非标准审计意见足以保护审计师吗？--基于证券执法的证据  

Do Modified Audit Opinions Protect Auditors?——Evidence based on CSRC administrative punishments

作　　者：谭洪涛[1,2] 张筱[2,3] 

机构地区：[1]西南财经大学金融安全协调创新中心 [2]西南财经大学会计学院,邮政编码611130 [3]西南财经大学中国政府审计研究中心

出　　处：《审计研究》2015年第3期91-99,共9页Auditing Research

基　　金：国家自然科学基金面上项目(项目批准号:71272246);国家自然科学基金面上项目(项目批准号:71472154);教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目资助(项目批准号:14XJC790012);新世纪优秀人才支持计划(项目批准号:NCET-12-0924)的阶段性成果;西南财经大学中央高校基本科研业务费项目(项目批准号:JBK1407098);西南财经大学协同创新中心专项课题立项(项目批准号:JRXT201302)的资助

摘　　要：本文以2001—2012年93家因虚假陈述被证监会惩戒的公司和39家审计师被同时惩戒的公司为研究样本,采用Bivariate probit和两阶段最小二乘法模型对审计意见和审计师惩戒之间的关系进行了验证。研究结果表明,我国审计师出具非标意见反而越易受到惩戒,且惩戒程度也越高的悖论,这与我们的预期不符。而进一步研究发现,这是由于审计意见变通所导致。监管部门有效发现了审计意见变通行为,因此审计师仅出具非标意见不足以保护自身,只有有效披露公司的重大错报,出具正确恰当的审计意见才可以远离惩戒。本文的研究对于正确认识审计师惩戒有着重要的启示,同时为监管机构出台更加有效的审计监管政策提供一定的借鉴。In this paper,based on the analysis of a sample of companies sanctioned by CSRC between 2001 and 2012 ,we compared companies that were sanctioned without involving auditors with those whose auditors were simul- taneously sanctioned by CSRC. Using a bivariate probit model, we found a significant positive association between the modified audit opinions and auditors＇ sanctions. This is inconsistent with our expectations. Further studies disclosed that ambiguous audit opinions led to that. However, regulators could effectively find this behavior. Our findings prove that the modified audit opinions are not enough to protect auditors, To avoid being punished, the auditors should further disclose the material misstatements of the companies＇ reports in their modified audit reports.

关 键 词：审计意见 审计师惩戒 审计意见变通 

分 类 号：F239.4[经济管理—会计学] F832.51[经济管理—国民经济]