公司治理、盈余管理与审计收费的相关性
|
摘要
审计定价(Adit Pricing)是注册会计师审计机制在具体运行过程中的重要环节,与会计师事务所的市场竞争行为和审计执业行为有着紧密的联系,因此审计定价在审计学术和实务研究中有着重要地位。通常国外会计理论、实务界将审计收费(Audit Fees)作为审计定价的替代变量。2001年2月5日,美国证券交易委员会(SEC)要求美国上市公司公开批露审计及相关服务费用,从此西方对审计服务价格的研究掀起了高潮。2001年12月24日,中国证监会要求上市公司公布支付给会计师事务所的报酬,该规定为实证研究我国审计收费影响因素提供了契机。
纵观国内外有关审计收费影响因素的实证研究,多集中于公司财务指标,研究成果也较成熟。不过随着研究的深入发展,学者们已不仅仅停留在像客户规模、客户复杂性、客户风险等财务指标上,许多专业人士正在探索审计师在确定审计费用时,会不会或者说该不该考虑公司治理结构的影响?更进一步地,审计师会不会考虑到公司治理内部行为特征,如高管层实施的盈余管理行为所蕴藏的审计风险有没有反应在审计收费中?其实这也正是本文研究的目标,探索的关键点。为此,本文在文献回顾、概念介绍、理论分析及假设提出的基础上,选取我国沪深两市A股资本市场2003-2006年间共23.18家上市公司为研究样本。借鉴Simunic的审计费用模型,选取董事会规模、独立董事比例、董事长与总经理两职是否合一、度量股权集中度的前5大股东持股比例、度量股权性质的最终控股股东是否为政府、审计委员会的设置、高管层持股比例和度量盈余管理的可操控性应计利润指标作为解释变量。研究发现：董事会规模与审计收费显著正相关,独立董事比例、上市公司的终极控股股东为政府、高管层持股比例与审计收费显著负相关,且股权集中度与审计收费存在非线性关系也得到了验证。董事长与总经理两职合一、审计委员会的设置状况、盈余管理与审计收费相关性不显著。通过实证研究结果可知,审计师在确定审计收费时,应该考虑公司治理结构的影响。
Audit pricing is the important part of the process,which is in the registered accountants'audit mechanism in the specific operation, closely linked with the accounting firms' market-competitive conduct and audit practice, therefore the audit pricing has an important position in the academic and practical study of the audit. Usually foreign accounting theory and practical circles reckon audit fees as an alternative variable of pricing audit.February 5,2001, the United States Securities Commission (SEC) asked listed companies in the United States to disclose the cost of the audit and related services in their annual report.Since then,the study of the price of audit services reaches a climax in the West. December 24, 2001, the China Securities Regulatory Commission required public companies to announce the compensation paid to the accounting firms.The provision provided the opportunity for an empirical study of influencing factors of audit fees in China.
Looking at the empirical research of factors of the impact on audit fees, focusing on the company's financial indicators, research results are also more mature.But, with the deep development of research, scholars not only keep a close watch such as the scale of customers,the complexity of clients,the risk of customers financial indicators, many professionals are but also exploring if they should consider the impact of corporate governance structure when the auditors are determining the audit fees? Further, if auditors will take into account the behavioral characteristics of internal corporate governance, such as if the audit risk potentially implemented by senior management's earnings management activities reflected in the audit fees? In fact, this is also the goal of this study and the key points explored. In this paper, on the basis of the literature review, the concept production, the theoretical analysis and assumptions made,the selection of 2318 samples of China's Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares of capital markets between 2003 and 2006 is regarded as the study of listed companies. Simunic model of the audit costs referred, the size of the board of directors, the proportion of independent directors, the two grades of chairman and general manager combined together, the top 5 largest shareholding ratio measured ownership concentration, the ultimate controlling shareholder for the Government measured the nature of equity, the Audit Committee of the settings, the proportion of senior management ownership and accruals measured earnings management, regarded as the explanatory variable indicators. The study found:the size of the board is significantly related to audit fees, the proportion of independent directors of listed companies and the Government of the ultimate controlling shareholder and the proportion of stocks held senior management was negatively correlated to the audit fees, and the existence of non-linear relationship between concentration of ownership and audit fees has been verified. The two level-one of chairman and general manager, the status of the Board of Auditors, earnings management are not significantly related to audit fees. Through empirical research results, when the auditors are determining the audit fees, they should take into account the impact of corporate governance structure.
