臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本研究旨在探討董事連結與企業之間財務報表可比性(以下簡稱可比性)的關聯。藉由交錯複雜之董事連結所產生的董事網絡，企業的資訊、知識及政策能彼此交流及學習，進而增強企業之間的可比性。透過台灣2007至2012年上市櫃公司的資料以及實證研究測試，本研究發現當企業具有董事連結的現象時，可比性確實會較高；此外，若連結董事具備會計或財務專長，可比性亦可以提升。然而，連結董事為審計委員會的成員和可比性並沒有顯著的關聯性，我們推測可能是樣本過少的原因所導致的結果。最後，額外分析則進一步確認本研究的主要實證模型並無自我選擇偏誤的問題，且於控制盈餘管理和排除金融產業後，仍然和主要實證結果相同。

The objective of this research is to investigate the relationship of board interlocks and financial statement comparability (hereafter comparability). Director network through board interlocking has the advantages of information transfer and knowledge spillover, which in turn can enhance comparability among firms. Using a sample of Taiwanese listed firms over years 2007-2012, we find that board interlock is positively associated with comparability. In addition, comparability increases when the interlocking director has financial expertise. However, we find no evidence that audit committee member interlock is associated with comparability, probability due to the small sample of firms with audit committees. Finally, the additional tests confirm that the main results are robust to correction of potential self-selection problems, controlling for earnings management, and excluding financial firms.

致謝………………………………………………………………………...................ii
中文摘要……………………………………………………......................…………iii
英文摘要……………………………………………………………......................…iv
第一章 緒論…………………………………………………………….....................1
第二章 文獻回顧與假說…………………………………………….…....................4
第一節 董事網絡相關文獻…………………………………………….....................4
第二節 可比性相關文獻……………………………………………….....................6
第三節 研就假說……………………………………………………….....................9
第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………....................……11
第一節 樣本期間與資料來源…………………………………………....................11
第二節 可比性之衡量…………………………………………………....................12
第三節 自變數之衡量及迴歸模型……………………………………....................14
第四章 實證結果…………………………………………….…………...................17
第一節 敘述性統計及相關係數………………………………………....................17
第二節 迴歸結果分析…………………………………………………....................23
第五章 額外分析………………………………………………….......................…25
第一節 控制盈餘管理…………………………………………………....................25
第二節 Heckman模型測試……………………………………………...................28
第三節 排除金融產業……………………………………………....................……32
第六章 結論………………………………………………………......................….34
參考文獻……………………………………………………………….....................36

中文部分
1.王蘭芬、薛敏正與曾乾豪，2011，資訊透明度的更動與盈餘管理間之關聯，會計審計論叢，第1卷第1期：101-131。
2.李婉婷，2012，產業專家審計與高階主管薪酬盈餘敏感度之實證研究，國立台灣大學管理學院會計學研究所碩士論文，台北，台灣。
3.陳櫻樺與張婉婷，2013，審計委員會之設置與實務運作情形，證券暨期貨月刊，第31卷第5期：18-26。
4.財團法人中華民國會計研究發展基金會，2013，財務報導之觀念架構，http://163.29.17.154/ifrs_2013_approved/pdf/Conceptual_FW_2013.pdf，搜尋日期：2016年3月23日。
5.金雅，2015，會計師與財報可比性之關聯性探討—兼論IFRS實施之影響，天主教輔仁大學會計學系碩士論文，台北，台灣。

英文部分
1.Bouwman C. H. S. 2008. Corporate governance contagion through overlapping directors. Working paper, Case Western Reserve University, and Wharton Financial Institutions Center.
2.Bradshaw, M. T., and Miller, G. S. 2008. Will harmonizing accounting standards really harmonize accounting? Evidence from non-U. S. firms adopting US GAAP. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 23 (2): 233-263.
3.Bradshaw, M. T., Miller, G. S., and Serafeim, G. 2009. Accounting method heterogeneity and analysts’ forecasts. Working paper, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, and Harvard Business School.
4.Bizjak, J., Lemmon, M., and Whitby, R. 2009. Option backdating and board interlocks. The Review of Financial Studies, 22 (11): 4821-4847.
5.Barth, M. E., Landsman, W. R., Lang, M., and Williams, C. 2012. Are IFRS-based and U.S. GAAP-based accounting amounts comparable? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 54 (1): 68-93.
6.Chiu, P. C., Teoh, S. H., and Tian, F. 2013. Board interlocks and earnings management contagion. The Accounting Review, 88 (3): 915-944.
7.Dooley, P. 1969. The interlocking directorate. The American Economic Review, 59 (3): 314-323.
8.Davis, G. F. 1991. Agents without principles? The spread of the poison pill through the intercorporate network. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (4): 583-613.
9.Davis, G., and Greve, H. 1997. Corporate elite networks and governance changes in the 1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1): 1-37.
10.Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., and Sweeney, A. P. 1995. Detecting earnings management. The Accounting Review, 70 (2): 193-225.
11.DeFond, M. L., and Hung, M. 2003. An empirical analysis of analysts’ cash flow forecasts. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 35 (1): 73-100.
12.DeFond, M. L., Hu, X., and Li, S. 2011. The impact of mandatory IFRS adoption on foreign mutual fund ownership: The role of comparability. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51 (3): 240-258.
13.De Franco, G., Kothari, S. P., and Verdi, R. S. 2011. The benefits of financial statement comparability. Journal of Accounting Research, 49 (4): 895-931.
14.Dharwadkar R. 2011. Accounting choices and audit committee members interlock. Working paper, Syracuse University.
15.Francis, J. R., Pinnuck, M. L., and Watanabe, O. 2014. Auditor style and financial statement comparability. The Accounting Review, 89 (2): 605-633.
16.Gulati, R., and Westphal, J. 1999. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (3): 473-506.
17.Heckman, J. J. 1978. Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica, 46 (4): 931-959.
Heckman, J. J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47 (1): 153-161.
18.Haunschild, P. R. 1993. Interorganizational imitation-The impact of interlocks on corporate acquisition activity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4): 564-592.
19.Haunschild, P., and Beckman, C. 1998. When do interlocks matter? Alternate sources of information and interlock influence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43 (4): 815-844.
20.Jones, J. J. 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29 (2): 193-228.
21.Johnson, V. E., Khurana, I. K., and Reynolds, J. K. 2002. Audit-firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19 (4): 637-660.
22.Johansen, T. R., and Pettersson, K. 2013. The impact of board interlocks on auditor choice and audit fees. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 21 (3): 287-310.
23.Kothari S. P., Andrew, J. L., and Wasley, C. E. 2005. Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39 (1): 163-197.
24.Mizruchi M. S. 1996. What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 271-298.
25.Myers, J. N., Myers, L. A., and Omer, T. C. 2003. Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation? The Accounting Review, 78 (3): 779-799.
26.Ong, C. H., Wan, D., and Ong, K. S. 2003. An exploratory study on interlocking directorates in listed firms in Singapore. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11 (4): 322-334.
27.Pfeffer, J. 1972. Size and composition of corporate boards of directors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (2): 218–228.
28.Tubbs, R. M. 1992. The effect of experience on the auditor''s organization and amount of knowledge. The Accounting Review, 67 (4): 783-801.
29.Yip, W. Y., and Young, D. 2012. Does mandatory IFRS adoption improve information comparability? The Accounting Review, 87 (5): 1767-1789.