Factors Influencing the Quality of Key Audit Matters Disclosure by Auditors

碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 會計學系 === 106 === A new guideline of audit report has been implemented in Taiwan since 2016. The guideline requires auditor to disclose key audit matters (KAMs) during audit procedures to increase the transparency and value of relevant information. To reduce information asymmetry...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: YU, CHIUNG-HSIN, 余瓊杏
Other Authors: LEE, CHIEN-JAN
Format: Others
Language:zh-TW
Published: 2018
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/ygwgt3
Description
Summary:碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 會計學系 === 106 === A new guideline of audit report has been implemented in Taiwan since 2016. The guideline requires auditor to disclose key audit matters (KAMs) during audit procedures to increase the transparency and value of relevant information. To reduce information asymmetry, the new regulation helps expected users of the financial statements to understand the audit reports emphasized by the auditor as well as the audit matters being used to communicate within the corporate governance. The study sample was collected from 1,587 stock exchange listing companies of Taiwan in 2016. Financial companies were excluded due to unique industrial characteristics. A total number of 3,407 key audit matters was analyzed with Pearson correlation coefficient and regression method. Six metrics analysis was applied to determine the effect of each factor. The relationship between each modal variable and the quality of KAMs was discussed from two different aspects. Firstly, considering audit risk, the result showed positive correlation with the quality of KAMs when the audited company revealed net operating loss or negative abnormal return. A negative correlation was found between the importance of clients and the quality of KAMs. Secondly, the overall result failed to provide statistical significance from the aspect of corporate governance. However, a negative correlation existed between audit committee and the quality of KAMs. One possible explanation is that the audit committee was lack of full independence or did not function properly regardless of its legitimacy. Furthermore, the study evidence suggested that understandability of KAMs is the most distinct measure, whilst the specificity of KAMs is the least distinct measure in the evaluation of the quality of KAMs.