跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.22.242) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/01 12:07
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:胡予瀕
研究生(外文):Hu, Yu-Pin
論文名稱:非營利組織會計操縱與透明度之分析─以美國非營利組織為例
論文名稱(外文):Accounting Manipulation, Ratings, and Transparency: Evidence from Nonprofit Organizations in the U.S.
指導教授:池祥麟 老師
指導教授(外文):Chih, Hsiang-Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:合作經濟學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:財務金融學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2007
畢業學年度:95
語文別:中文
論文頁數:104
中文關鍵詞:非營利組織會計操縱方案開銷比評等機構透明度透明度會計美國
外文關鍵詞:nonprofit organizationsaccounting manipulationprogram-spending ratioissuedatarating agencytransparency
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:1026
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:397
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
一般民眾常會以非營利組織的方案開銷比當作制定捐款決策的依據,認為方案開銷比愈高的非營利組織,表示非營利組織將愈多的資源用在服務上、非營利組織的績效愈好。所以,非營利組織為了能夠得到更多的捐款,非營利組織的管理階層將有動機來使組織本身的方案開銷比極大。

本研究採用財務面及非營利治理面的變數,來探討可能從事會計操縱的非營利組織具有哪些財務面及非營利治理面的特徵。並更進一步探討評等機構對非營利組織的評等成績是否會受到非營利組織從事會計操縱可能性的影響。最後,本研究更深入探討非營利組織從事會計操縱、非營利組織的規模、非營利組織平均評等成績等其他相關變數對非營利組織透明度的影響。

本研究實證發現,可能從事會計操縱的非營利組織具有一些特徵:(1) 較低的剩餘邊際。(2) 方案開銷比變動率較大。(3) 折舊方案比較大。(4) 沒有透過市府來發行債券。(5) Charity Navigator的評等成績較高。而且,本研究實證發現,三家評等機構中,以Charity Navigator的評等成績最容易受到非營利組織從事會計操縱的可能性的影響,這可能是因為Charity Navigator所分析的資料僅選取990報表 (Form 990),而沒有納入其他的資料,如非營利組織所提供的審計後的財務報表、組織內部的治理與監督 (如:董事會內是否有5位以上的董事擁有表決權、一年內召開董事會議的次數是否超過3次等),而使得其評等成績最容易受到影響。最後,本研究發現,較會從事遊說活動的非營利組織,有較低的透明度。
ABSTRACT

Accounting Manipulation, Ratings, and Transparency:
Evidence from Nonprofit Organizations in the U.S.

by
HU, YU-PIN
June 2007

ADVISOR: Dr. Chih, Hsiang-Lin
DEPARTMENT: GRADUATE SCHOOL OF COOPERATIVE ECONOMICS
MAJOR:FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
DEGREE: MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Generally, people make their contributions according to the program-spending ratio of nonprofit organizations (NPOs), and they think NPOs with higher program-spending ratio would use resources more effectively and efficiently and have better performance. Thus, managers of nonprofit organizations might have incentives to manipulate (pump up) the program-spending ratio, in order to get more contributions.

This paper first investigates the financial and managerial characteristics of NPOs with potential accounting manipulations. Second, we analyze whether rating agencies of NPOs would be misled by NPOs’ accounting manipulations. Finally, we try to investigate determinants of the transparency of NPOs, such as NPOs’ average ratings, size, and so on.

Our findings support that potential accounting manipulators have lower surplus margins, higher changes in program-spending ratio, more depreciation allocated to programs and issue bonds less through the municipal governments. Interestingly, we find among the three rating organizations, Charity Navigator will be misled by accounting manipulations of NPOs, and the reason might be that Charity Navigator only uses financial data (i.e., the Form 990) and ignores non-financial data, such as governance factors, when rating NPOs. Finally, NPOs are found to have lower transparency if they engage more in lobbying activities.
目錄