纵观国内外有关审计收费影响因素的实证研究,多集中于公司财务指标,研究成果也较成熟。不过随着研究的深入发展,学者们已不仅仅停留在像客户规模、客户复杂性、客户风险等财务指标上,许多专业人士正在探索审计师在确定审计费用时,会不会或者说该不该考虑公司治理结构的影响?更进一步地,审计师会不会考虑到公司治理内部行为特征,如高管层实施的盈余管理行为所蕴藏的审计风险有没有反应在审计收费中?其实这也正是本文研究的目标,探索的关键点。为此,本文在文献回顾、概念介绍、理论分析及假设提出的基础上,选取我国沪深两市A股资本市场2003-2006年间共23.18家上市公司为研究样本。借鉴Simunic的审计费用模型,选取董事会规模、独立董事比例、董事长与总经理两职是否合一、度量股权集中度的前5大股东持股比例、度量股权性质的最终控股股东是否为政府、审计委员会的设置、高管层持股比例和度量盈余管理的可操控性应计利润指标作为解释变量。研究发现：董事会规模与审计收费显著正相关,独立董事比例、上市公司的终极控股股东为政府、高管层持股比例与审计收费显著负相关,且股权集中度与审计收费存在非线性关系也得到了验证。董事长与总经理两职合一、审计委员会的设置状况、盈余管理与审计收费相关性不显著。通过实证研究结果可知,审计师在确定审计收费时,应该考虑公司治理结构的影响。
Audit pricing is the important part of the process,which is in the registered accountants'audit mechanism in the specific operation, closely linked with the accounting firms' market-competitive conduct and audit practice, therefore the audit pricing has an important position in the academic and practical study of the audit. Usually foreign accounting theory and practical circles reckon audit fees as an alternative variable of pricing audit.February 5,2001, the United States Securities Commission (SEC) asked listed companies in the United States to disclose the cost of the audit and related services in their annual report.Since then,the study of the price of audit services reaches a climax in the West. December 24, 2001, the China Securities Regulatory Commission required public companies to announce the compensation paid to the accounting firms.The provision provided the opportunity for an empirical study of influencing factors of audit fees in China.
Looking at the empirical research of factors of the impact on audit fees, focusing on the company's financial indicators, research results are also more mature.But, with the deep development of research, scholars not only keep a close watch such as the scale of customers,the complexity of clients,the risk of customers financial indicators, many professionals are but also exploring if they should consider the impact of corporate governance structure when the auditors are determining the audit fees? Further, if auditors will take into account the behavioral characteristics of internal corporate governance, such as if the audit risk potentially implemented by senior management's earnings management activities reflected in the audit fees? In fact, this is also the goal of this study and the key points explored. In this paper, on the basis of the literature review, the concept production, the theoretical analysis and assumptions made,the selection of 2318 samples of China's Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares of capital markets between 2003 and 2006 is regarded as the study of listed companies. Simunic model of the audit costs referred, the size of the board of directors, the proportion of independent directors, the two grades of chairman and general manager combined together, the top 5 largest shareholding ratio measured ownership concentration, the ultimate controlling shareholder for the Government measured the nature of equity, the Audit Committee of the settings, the proportion of senior management ownership and accruals measured earnings management, regarded as the explanatory variable indicators. The study found:the size of the board is significantly related to audit fees, the proportion of independent directors of listed companies and the Government of the ultimate controlling shareholder and the proportion of stocks held senior management was negatively correlated to the audit fees, and the existence of non-linear relationship between concentration of ownership and audit fees has been verified. The two level-one of chairman and general manager, the status of the Board of Auditors, earnings management are not significantly related to audit fees. Through empirical research results, when the auditors are determining the audit fees, they should take into account the impact of corporate governance structure.
引文
[1]程新生.2005.公司治理中的审计机制研究.北京：高等教育出版社.
[2]陈俊,陈汉文.2007.公司治理、会计准则执行与盈余价值相关性——来自中国证券市场的经验证据.审计研究,2.
[3]蔡春,黄益建,赵莎.2005.关于审计质量对盈余管理影响的实证研究——来自沪市制造业的经验证据.审计研究,2.
[4]蔡春,唐滔智.2006.公司治理审计论.北京：中国时代经济出版社.
[5]陈思维,王会金,裴文英.2005.审计学.北京：清华大学出版社.
[6]陈武朝,张泓.2004.盈余管理、审计师变更与审计师独立性.会计研究,8.
