(3.238.186.43) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/02/26 11:57
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:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:郭柔蘭
研究生(外文):Kuo,Rou-Lan
論文名稱:我國會計師事務所品牌價值之探討-以國際型四大事務所為例
論文名稱(外文):The research of Taiwan CPA Firm’s value of brand name -Big 4 of international Accounting firm
指導教授:楊清溪楊清溪引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺北大學
系所名稱:會計學系
學門:商業及管理學門
學類:會計學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2008
畢業學年度:96
語文別:中文
論文頁數:82
中文關鍵詞:品牌價值四大會計師事務所Hirose
外文關鍵詞:Brand valueBig 4Hirose
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:4
  • 點閱點閱:714
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
以往探討品牌之文獻及相關研究多著重於製造業及資訊產業,少有學者對服務性產業-會計師行業進行品牌價值探討。會計師行業之品牌研究多與審計品質有所關聯,並未有針對品牌價值進行進一步之探討。近年來企業舞弊事件接二連三發生,會計師行業除受社會大眾密切關注外,亦背負許多負面評價及觀感,在這樣情況下,會計師事務所之品牌價值是否會隨之提升或下降?何種評價模式適合用在會計師事務所上?
本研究將Hirose評價模型進行修正,並針對台灣四大會計師事務所進行研究,其結果分別為7,289百萬元、1,040百萬元、2,352百萬元及1,577百萬元;直接依Hirose評價模型之計算結果分別為2,040百萬元、525百萬元、968百萬元及634百萬元。另,依據中國註冊會計師協會西元2006年11月通過並發布之《會計師事務所綜合評價辦法(試行)》所計算分數分別為1,325分、570分、780分及744分,此排名順序與本研究之修正模型計算之排名順序一致,惟得分部分因計算基礎不一致,故無法比較。
本研究歸納之結論:
(一)『品牌』對消費者(第三者)有一定之影響力,品牌管理及維護對企業生存確實佔有一定地位。
(二)四大會計師事務所確實有進行惡意的削價競爭,尤其安隆案後,Arthur Anderson解散,台灣勤業事務所與眾信事務所進行合併因而促使台灣審計市場出現客戶重新分配情況,也因為爭奪客戶事件,出現審計公費呈現負成長率,審計案件量卻呈現正向成長率之異常情況。
(三)四大事務所專業人員之成本成長率與大於公費成長率,台灣審計公費收費標準相較於世界其他國家而言係顯著低廉,然台灣審計客戶普遍不存在『使用者付費』概念,且台灣會計師以低價搶客戶事件層出不窮,這也是審計公費遲遲無法提升的重要因素之ㄧ。
In the past, literatures of brands and related research are more focused on the manufacturing and information industries, rather than service industries, especially brand value of accounting professionals. Some research on brand of accounting professionals emphasized on quality of audit service, but did not address on the value of the brand.
In recent years, more and more corporate frauds draw public’s attention and the society began to evaluate the accounting professionals based on their perceptions. Under such circumstances, will the brand value of accounting firm rise or fall? What kind of model to evaluate the value of brand is suitable for use for the accounting firms?

This study revised Hirose model, and investigated the four major accounting firms in Taiwan, which are also international accounting firms called “ big four”. The value of brand for the 4 firms are 7,289 million, 1,040 million, 2,352 million and 1,577 million ( in NTD) respectively. In addition, calculated by Hirose model, the respective results for the 4 firms are 2040 million, 525 million, 968 million and 634 million ( in NTD).
Furthermore, according to China Association of Registered Accountants issued in November 2006 "accounting firms comprehensive evaluation methods (for trial implementation)" , the scores for the 4 firms were 1325 points, 570 points, 780 points and 744 points. This ranking for the 4 firms is the same as this study by using revised Hirose model.

However, because of the scores basis of calculation for the 2 models are not the same, the value calculated for the 4 firms by these 2 models can not be compared.
Summarized the conclusions of this study:

1.Brand has a certain extent of influence to consumer (the third party), and brand management and maintenance of the enterprise stand an important position.
2.There is malicious price competition among the four major accounting firms. Especially after Enron’s fraud happened and its accounting firm Arthur Anderson (one of the international accounting firm) dissolved, the market share of audit business in Taiwan rearranged after the accounting professional members of Arthur Anderson and Deloitte Touche in Taiwan merged. Therefore, an abnormal situation of negative growth rate in audit fee with positive quantity volume growth rate was happened.
3.The growth rate of the cost of professional staff is higher than the growth rate of audit fees. It is because the audit fees in Taiwan are much lower to those of other countries in the world. The main reason is that the audit clients in Taiwan generally do not have 'user pays' concept. In addition, using low-price tactic to win clients by accounting firms is also a main reason that the audit fees cannot growth as cost.
第一章 續論 11
第一節 研究背景及動機 11
第二節 研究目的 12
第三節 研究流程 15
第四節 研究限制 16
第二章 文獻探討 17
第一節 品牌定義 17
第二節 品牌組成 17
第三節 品牌評價 19
第三章 研究方法 21
第一節 HIROSE品牌鑑價模型 21
第二節 本研究之模型 25
第三節 資料來源 36
第四章 實證結果與分析 47
第一節PRESTIGE DRIVER之結論 47
第二節 LOYALTY DRIVER之結論 50
第三節EXPANSION DRIVER之結論 55
第四節 IMAGE DRIVER之結論 63
第五節結論 68
第五章 結論與建議 71
第一節 結論 71
第二節 建議 77
參考文獻 78
中文文獻:

