會計師事務所型態與審計獨立性之研究：大陸市場的證據

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫 成果報告

會計師事務所型態與審計獨立性之研究：大陸市場的證據

研究成果報告(精簡版)

計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型

計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 95-2416-H-004-027-

執 行 期 間 ： 95 年 08 月 01 日至 96 年 07 月 31 日

執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學會計學系

計 畫 主 持 人 ： 金成隆

計畫參與人員： 博士班研究生-兼任助理：翁慈清、張愛齡、林捷芋

處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫涉及專利或其他智慧財產權，2 年後可公開查詢

中 華 民 國 96 年 11 月 25 日

行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告

會計師事務所型態與審計獨立性之研究:大陸市場的證據

On the association between organizational forms of audit firms and

audit independence: Evidence from China

計畫編號：95-2416-H-004-027

執行期限：95 年 8 月 1 日至 96 年 7 月 31 日

主持人：金成隆

執行機構及單位名稱：國立政治大學會計系

一、中文摘要

中國是世界最大的社會主義體制的國

家，也是僅次於美國的第二大世界經濟體。

中國於 1994 年開始實施中華人民共和國註

冊會計師法。該法規定註冊會計師可以選擇

申請設立合夥(partnership)會計師事務所或

有限責任的法人型態的事務所。由於這兩類

組織型態的事務所會計師所面臨的法律環

境不同，因此本計畫主要在探討合夥會計師

事務所的會計師，獨立性是否與有限責任法

人事務所所屬的會計師有差別。本研究以

2001 至 2004 年在中國深圳及上海交易所掛

牌上市發行 A 股之的公司，為研究樣本，

並以(1)裁決性應計盈餘大小與(2)是否發佈

無保留意見，作為獨立性替代變數。本計畫

第二部分進一步探討上市公司在選擇會計

師事務所的型態時，受到哪些因素的影響，

焦點之一主要集中在上市公司的所有權結

構，因為大陸資本市場，上市公司的股權結

構主要為國家持股、法人持股、與公眾持

股。其次，本計畫擬進一步檢測，不同事務

所 型 態 所 簽 證 的 財 務 表 ， 穩 健 性

(conservatism)並不相同是否具有不同；本計

畫預期，合夥型態事務所簽證的報表，應計

盈餘較小，叫易發佈無保留意見，與較為穩

健性高於有限責任型態者。實證結果發現，

型態的事務所，裁決性應計盈餘較大，且比

較不會發佈保留意見，最後，報表也比較不

保守。我們也發現，法人持股愈多者愈不會

選用選用 LLC。

關鍵詞: 合夥、有限責任、應計盈餘、保

留意見、保守。

Abstract

China is the largest socialist economy and the second largest economy in the world only after the US. Audit firms have been given option to choose between legal forms of partnership and limited liability corporation (LLC) since 1994 in China. In general partnership, every partner is personally liable for all services provided by the audit firm, which provides an incentive for partners to monitor the quality of the services provided by their fellow partners. Under LLC, personal assets of individual partner are no longer available to pay a partnership’s liability, thus reducing the incentives for intrafirm monitoring by partners within an audit firm. In the first year, I will explore whether auditor independence is lower for legal structure of LLC than for legal forms of partnership. Following prior studies, we use discretionary accrual (therefore DA) and the likelihood of auditor firms issuing clean opinion as proxies for auditor independence, respectively. Specifically, I

hypothesize and find that auditees of audit firms adopting legal forms of partnership report higher the levels of both the income-increasing DA and the absolute DA, compared to clients of audit firms adopting LLC legal forms. I also hypothesize and find that the likelihood of issuing unqualified opinion is higher for partner of general partnership relative to one of LLC. Furthermore, I will examine whether the LLC’s auditor is associated with a reduction in the extent of “news-based” earnings conservatism (i.e., the differential extent to which earnings reflect bad news on a timely basis). Reduced earnings conservatism is expected to occur if LLC’s auditor in reduced auditor independence.

Further, I explore the determinants of firm’s decision to choose between two types of audit firms. This project focus primarily on the effect of corporate governance on choice of audit firms since a typical listed firm in China has a mixed ownership structure with three predominant groups of shareholders—the state, legal persons, and individuals. I find that firm with greater holding by legal persons are more likely to choose the partnership audit firms.