[7]丁鹏.2007.公司特征、国际四大与审计意见.审计研究,2.
[8]杜兴强,周泽将.2007.上市公司中期财务报告自愿审计的公司治理动因——基于深圳证券市场的经验证据.上海立信会计学院学报,2.
[9]李东平,黄德华,王振林.2001.不清洁审计意见、盈余管理与会计师事务所变更.会计研究,6.
[10]蔡吉甫.2007.公司治理、审计风险与审计费用关系研究.审计研究,3：65-71.
[11]陆晓萍.2006.我国审计收费制度现状与原因分析.经济师,11.
[12]卢轶乔,晏晨晖.2007.公司治理模式影响下的审计模式.当代财经,8.
[13]陆建桥.2002.中国亏损上市公司赢余管理实证研究.北京：中国财政经济出版社.
[14]刘运国,胡丽艳.2005.公司治理结构对内部审计的影响——基于A市公交企业的案例分析.审计研究,5：49-53.
[15]刘明辉,胡波.2006.公司治理、代理成本与审计定价.财经问题研究,2.
[16]李爽,吴溪.2004.审计定价研究：中国证券市场的初步证据.北京：中国财政经济出版社.
[17]李补喜.2007.基于监管的审计定价研究.北京：冶金工业出版社.
[18]刘运国,麦剑青,魏哲妍.2006.审计费用与盈余管理实证分析——来自中国证券市场的证据.审计研究,2.
[19]刘峰,张立民,雷科罗.2002.我国审计市场制度安排与审计质量需求——中天勤客户流向的案例分析.会计研究,12.
[20]宁亚平.2004.盈余管理的定义及其意义研究.会计研究,9：62-66.
[21]彭志忠,邓志钦.2006.从公司治理角度看企业盈余管理.理论探讨,5.
[22]漆江娜,陈慧霖,张阳.2004.事务所规模、品牌、价格与审计质量——国际四大中国审计市场收费与质量研究.审计研究,3.
[23]任春艳.2005.盈余管理对会计准则制定的启示.当代财经,5.
[24]孙铮,王志伟,吴茜.2002.市场监管公司治理会计改革——从美国《2002年SOX法案》看中国的会计改革.会计研究,12.
[25]唐跃军.2007.审计收费、审计委员会与意见购买——来自2004-2005年中国上市公司的证据.金融研究,4.
[26]汤谷良,朱蕾.2002.从公司治理与经营模式看美国公司会计欺诈案.会计研究,12.
[27]伍利娜.2003.盈余管理对审计费用影响分析——来自中国上市公司首次审北京计费用披露的证据.会计研究,12：39-44.
[28]汪辉.2003.上市公司债务融资、公司治理与市场价值.经济研究,8：28-35.
[29]吴联生,刘慧龙.2008.中国审计实证研究：1999-2007.审计研究,2：36-46.
[30]魏韬.2007.论公司治理结构对审计收费的影响.经济研究导刊,8.
[31]吴照云,黎军民.2005.公司治理的核心——企业控制权配置的基础、问题和规范.当代财经,5.
[32]王光远,瞿曲.2006.公司治理中的内部审计——受托责任视角的内部治理机制观.审计研究,2.
[33]席酉民,赵增耀.2004.公司治理.北京：高等教育出版社.
[34]叶炜.2007.先行审计风险模型的缺陷与重构.财会研究,6.
[35]杨忠莲,徐政旦.2004.我国公司成立审计委员会动机的实证研究.审计研究,1.
[36]杨有红,胡燕.2004.试论公司治理与内部控制的对接.会计研究,10.
[37]曾小青.2005.公司治理、受托责任与审计委员会制度研究.大连：东北财经大学出版社.
[38]郑春美.2006.公司治理中的会计治理对策研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社.
[39]赵丽芳.2007.审计期望差距、差距弥合与治理基础审计——审计责任的历史还原或重塑.审计研究,2.
[40]赵德武,马永强.2006.管理层舞弊、审计失败与审计模式重构——论治理系统基础审计.会计研究,4.
[41]张继勋,陈颖,吴璇.2005.风险因素对我国上市公司审计收费影响的分析——妒市2003年报的数据.审计研究,4：34-38.
[42]张继勋,刘成立.2006.审计收费研究综述及启示.当代财经,7.
[43]张奇峰,张鸣,戴佳君.2006.中国审计定价实证研究述评.会计研究,6：87-93.