第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的與問題 7
第二章 文獻探討 9
第一節 非營利組織會計操縱 9
第二節 與非營利組織會計操縱相關之財務變數 10
第三節 非營利組織治理概念 16
第四節 非營利組織評等機構 21
一、評等機構的介紹 21
二、評等機構的評等標準 22
三、評等機構之比較 28
第五節 非營利治理與非營利組織會計操縱的關聯 31
一、內部治理與非營利組織會計操縱之關係 31
二、外部治理與非營利組織會計操縱之關係 32
第六節 非營利組織會計操縱對非營利組織營評等成績之影響 34
第七節 非營利組織透明度 36
第三章 研究假說與實證設計 41
第一節 資料樣本與樣本選取 41
第二節 研究假說 43
一、非營利組織的財務比率與非營利組織從事會計操縱之關聯 43
二、非營利治理與非營利組織會計操縱之關聯 46
三、非營利組織從事會計操縱對非營利組織評等成績的影響 48
四、非營利組織從事會計操縱與非營利組織透明度之關聯 48
第三節 研究方法 54
第四章 實證結果分析 62
第一節 非營利組織會計操縱相關變數之分析 62
第二節 非營利組織會計操縱對非營利組織評等成績的影響 75
第三節 非營利組織透明度之分析 84
第五章 結論與建議 95
第一節 研究結論 95
第二節 研究限制與建議 99
參考文獻 I
一、中文部分 I
二、英文部分 I
(一) 英文文獻 I
(二) 英文網站 IV
表目錄
表2 1 三家評等機構之比較 29
表3–1 BBB WISEGIVING ALLIANCE的評等分數轉換表 57
表3–2 CHARITY NAVIGATOR及AIP評等分數轉換表 57
表3 3評等機構的評等等級分類 59
表3–4 評等分數轉換表 60
表4-1-1各類型非營利組織自變數之敘述統計量表 67
表4–1–2各變數之相關係數表 68
表4–1–3 方案開銷比決定因素之迴歸分析表 69
表4–1–4 研究樣本的組成 70
表4–1–5各類型非營利組織自變數之敘述統計量表 71
表4–1–6相關係數表 72
表4–1–7 非營利組織會計操縱決定因素的迴歸分析表 73
表4–2–1各類型非營利組織自變數的敘述統計量表 77
表4–2–2 各變數的相關係數表 78
表4–2–3 影響非營利組織評等成績相關變數的迴歸分析表(一) 80
表4–2–4影響非營利組織評等成績相關變數的迴歸分析表(二) 82
表4–3–1各類型非營利組織自變數的敘述統計量表 86
表4–3–2各自變數相關係數表 88
表4–3–3非營利組織透明度相關因素之迴歸分析表(一) 90
表4–3–4非營利組織透明度相關因素之迴歸分析表(二) 93
參考文獻
一、中文部分
1. 池祥麟與陳培倫 (2004),《美國非營利組織收益管理行為之分析》,第三部門學刊,9月。
2. 張舒淳 (2006),非營利組織治理、組織效率與透明度之分析,國立台北大學合作經濟學系碩士班未出版碩士論文。
3. 黃德舜 (2005),非營利事業財務管理,鼎茂出版社。

