跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.81) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/13 07:52
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:陳冠宇
研究生(外文):CHEN, GUANYU
論文名稱:投資者對繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告之反應
論文名稱(外文):Investor Reaction to Going Concern Audit Reports
指導教授:蔡秋田蔡秋田引用關係
指導教授(外文):TSAI, CHIU-TIEN
口試委員:蕭哲芬趙雅儀
口試委員(外文):XIAO, ZHE-FENZHAO, YA-YI
口試日期:2017-06-29
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄第一科技大學
系所名稱:會計資訊系碩士班
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:2017
畢業學年度:105
語文別:中文
論文頁數:42
中文關鍵詞:繼續經營假設股票報酬保留意見修正式無保留意見
外文關鍵詞:going-concern assumptionstock returnqualified opinionunqualified modified opinion
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:231
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
本研究旨在探討投資者對繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告之反應,亦即檢視繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告公布後的公司股票報酬。此外,進一步比較在下列不同的情境下,投資人是否會有不同程度的反應。首先,比較公司首次或非首次收到繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告;其次,比較四大事務所或非四大事務所簽發的繼續經營假設有疑慮之查核報告;最後,比較繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告屬於保留意見或修正式無保留意見。本研究利用事件研究法以及迴歸分析來檢測探討主題,實證結果顯示,投資人對繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告呈現顯著的負向反應。而且,相較於非首次的繼續經營假設有疑慮查核報告,投資者對於首次的繼續經營假設有疑慮查核報告,會有更負向的反應。相較於修正式無保留意見的繼續經營假設有疑慮查核報告,投資者對於保留意見的繼續經營假設有疑慮查核報告,會有更負向的反應。此外,本研究在額外分析裡,針對三大法人對樣本公司之持股情況做額外研究,其結果發現法人機構投資人在事件宣告日前,有提前出售樣本公司股票之情形。
The study investigated the investor’s reaction to the going concern audit report. Furthermore, comparisons are in the following different scenarios, whether investors will react differently. First, comparing the company’s first and non-first receipt of the going concern audit report. Secondly, comparison of the going concern audit report issued by big four CPA firms and non-big four CPA firms. Finally, the comparison of the going concern audit report were belonged to qualified opinion and unqualified modified opinion. This study used event study and regression analysis to detect the subject. The empirical results of this study showed the thing that the investors had a significant negative response to the going concern audit report and that compared to the non-first going concern audit report, investors would have more negative response to the first going concern audit report. compared to the unqualified modified opinion, investors would have more negative response to the qualified opinion audit report of going-concern.
摘要 I
ABSTRACT II
致謝 III
目錄 IV
表目錄 V
圖目錄 VI
1.導論 1
1.1 研究動機與目的 1
1.2 研究架構 3
2. 文獻探討 5
2.1 繼續經營假設 5
2.2 繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告對市場的影響 7
2.3 假說發展 9
3. 研究方法 13
3.1 事件研究法之定義 13
3.2 樣本資料之選取 14
3.3 累積異常報酬之計算 15
3.4 迴歸模型 16
4. 實證結果 19
4.1 敘述性統計量 19
4.2 平均異常報酬 21
4.3 單變量分析 25
4.3 相關係數分析 28
4.4 繼續經營假設有疑慮的查核報告之累積異常報酬迴歸分析結果 29
5. 額外分析 33
6. 結論 39

中文文獻
沈中華與李建然,2000,事件研究法-財務與會計實證研究必備,第一版,台北;泰華文化。
賴秀卿,Lin, C., 李志宏,Wu, F. H. 2009,修正式無保留意見之資訊內涵-控制同步資訊下,會計與公司治理,6 (1):31-56。
劉嘉雯與王泰昌,2005,繼續經營有重大疑慮審計意見:第33號審計準則公報之影響,Journal of Management, 22 (4):525-548。
英文文獻
Atiase, R. K. 1985. Predisclosure information, firm capitalization, and security price behavior around earning announcement. Journal of Accounting Research 23: 21-36.
Blay, A. D., and M. A. Geiger. 2001. Market expectations for first-time going concern recipients. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 16 (Summer): 209–226.
Chen, K. C. W., and B. K. Church. 1992. Default on debt obligations and the issuance of going-concern opinions, Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 11(2): 30-50.
Chen, K. C. W., and B. K. Church. 1996. Going concern opinions and the market’s reaction to bankruptcy filings. The Accounting Review 71 (January): 117–128.
Chen, C. J. P., X. Su, and R. Zhao. 2000. An emerging market's reaction to initial modified audit opinions: Evidence from the Shanghai stock exchange.Contemporary Accounting Research 17: 429-455.
Citron, D. B., R. J. Taffler, and J. Y. Uang. 2008. Delay in reporting price-sensitive information: The case of going concern. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 27 (3): 19-37.
Davis, R. R. 1982. An empirical evaluation of auditor's subject-to opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 2: 13-32.
Dodd, P., N. Dopuch, R. Holthausen, and R. Leftwich. 1984. Qualified audit opinions and stock prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics 6 (April): 3 -38.
Dopuch, N., R. Holthausen, and R. Leftwich. 1986. Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of “subject to” qualified audit opinions. Journal of Accounting and Economics 8 (June): 93 -117.
Elliott, J. A. 1982. “Subject to” audit opinions and abnormal security returns -Outcomes and ambiguities. Journal of Accounting Research 20 (Autumn): 617–638.
Fleak, S. K., and E. R. Wilson. 1994. The incremental information content of the going-concern audit opinion. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 9 (Winter): 149-166.
Geiger, M. A., and D. V. Rama. 2003. Audit fees, nonaudit fees, and auditor reporting on stressed companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 22(2): 53-69.
Geiger, M. A., and D. Rama. 2006. Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons 20 (March): 1-17.
Holder-Webb, L. M., and M. S. Wilkins. 2000. The incremental information content of SAS No. 59 going concern opinions. Journal of Accounting Research 38 (Spring): 209-219.
Herbohn, K., V. Ragunathan, and R. Garsden. 2007. The horse has bolted: Revisiting the market reaction to going concern modifications of audit reports. Accounting and Finance 47 (September): 473-493.
Jones, F. L. 1996. The information content of the auditor’s going concern evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 15 (Spring): 1-27.
Menon, Krishnagopal , and David D. Williams. 2010. Investor reaction to going concern audit reports. The Accounting Review 85: 2075–2105.
Taffler, R. J., J. Lu, and A. Kausar, 2004. In denial? Stock market underreaction to going-concern audit report disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics 38 (4): 263-296.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top