[44]张晨宇,赵晶,肖淑芳.2007.我国上市公司审计收费影响因素的实证研究.数理统计与管理,11：1085-1090.
[45]张祥建.2007.大股东控制下的配股融资与盈余管理研究.上海：上海财经大学出版社.
[46]周红.2004.从伦敦交易所上市公司审计收费看我国审计市场结构改革.当代财经,5.
[47]Anderson.T.,Zeghal,D.,1994. The Pricing of Audit Services:Further Evidence from the Canadian Market.Accounting and Business Research,24:195-207.
[48]Aprilklein.,2002.Audit committee,board of director characteristics and earnings managemeng. Journal of Accounting and Economics,2:375-400.
[49]Abbott,L.J.and S.Parker,2000.Auditor selection and committeecharacteristics, Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,19:47-66.
[50]Abbott,L.J. and S.Parker,2001. Audit committee characteristics and auditor selection:Evidence from auditor switches. Research in Accounting Regulation,15:151-167.
[51]Carcello,J.V.,D.R.Hermanson,T.L.Neal and R.A.Riley.2002.Board characteristics and audit fees.Contemporary Accounting Research,19:365-385.
[52]Dan A.Simunic,1980. the Pricing of Audit Services:Theory and Evidence,Journal of Accounting Research,Spring, vol 18.NO 1.
[53]David Hay,2004. Audit Fees:A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes,February.
[54]DeFond,M.L.,J.R.Francis,and T.J.Wong.2000.Auditor industry specialization and market segmentation:Evidence from Hong Kong.Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,19:49-66.
[55]Firth,M.,1997. the provision of non-audit services and the pricing of audit feesJournal of Business Finance and Accouting,24:661-693.
[56]Gist W. E.,1994. Empirical evidence on the effect of audit structure on audit pricing. Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,13:25-40.
[57]Gul,F.&Tsui,J.S.L.,2001.Free Cash Flow,debt monitoring and audit evidence on the role of director equity ownership.Journal of Practice & Theory,20:72-84.
[58]Hackenbrack.K.,and W.R.Knechel.1999. Resource allocation decision in audit engagements. Contemporary Accounting Research,14:90-100.
[59]Joseph.P.H.Fan,T.J.Wong,2002. Do external auditors perform a corporate Governance role in emerging markets?Evidence from East Asia.
[60]Klein.Firm,1998. performance and Committee Structure.Journal of Law and Economics,4:275-303.
[61]Krishnagopal Menon,and David D.Williams,2001. Long-Term Trends in Audit Fees,Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory March:115-136.
[62]Knechel,W.R.,and J.Payne.2001.Additional evidence on audit report lags. Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,20:137-146.
[63]Langendijk,H.,1997. the market for audit services in the Netherlands. the European Accounting Review,6:253-264.
[64]Lawrence, J.Abbott,Susan Parker,Gary F.Peters,and K.Raghunandan,2003. the Association between Audit Committee Characteristics and Audit Fees,Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,22:17-32.
[65]More,2002,Corporate Governance and Board Efficiency,Journal of Financial Economics,56:359-392.
[66]Noel O'Sullivan,1999. Board Characteristics and Audit Pricing Post-Cadbury:a Research Note,the European Accounting Review,8:253-263.
[67]Pearson,T.,and G.Trompeter,1994. Competition in the market for audit services:the effect of suppier concentration on audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research,11:91-114.
[68]Tsui,J.S. L.B.Jaggi and F.A.Gul.,2001.CEO domination,growth opportunities,and their impact on audit fees.Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance,16:189.
[69]Turley S, Zeman M,2004. The corporate governance effects of audit committee[J]. Journal of Management and Governance,8:305-332.
[70]Watts, Zimmerman,1983. Agency problem, auditing and the theory of the firm:some evidence [J]. Journal of Law and Economics,26:613-634.
[71]Xie B,Wallace N,DavidsonIII,etal.2003.Earnings management and corporate governance:the role of the board and the audit committee.Journal of Corporate Finance,9:295-316.
②李爽、吴溪(2003)研究结果表明,审计收费与非标准无保留审计意见正相关。
[2]陈俊,陈汉文.2007.公司治理、会计准则执行与盈余价值相关性——来自中国证券市场的经验证据.审计研究,2.
[3]蔡春,黄益建,赵莎.2005.关于审计质量对盈余管理影响的实证研究——来自沪市制造业的经验证据.审计研究,2.