Keywords:

partnership, limited liability corporation, audits independence, accrual, conservatism

二、緣由與目的

本研究計畫主要在探討中國兩類會計

師事務所由於法律責任的不同，是否會使

得所屬會計師的獨立性因而也產生差異。

為迎合市場對於審計服務的需求以及審計

品質的提升，中國政府於1994年1月1日頒

布並實施中華人民共和國註冊會計師法，

並積極嚴逞不法的會計師

1

_{。該法規定註冊}

1 從 1993 到 2001 年，中國證監會因爲上市公司的 資訊披露問題一共處罰了 24 家會計師事務所和 46 名註冊會計師。中國證監會的處罰有以下特 徵：（1）1998 以前，中國證監會未對註冊會計師 個人進行處罰，也未大量處罰會計師事務所；（2） 1998 年以後，中國證監會明顯加大了對會計師事 務所和註冊會計師的處罰力度；（3）2000 年對註 冊會計師個人的處罰力度增加，在 2000 年處罰了 14 位註冊會計師，接近 1998 和 1999 的總和(深交 所綜合研究報告“中國證券市場實證分析”之四:中 外資訊披露制度及實際效果比較研究, 中華財會 網(www.e521.com) 2002-05-13)。

會計師可以自行選擇會計師事務所的組織

型 態 ， 也 就 是 會 計 師 得 申 請 設 立 合 夥

(partnership) 會計師事務所或者有限責任

(limited liability)的法人型態的事務所。由

於法人型態的事務所內部彼此監督的誘因

較 合 夥 會 計 師 事 務 所 小 (Muzatko,

Johnstone, Mayhew and Rittenberg, 2004)，

因此本研究計畫主要在探討合夥會計師事

務所的會計師，獨立性是否與有限責任事

務所所屬的會計師有差別。

本計畫使用中國市場探討審計獨立性

與會計師事務所組織型態的研究，是基於

下列原因: 我們的研究使用了一個獨特的

實驗情境。為順應會計師法律責任過高的

訴求，美國在1992年修法放寬會計師選擇

組織型態時，除原來的一般合夥(general

partnership) 組織型態之外，亦得另外改選

用 有 限 責 任 合 夥 (limited liability

partnership)。然而此一規定放寬後，幾乎

簽證上市櫃的會計師都改選有限責任合夥

的組織型態。相對的，中國政府1994年實

行會計師法以來，一開始就允許註冊會計

師選擇合夥與有限責任型態，雖然有限責

任合夥的組織型態多於合夥組織型態，但

實務上此兩種組織型態是並存的。此一情

境提供我們探討在同一時點不同組織型態

對於會計師獨立性的影響。

本研究計畫以中國的深圳交易所及上

海交易所掛牌上市發行A股之的公司為研

究樣本，研究期間為 1994至2004年，檢測

這些公司編製財務報表的彈性是否與簽證

會計師的組織型態有關。本研究分別援引

以 往 學 術 研 究 ， 分 別 使 用 應 計 盈 餘

(discretionary accruals)與會計師傾向於發

表某類意見的機會，作為審計獨立性的替

代變數。最後，本計畫也以財務報表保守

幸作為第三個盈餘品質的替代變數。

本研究計畫第二部份主要在探討上市

公司在選擇會計師事務所的型態時，受到

哪些因素的影響，主要的焦點集中在上市

公司的所有權結構，因為大陸資本市場，

上市公司的股權結構主要為國家持股、法

人持股、與公眾持股。

基於上述的原因，本計畫擬探討幾個

問題

:

