value of client discretionary working capital accruals over the sample period. The level of NAS purchase is measured, alternatively, as (1) the ratio of nonaudit to total auditor fees, (2) the natural log of NAS fees, and (3) the decile rank of a particular client's NAS fees given all NAS fees received by the audit firm practice office. With one exception, we find that all three measures of earnings management are positively and significantly associated with the three measures of NAS purchase.     

“金税三期”税收征管对上市公司审计费用的影响

税收征管作为公司外部治理手段,能够作用于公司经营环节,进而影响审计师面临的业务风险和审计风险,由此影响到公司的审计费用。但目前鲜有文献研究税收征管对公司审计费用的影响。本文借助"金税三期"工程这一"准自然实验",以2010—2019年A股上市公司为样本并使用双重差分法,研究发现"金税三期"工程提高了上市公司的审计费用。机制分析表明,"金税三期"工程推高了上市公司实际税率,降低了上市公司的盈利水平,提高了审计师的业务风险,进而提高了审计费用。同时,"金税三期"工程强化涉税信息监管,提高了上市公司会计信息质量,降低了审计师的审计风险,从而降低了审计费用。综合来看前者对审计费用的影响大于后者,导致了上市公司审计费用的提高。进一步分析发现,"金税三期"工程对审计费用的这一影响,在非国有上市公司和由非国际四大会计师事务所审计的上市公司中更为显著。     

Are Auditors Compromised by Nonaudit Services? Assessing the Evidence*

Ruddock, Taylor, and Taylor (2006) use an earnings conservatism framework to investigate the effects of nonaudit services (NAS) on earnings conservatism, and to test whether audit quality was impaired by NAS in Australia during the 1990s. They find no evidence of differential conservatism conditional on the level of NAS fees paid to auditors, and thus conclude that NAS have no adverse effect on audit quality. While this result may not extrapolate to the U.S. setting due to institutional difference between the two countries, the study does add to a growing body of empirical evidence that questions whether there is any logical rationale for restricting the scope of the services that auditors provide to their audit clients. In reviewing the NAS research literature over the past 40 years, one has to conclude that there is no “smoking gun” evidence linking the provision of nonaudit services with audit failures. However, the literature also finds that NAS can adversely affect the appearance of auditor independence, and this may be more than a “mere perception” problem, because there is also evidence that stock prices are significantly lower for companies that pay their auditors large fees for nonaudit services.     

Auditor Sensitivity to Real Earnings Management: The Importance of Ambiguity and Earnings Context

Differentiating real earnings management (REM) from normal business decisions poses a unique challenge for auditors, researchers, and investors. The ambiguity associated with REM, and the fact that REM does not violate GAAP, may explain why its use is on the rise. While some assert that auditors are not, and should not be, concerned with REM, recent research suggests that REM may influence some auditor judgments. Using Correspondent Inference Theory (CIT) as our theoretical framework, we extend REM research by investigating the ways in which auditors respond to REM and how auditors deal with the intrinsic ambiguity associated with REM. We administer a 3×2 between‐subjects experiment to 113 highly‐experienced auditors, manipulating the level of ambiguity surrounding the observed REM (Explicit REM, Potential REM, or No REM) and the earnings context in which the client engages in REM (the client beat or missed the consensus earnings forecast). We find that auditors respond to REM by lowering assessments of management tone (i.e., management's commitment to a culture of high ethical standards), being more likely to discuss the issue with the audit committee, and being less likely to retain the client. Auditors respond to Explicit REM regardless of the earnings context, but respond to Potential (i.e., ambiguous) REM only when the client beats the forecast. Finally, we find that management tone mediates the relation between REM and auditor responses, even after controlling for various audit‐related risks. Thus, for auditors, REM appears to be primarily a “people” issue, as REM provides a negative signal about management.