[4]蔡春,唐滔智.2006.公司治理审计论.北京：中国时代经济出版社.
[5]陈思维,王会金,裴文英.2005.审计学.北京：清华大学出版社.
[6]陈武朝,张泓.2004.盈余管理、审计师变更与审计师独立性.会计研究,8.
[7]丁鹏.2007.公司特征、国际四大与审计意见.审计研究,2.
[8]杜兴强,周泽将.2007.上市公司中期财务报告自愿审计的公司治理动因——基于深圳证券市场的经验证据.上海立信会计学院学报,2.
[9]李东平,黄德华,王振林.2001.不清洁审计意见、盈余管理与会计师事务所变更.会计研究,6.
[10]蔡吉甫.2007.公司治理、审计风险与审计费用关系研究.审计研究,3：65-71.
[11]陆晓萍.2006.我国审计收费制度现状与原因分析.经济师,11.
[12]卢轶乔,晏晨晖.2007.公司治理模式影响下的审计模式.当代财经,8.
[13]陆建桥.2002.中国亏损上市公司赢余管理实证研究.北京：中国财政经济出版社.
[14]刘运国,胡丽艳.2005.公司治理结构对内部审计的影响——基于A市公交企业的案例分析.审计研究,5：49-53.
[15]刘明辉,胡波.2006.公司治理、代理成本与审计定价.财经问题研究,2.
[16]李爽,吴溪.2004.审计定价研究：中国证券市场的初步证据.北京：中国财政经济出版社.
[17]李补喜.2007.基于监管的审计定价研究.北京：冶金工业出版社.
[18]刘运国,麦剑青,魏哲妍.2006.审计费用与盈余管理实证分析——来自中国证券市场的证据.审计研究,2.
[19]刘峰,张立民,雷科罗.2002.我国审计市场制度安排与审计质量需求——中天勤客户流向的案例分析.会计研究,12.
[20]宁亚平.2004.盈余管理的定义及其意义研究.会计研究,9：62-66.
[21]彭志忠,邓志钦.2006.从公司治理角度看企业盈余管理.理论探讨,5.
[22]漆江娜,陈慧霖,张阳.2004.事务所规模、品牌、价格与审计质量——国际四大中国审计市场收费与质量研究.审计研究,3.
[23]任春艳.2005.盈余管理对会计准则制定的启示.当代财经,5.
[24]孙铮,王志伟,吴茜.2002.市场监管公司治理会计改革——从美国《2002年SOX法案》看中国的会计改革.会计研究,12.
[25]唐跃军.2007.审计收费、审计委员会与意见购买——来自2004-2005年中国上市公司的证据.金融研究,4.
[26]汤谷良,朱蕾.2002.从公司治理与经营模式看美国公司会计欺诈案.会计研究,12.
[27]伍利娜.2003.盈余管理对审计费用影响分析——来自中国上市公司首次审北京计费用披露的证据.会计研究,12：39-44.
[28]汪辉.2003.上市公司债务融资、公司治理与市场价值.经济研究,8：28-35.
[29]吴联生,刘慧龙.2008.中国审计实证研究：1999-2007.审计研究,2：36-46.
[30]魏韬.2007.论公司治理结构对审计收费的影响.经济研究导刊,8.
[31]吴照云,黎军民.2005.公司治理的核心——企业控制权配置的基础、问题和规范.当代财经,5.
[32]王光远,瞿曲.2006.公司治理中的内部审计——受托责任视角的内部治理机制观.审计研究,2.
[33]席酉民,赵增耀.2004.公司治理.北京：高等教育出版社.
[34]叶炜.2007.先行审计风险模型的缺陷与重构.财会研究,6.
[35]杨忠莲,徐政旦.2004.我国公司成立审计委员会动机的实证研究.审计研究,1.
[36]杨有红,胡燕.2004.试论公司治理与内部控制的对接.会计研究,10.
[37]曾小青.2005.公司治理、受托责任与审计委员会制度研究.大连：东北财经大学出版社.
[38]郑春美.2006.公司治理中的会计治理对策研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社.
[39]赵丽芳.2007.审计期望差距、差距弥合与治理基础审计——审计责任的历史还原或重塑.审计研究,2.
[40]赵德武,马永强.2006.管理层舞弊、审计失败与审计模式重构——论治理系统基础审计.会计研究,4.
[41]张继勋,陈颖,吴璇.2005.风险因素对我国上市公司审计收费影响的分析——妒市2003年报的数据.审计研究,4：34-38.