1.94及93年度行政院金融監督管理委員會所公佈「會計師事務所服務業調查報告」
2.王泰昌與鄭博文,1993,代理問題與代理成本(上、下),會計研究月刊,第93期:155-160及第94期:123-126)
3.王鐘霆(2006),上市(櫃)公司會計師事務所選擇及其審計品質,國立台北大學會計研究所碩士論文
4.王振東(民82),我國上市公司會計師更換因素之實證研究,國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文
5.林相君2004 台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫-會計服務業調查報告
6.林蓬榮(2000),產業對會計師事務所滿意度調查,實用稅務,第308期:29-37
7.周玉貞(民81),股票初次上市公司會計師變動與證券承銷商報酬之研究,私立東吳大學會計學研究所碩士論文
8.施春成(民81),台灣新上市公司特有風險與會計師選擇之研究,國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文
9.段明娟(民85),台灣新上市公司上市前更換會計師之研究,國立台灣大學會計學研究所碩士論文
10.袁郁淳(2005),”研究品牌價值模型之探討—日本HIROSE品牌鑑價模型為例”,東吳大學會計研究所碩士論文。
11.陳立偉、楊清溪(2007),資訊頻率與資訊內涵之實證研究,2007現代會計論壇學術研討會
12.康淑君(民96),產業品牌資產與企業價值績效指標之關連性研究,國立台北大學會計系碩士論文
13.張文瀞、吳幸螢(2005),品牌聲譽、產業專業化與審計人員占有率關聯性:取消審計公費下限分析,會計評論,第40期,2005年1月,第91-118頁
14.黃蘭貴(民90),會計師事務所合併之技術效率比較分析,國立台灣大學會計學研究所博士論文
15.詹中志(2003),更換會計師之市場反應,私立文化大學會計研究所碩士論文
16.溫世民(1985),我國股票上市公司簽證會計師之選任及更換之研究,國立政治大學會計研究所碩士論文

英文文獻:

1.Balver,R.J.,B McDomald, & R.E.Miller, “Underpricing of New Issues and the Choice of Auditor as a Signal of investment Banker Reputation ,The Accounting Review(1988),pp605-622.
2.Becker, C., M Defond, J. Jiambalvo, and K. Subramanyam.1998. The effect of audit quality on earning management. Contemporary Accounting Research15:1-24.
3.Burton, C.J., & Robert, W(1967)A study of auditor changes. Journal of Accountancy,123(4),31-36
4.Carpenter,C.G & Strawer(1971),”Displacement of Auditors When Clients Go Public”, The Journal of Accountancy, Vol.131,No.1 April,pp55-58.
5.DeAngelo, L.E. 1981.Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3(3):183-199.
6.Dhaliwal,D. S., Schatzberg, J. W., & Trombley,M. A.(1993).An analysis of the economic factors related to auditor-client disagreements preceding auditor changes. Auditing,12(2),22-38.
7.Dopuch, N.,and D.A. Simunic.1982. The competition in auditing:An assessment In fourth Symposium on Auditing Research Urbana, IL:University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
8.Dye,R.1993.Auditing standards, legal liability and auditor wealth. Journal of Political Economy 101:887-914.
9.Eichenseher, John W., and Danos, Paul(1981),The Analysis of Industry-Specific Auditor Concentration:Toward an Explantory Model”The Accounting Review, Vol.56, No.3,pp179-183.
10.Feltham, G. A., J.S Hughes, and D. A. Simunic(1991)Empirical Assessment of the Impact of Auditor Quality on the Valuation of New Issues. Journal of Accounting and Economics14(4):375-399.
11.Japan Government (2002)The report of the committee on brand valuation
12.Jensen, M.C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 4(October):305-360)
13.Jerris, S.I. and T.A. Pearson(1996),”Benchmarking CPA Firms for Productivity and Efficiency”, The CPA Journal 66(7),pp.64-66
14.Lynn, S. A.1986 Segmenting a business market for a professional service. Industrial Marketing Management 15:13-21

15.Menon,K., and D.D. Williams1994 The insurance hypothesis and market prices. The Accounting Review 69(April):327-342
16.Schwartz K.B.,& Menon, K.(1985).Auditor switches by failing firm. The Accounting Review,60(1),248-261.
17.Simunic, D. A., & Stein,M.T(1987).Product differentiation in auditing:Auditor choice in the market for unseasoned new issues. The Canadian Certified General Accountants’ Research Foundation.
18.Steenkamp, J.B.1990 Conceptual Model of the quality Perception Process. Journal of Business Research. Vol21, No4,pp309-333.
19.Teoh,S.H.(1992).Auditor independence, dismissal threats, and the market reaction to auditor switches. Journal of Accounting Research,30(1),1-23
20.Wells B .P & Stafford,M R (1995)Service quality in the insurance industry:Consumer protection versus regulatory perceptions, Journal of Insurance Regulation,13(4),462-477.
21.Zeithaml, Valarie A. (1988). Consumer perception of price, quality and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52, 2-22.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