【作者】 曹细钟；

【导师】 王华；

【作者基本信息】 暨南大学 ， 会计学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 受财务会计目标的权威观点——决策有用的计量观的指引,财务会计正在逐步摒弃历史成本计量模式,朝着基于价值的方向大步迈进,公允价值计量得到广泛的推崇和日益增多的应用,估值成为财务会计最前沿的问题,财务会计正越来越多地把公司对未来的预期纳入财务报表中反映,而非在表外作为附注批露。审计是对会计确认的再确认、对公司管理层行为的判断和对审计主体自身行为的判断,是财务信息进入资本市场的最后一道也是最关键的一道屏障。尽管审计是一个要依靠市场有效需求才能生存的行业,尽管现行会计审计准则和相关法规对审计有较为详细的规范,尽管各国政府监管机构和国际组织对审计都寄予了厚望,但遗憾的是,审计并没有发挥其预期的效用。特别是此次主要由25家公司引起的金融危机,其核心金融产品——信用违约掉期产品(CDS)的真实交易的净头寸仅1.7万亿,却导致许多国家经济衰退、国际金融动荡甚至国家破产,许多大公司动辄损失以几十亿、数百亿美元计,即可见其已经审计的财务报告中所蕴含的系统性风险、资产误定价和误导性信息的严重性,也表明审计的合理期望差距仍在进一步加大,期望差距产生的主要方面是审计主体的能力。而中国2007年公允价值计量的实施又是强制性制度变迁的结果。因此深入研究审计主体的职业能力,尤其是职业判断能力及其行为规律也就显得尤为迫切。审计是过程与结果的结合,也是行为与技术的结合,技术可以标准化,但行为不易观察且无法标准化,只能通过可验证性程序和方法来合理保证,所以影响审计判断质量进而影响审计质量的决定性因素是对审计技术、程序和方法的选择与综合运用,即审计行为。论文在相关文献综述和理论分析的基础上,围绕公允价值审计的过程与结果,特别是围绕审计过程,从审计对会计确认的再确认、对公司管理层行为的判断及对审计主体自身行为的判断三个方面,详细分析了有限理性在公允价值审计中的体现及其对审计工作质量的影响。在对公允价值审计过程职业判断的有限理性进行分析时,本文发现,通用财务报告目标也是一般目的的审计目标,即合法性、公允性,是不合理的,审计质量判断标准不明确,某些专家主张的“程序理性”是不恰当的,会误导审计实务,因此对目前的通用财务报告目标和审计质量判断标准展开了讨论。审计判断的有限理性在审计过程中得以体现,在审计结果中得到综合反映,故论文最后通过对审计质量的检验对两个理论进行了验证,结论证实了相应的理论分析。研究发现,公允价值审计涉及的判断绝大多数是结构的不确定性问题,而非参数的不确定性问题,故造成审计主体职业判断有限理性的主要原因是公允价值计量下的会计审计环境有异于历史成本计量的复杂性,审计主体对环境的认知与计算能力的有限性,以及信息的不完全、非对称性所致的判断偏误,能力不足是其主要表现,而非审计主体的机会主义所致的审计舞弊。风险导向审计是公允价值审计最好的审计模式,但目前审计实务对经营风险的评估存在缺陷,忽视了衍生工具的运用所带来的对企业经营风险特征的改变就是其中之一,因而有必要重新认识重要性、重大错报风险和财务报告目标、独立性等概念,强化对审计行为规律的研究。论文的实证研究发现,我国当前公允价值审计的质量与历史财务信息审计的相比有着显著的差异；而且外在环境的变化如证监会经济处罚对审计质量的改善未必一定有效,从而验证了审计判断有限理性的前景理论和企业能力理论。由此作者认为,重视审计主体的能力建设才是治本之策。能力建设包括注册会计师个体的能力建设和事务所整体的能力建设。更多还原

【Abstract】 Accounting measurement is trendence towards fair value by historical cost, guided by The Measurement Perspective of Value-Relevance, authoritative viewpoint of financial accounting objective. Valuation become the most cutting-edge problem of financial accounting, Including more and more estimates of the future in today’s financial statements. Audit is reconfirm to accounting recognition, judgement to firm administering authority behavior, and judgement to CPA’s behavior, is the last and the most important barriers of financial information gets into capital market. Although audit is a profession depending on sufficient demand of capital market, although now there are a vast amount of criterion and norms to audit, and although all government supervision institutions and International Organizations have great expectations on audit, but the fact is that audit don’t play fully due functions. Particularly the fact of financial crisis of 2008 exposed that auditors didnot disclose adequately the defectives of companies’risk control, mispricing, and misleading information is clear proof. And auditing rational expectation gap is increase constantly because mainly CPA’s judgment bias resulting from low professional competence, not audit fraud from adverse motivates. our country’s fair value measurement of 2007 is compulsory change of measurement mode. Thus research on CPA’s capability, especially the capability in professional judgment and their behavioral rules are urgent requirements.Audit is the combination of the process and the result, also is the combination of behavior and technology, but technology can standardization while behavior not, so influencing factors of audit quality mainly is auditing behavior, In other words, is a choice and integrated apply on auditing prodecure, method and technology. Based on literature review and theories analysis related, this paper begin to discuss from reconfirm to accounting recognition, judgement to firm administering authority behavior, and judgement to CPA’s behavior, centered on the process and the result of auditing fair value, especially the process。in the process of discussion, I find general financial accounting objective, also is general audit goal and judgement norms audit quality is irrational and delphic, so I discuss them. Although bounded rationality of audit judgement is embodied in audit process, but can be comprehensive reflected in audit result. At the last of this paper I verify theories analysis by two empirical tests.This paper find, audit fair value involves matters most of structure uncertainty, not parameter uncertainty, so audit failure mainly bcause CPA’s judgment bias resulting from low professional competence by complex circumstances and people bounded cognitive and computing abilities, not audit fraud from adverse motivates by people’ opportunism。Risk-oriented Auditing is the most favorable audit mode in auditing fair value, but today the evaluation of business risk have much deficiency, neglecting the character’s change of firm business risk is one because of using derivatives. Therefore it is necessary to reacquainte the concepts, for example, risk, materiality, risks of material misstatement, financial report objective, independence, and should pay much attention to the rules of audit behavior. The empirical tests of this paper find that it is different significantly between auditing fair value and auditing historical cost, and external environment’change, such as CSRC’s financial penalty, may not effective to the improvement of audit quality. Hence This paper think that construction of CPA’s capability is a fundamental way, this capability includes individual competence of CPA and total capability of accounting firm.更多还原