[42]张继勋,刘成立.2006.审计收费研究综述及启示.当代财经,7.
[43]张奇峰,张鸣,戴佳君.2006.中国审计定价实证研究述评.会计研究,6：87-93.
[44]张晨宇,赵晶,肖淑芳.2007.我国上市公司审计收费影响因素的实证研究.数理统计与管理,11：1085-1090.
[45]张祥建.2007.大股东控制下的配股融资与盈余管理研究.上海：上海财经大学出版社.
[46]周红.2004.从伦敦交易所上市公司审计收费看我国审计市场结构改革.当代财经,5.
[47]Anderson.T.,Zeghal,D.,1994. The Pricing of Audit Services:Further Evidence from the Canadian Market.Accounting and Business Research,24:195-207.
[48]Aprilklein.,2002.Audit committee,board of director characteristics and earnings managemeng. Journal of Accounting and Economics,2:375-400.
[49]Abbott,L.J.and S.Parker,2000.Auditor selection and committeecharacteristics, Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,19:47-66.
[50]Abbott,L.J. and S.Parker,2001. Audit committee characteristics and auditor selection:Evidence from auditor switches. Research in Accounting Regulation,15:151-167.
[51]Carcello,J.V.,D.R.Hermanson,T.L.Neal and R.A.Riley.2002.Board characteristics and audit fees.Contemporary Accounting Research,19:365-385.
[52]Dan A.Simunic,1980. the Pricing of Audit Services:Theory and Evidence,Journal of Accounting Research,Spring, vol 18.NO 1.
[53]David Hay,2004. Audit Fees:A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Supply and Demand Attributes,February.
[54]DeFond,M.L.,J.R.Francis,and T.J.Wong.2000.Auditor industry specialization and market segmentation:Evidence from Hong Kong.Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,19:49-66.
[55]Firth,M.,1997. the provision of non-audit services and the pricing of audit feesJournal of Business Finance and Accouting,24:661-693.
[56]Gist W. E.,1994. Empirical evidence on the effect of audit structure on audit pricing. Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,13:25-40.
[57]Gul,F.&Tsui,J.S.L.,2001.Free Cash Flow,debt monitoring and audit evidence on the role of director equity ownership.Journal of Practice & Theory,20:72-84.
[58]Hackenbrack.K.,and W.R.Knechel.1999. Resource allocation decision in audit engagements. Contemporary Accounting Research,14:90-100.
[59]Joseph.P.H.Fan,T.J.Wong,2002. Do external auditors perform a corporate Governance role in emerging markets?Evidence from East Asia.
[60]Klein.Firm,1998. performance and Committee Structure.Journal of Law and Economics,4:275-303.
[61]Krishnagopal Menon,and David D.Williams,2001. Long-Term Trends in Audit Fees,Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory March:115-136.
[62]Knechel,W.R.,and J.Payne.2001.Additional evidence on audit report lags. Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,20:137-146.
[63]Langendijk,H.,1997. the market for audit services in the Netherlands. the European Accounting Review,6:253-264.
[64]Lawrence, J.Abbott,Susan Parker,Gary F.Peters,and K.Raghunandan,2003. the Association between Audit Committee Characteristics and Audit Fees,Auditing:A Journal of Practice and Theory,22:17-32.
[65]More,2002,Corporate Governance and Board Efficiency,Journal of Financial Economics,56:359-392.
[66]Noel O'Sullivan,1999. Board Characteristics and Audit Pricing Post-Cadbury:a Research Note,the European Accounting Review,8:253-263.
[67]Pearson,T.,and G.Trompeter,1994. Competition in the market for audit services:the effect of suppier concentration on audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research,11:91-114.
[68]Tsui,J.S. L.B.Jaggi and F.A.Gul.,2001.CEO domination,growth opportunities,and their impact on audit fees.Journal of Accounting Auditing and Finance,16:189.
[69]Turley S, Zeman M,2004. The corporate governance effects of audit committee[J]. Journal of Management and Governance,8:305-332.
[70]Watts, Zimmerman,1983. Agency problem, auditing and the theory of the firm:some evidence [J]. Journal of Law and Economics,26:613-634.
[71]Xie B,Wallace N,DavidsonIII,etal.2003.Earnings management and corporate governance:the role of the board and the audit committee.Journal of Corporate Finance,9:295-316.
②李爽、吴溪(2003)研究结果表明,审计收费与非标准无保留审计意见正相关。