二、英文部分
(一) 英文文獻
1.Abbott, L. J., S. Parker, and G. F. Peters (2000), “The Effectivesness of Blue Ribbon Committee Recommendations in Mitigating Financial Misstatements: An Empirical Study,” Working Paper.
2.Baber, W., Roberts, and Visvanathan, G. (2001), “Charitable Organizations’ Strategies and Program Spending Ratio,” Accounting Horizons, 15(4), 329–343.
3.Beasley, M. S. (1996), “An empirical Analysis of the Relation between the Board of Director Composition and Financial Statement Fraud,” The Accounting Review, 71 (October), 433–465.
4.Beneish, M. (1997), “Detecting GAAP Violation: Implications for Assessing Earnings Management among Firms with Extreme Financial Performance,” Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 16, 271–309.
5.Beneish, M. (1999), “The detection of earnings manipulation,” Financial Analysts Journal, 24-36.
6.Behn, B. K., D. D. DeVries, and Jing Lin (2005), “The Determinants of Transparency in Nonprofit Organization: An Exploratory Study,” Working Paper.
7.Bhattacharya, U., Daouk, H., and Welker, M. (2003), “The World Price of Earnings Opacity,” The Accounting Review, 78,641–678.
8.Bhojraj, S., W. Blacconiere, and J. D’Souza. (2004), “Voluntary disclosure in a Multi–Audience Setting: An Empirical Analysis,”The Accounting Review 79(4), 921–947.
9.Bothwell, R.O. (2001), “Trends In Self-Regulation And Transparency of Nonprofit In The U.S.,” The Challenges of Managing the 3rd Setor.
10.Brickley, J. A., R. L. Van Horn, and G. J. Weding (2003), “Board Structure and Executive Compensation in Nonprofit Organizations: Evidence from Hospitals,” Organizational Economics of Heath Care Conference.
11.Brady, D. and A. Borris, (2004), “A crazy quilt of rules,” Bussiness Week, 11/1/2004: 1-2.
12.Callen, J. L., Klein, A., and Tinkelman, D. (2003), “Board Composition, Committees, and Organizational Efficiency: The Case of Nonprofits,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4), 493–520.
13.Chtourou, S. M., Bedard, J., and Courteau, L. (2001), “Corporate Governance and Earnings Management,” Working Paper.
14.Clarke, R. L. (2005), “Transparency And Accounting: In June, Nonprofit Sector on Goverance Urged Congress To Increase Resources For More Vigorous Enforcement of Federal And State Laws Governing Charities Including 5013 Provider Organizations,” Healthcare Financial Management.
15.Cohen, R. (2005), “Opportunities Lost: Missing the Point in the Nonprofit Accountability Conversation,” The Nonprofit Quarterly, 24-29.
16.Dechow, P., Sloan, R., and Sweeney, A. (1995), “Detecting earnings manipulation,” Accounting Review, 70, 193–225.
17.Fama, E. and M. Jensen (1983), “Separation of ownership and control,” Journal of Law and Economics, 26, 301-325.
18.Gordon, T., Greenlee, J., and Nitterhouse, D. (1999), “Tax–Exempt Organization Financial Data: Availability and Limitations,” Accounting Horizons, 277–299.
19.Gordon, T., M. Fisher, D. Malone, and G. Tower. (2002), “A comparative empirical examination of extent of disclosure by private and public colleges and universities in the United States,”Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21, 235–275.
20.Greenlee, J. and T. Gordon (1998), “The impact of professional solicitors on fund-raising in charitable organizations,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 27, 277-299.
21.Jensen, M. and W. Mecking. (1976), “Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure,”Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.
22.Jensen, M. C. (1993), “The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control systems,” The Journal of Finance, XLVIII (July): 831-880.
23.Kent, D., A. Davis, and G. Vlahhakis. (2004), “Most Indiana nonprofits can demonstrate accountability, study shows,” Indiana Media Relations: 1-2.
24.Lang, M. and R. Lundholm. (1993), “Cross–Sectional determinants of analyst rating of corporate disclosure,”Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246–271.
25.Leone, A. and Van Horn, L. (2001), “Financial Reporting Incentives in Nonprofit Organizations: Evidence from Hospitals,” Working Paper.
26.Lowell, S., B. Trelstad and B. Meehan (2005), “Evaluating The Three Groups That Rate the Charities,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, summer.
27.Morgan, D. P. (2002), “Rating Banks: Risk and Uncertainty in an Opaque Industry,” The American Economic Review, 92 (4), 874–888.
28.Olson, D. E. (2000), “Agency theory in the not-for-profit sector: Its role at indepent colleges,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 280-296.
29.O’ Regan, K. and Oster, S. (2002), “Does Government Funding Alter Nonprofit Governance? Evidence from New York City Nonprofit Contractors,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21(3), 359–379.
30.Pietroburgo, J. and S. P. Wernt. (2004), “Joining forces, fortunes, and futures: Restructuring and adaptation in nonprofit hospice organizations,” Nonprofit Management and Leadership (Fall): 117–137.
31.Posnett, J., and Sandler, T. (1989), “Demand for charity donations in private non–profit markets,” Journal of Public Economics, 40, 187–200.
32.Rose–Ackerman, S. (1980), “United Charities: An Economic Analysis,”Public Policy, 28(3), 323–350.
33.Summers, S., and Sweeney, J. (1998), “Fraudulently misstated financial statements and insider trading:An empirical analysis,”Accounting Review, 73, 131-146.
34.Tinkelman, D. (1999), “Factors affecting the relation between donations to nonprofit organizations and an efficiency ratio,” Research in Government and Nonprofit Accounting, 10, 135-161.
35.Trussel, J. (2003), “Assessing Potential Accounting Manipulation: The Financial Characteristics of Charitable Organizations with Higher Than Expected Program–Spending Ratios,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(4).616–634.
36.Tuckman, H., and C. Chang. (1998), “How pervasive are abuses in fund- raising among nonprofit?A research report,” Nonprofit Management and leadership, 9, 211-221.
37.Weisbrod, B., and Dominguez, N. (1986), “Demand for collective goods in private nonprofit markets: Can fund–raising expenditures help overcome free–rider behavior?” Journal of Public Economics, 30, 83–95.
38.Yermack, D. (1996), “Higher market valuatioin of companies with a small board of directors,” Journal of Financial Economics, 40, 185-212.
39.Yetman, M. H. and Yetman, R. J. (2004), “The Effects of Governance on the Financial Reporting Quality of Nonprofit Organizations,” Working Paper.

(二) 英文網站
1. NCCS Data Web:http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/
2. Charity Navigator: http://www.charitynavigator.org/
3. BBB Wise Giving Alliance:http://www.give.org/
4. American Institute of Philanthropy (AIP):http://www.charitywatch.org/azlist.html
5. GuideStar:http://www.guidestar.org/
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