(1) 合 夥 會 計 師 事 務 所 會 計 師 簽 證 的 公

司，應計盈餘的幅度小於有限責任會計

師事務所的會計師。

(2) 合夥會計師事務所的會計師，出具無保

留意見的機會，比有限責任會計師事務

所的會計師小。

(3) 合 夥 會 計 師 事 務 所 會 計 師 簽 證 的 公

司，報表會比較保守。

(4) 國有持分愈高的公司，愈會選任有限責

任會計師事務所。

(5) 法人持股愈高的公司，愈會選任合夥組

織型態的會計師事務所。

三、研究假設及樣本選取與資訊蒐集

H1: 合 夥 會 計 師 事 務 所 會 計 師 簽 證 的 公

司，應計盈餘的幅度小於有限責任會

計師事務所的會計師。

H2: 合夥會計師事務所的會計師，出具無

保留意見的機會，比有限責任會計師事

務所的會計師小。

H3: 合夥會計師事務所會計師簽證的公

司，報表會比較保守。

H4: 國有持分愈高的公司，愈會選任有限

責任會計師事務所。

H5: 法人持股愈高的公司，愈會選任合夥

組織型態的會計師事務所。

本研究樣本系選取自在中國的深圳

交易所及上海交易所掛牌上市發行 A 股

之的公司。因為發行 B 的公司，由於是國

外人可以買賣的股票，因而幾乎都是選擇

與國外聯盟的會計師簽證，因而較無選擇

會技師是素所類型的問題。由於金融和保

險等產業因其產業性質特殊，故將其排除

在樣本的選取範圍之外。本研究以 1994

年至 2005 年之歷年制上市公司為樣本。

本研究財務資料係取自臺灣經濟新報社

(Taiwan Economic Journal, TEJ)中國財

務 資 料 庫 模 組 。 產 業 分 類 資 料 來 源 於

CSRC 行業分類的分類代碼。

有關中國會計師事務所組織型態，

由於沒有現成的資料庫，因而我們要用手

工收集，從中國註冊會計師協會

2

_，逐筆

收錄而成。此一逐筆用手工收錄的工作，

將是本計畫最耗時且耗力的地方。本研究

會計師審計意見的類型，資料來源為中國

經濟研究中心（CCER）財務數據審計訊

息資料庫，至於進一步的審計意見細節，

則也是要逐筆用手工蒐錄。

四、實證研究結果與討論

根據實證研究結果發現：

(1) 合 夥 會 計 師 事 務 所 會 計 師 簽 證 的 公

司，裁決性應計盈餘的幅度顯著小於有

限責任會計師事務所的會計師。

(2) 合夥會計師事務所的會計師，出具無保

留意見的機會，比有限責任會計師事務

所的會計師顯著為小。

(3) 合 夥 會 計 師 事 務 所 會 計 師 簽 證 的 公

司，報表會比較保守。

(4) 國有持分愈高的公司，並沒有比較偏向

於選任有限責任會計師事務所。

(5) 法人持股愈高的公司，愈會選任合夥組

2 http://www.cicpa.org.cn/。

織型態的會計師事務所。

五、計畫成果自評

(一)對研究方面：

本研究對於學術界具有下列貢獻。第

一，對於審計學文獻而言，本文發現不同

的事務所對於盈餘品質會有不同的影響。

救我們了解，這是首篇這方面的研究。第

二，本研究也發現公司的股權結構對於選

擇

LLC/合夥型態的事務所，不有不同的影

響，因而對於所有權方面的文獻，也具有

貢獻。

(二)對管理者方面：

法人說明會是公司自願揭露訊息，以

降低會暨性資訊不對稱的有效工具。然

而，公股權結構的優劣，會對於法說會產

生不同的資訊效果。這些發現，可以作為

管理當局決策的參考公司。

(三)對投資者方面：

報表使用人可以經由公司所選任的事

務所型態，反推出公司的股權結構的情

形，以及盈餘品質的型態，進而決定適當

的投資或是融資決策。此可以使報表使用

人在作投資等決策時，有所參考，比較不

會盲從。

(四)面對證期會及其他管制機關方面

本 文 實 證 結 果 也 具 有 政 策 性 的 含

意。本研究發現，LLC 事務所的盈餘品質

比較差，因而管制機關，例如證期局，可

已考慮對於事務所的型態重新規範，以提

升整體的查帳品質。

六、參考文獻

Ahmed, A. S., B. K. Billings, R. M. Morton, and M.

Stanford-Harris. 2002. The role of accounting

conservatism in mitigating bondholder-shareholder conflicts over dividend

policy and in reducing debt costs. The

Accounting Review 77 (4): 867-890.

Ali, A., and S. Kallapur. 2001. Securities price consequences of the private securities litigation reform Act of 1995 and related events. The Accounting Review 76, 431-461.

Ashbaugh, H., D. W. Collins, and R. LaFond. 2004. The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. Working paper.

Ashbaugh, H., R. Lafond, and B. W. Mayhew, 2003. Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review 78, 611-639.

Ball, R., A. Robin and A. Robin. 2000. The effect of international institutional factors on properties of accounting earnings. Journal of Accounting and

Economics 29: 1-51.

Barzel, Y. 1982. Measurement cost and the organization of the market. Journal of Law of Michigan Press.

Basu, S. B. 1997. The conservatism principle and asymmetric timeliness of earnings. Journal of

Accounting and Economics 24: 3-37.

Beaver, W. H., and S. G. Ryan. 2000. Biases and lags in book value and their effects on the ability of the book-to-market ratio to predict book return on equity. Journal of Accounting Research 38 (1): 127-148.

Beck, P. J., T. J. Frecka, and L. Solomon. 1988. An empirical analysis of the relationship between MAS involvement and auditor tenure: implications for auditor independence. Journal of Accounting Literature 7, 65-84.

Becker, C. L., M. L. DeFond, J. Jiambalvo, and K. R. Subramanyam. 1998. The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research 14, 1-24.

Beekes, W., P. Pope, and S. Young. 2004. The link between earnings timeliness, earnings conservatism and board composition: Evidence from the UK. Corporate Governance: An

International Review 12 (1): 47-59.

Belsley, D. A., E. Kuh, and R. E. Welsch, Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influenctial Data and Sources of Collinearity. New York:Wiley, 2000.

Brandt, L., and Li, H., 2003. Bank discrimination in transition economies: ideology, information or incentives? Journal of Comparative Economics 31(3), 387-413.

Burgstahler, D., and I. Dichev. 1997. Earnings management to avoid earnings decreases and losses. Journal of Accounting and Economics 24, 99-126.

The sensitivity of corporate governance systems to the timeliness of accounting earnings. Working paper. University of Chicago.

Chang, S. J. 2003. Ownership structure, expropriation, and performance of group-affiliated companies in Korea, Academy o Management Journal 46 (2): 238

Chen, C. J. P., Chen, S., and X. Su. Independent auditing and modified audit opinions in China: facts, reasons, and implications. Working paper. City University of Hong Kong.

Chen, X., and Q. Cheng. Abnormal accrual based anomaly and managers’ motivation to record abnormal accruals. Working paper, University of British Columbia.

Chung, H., and S. Kallapur. 2003. Client importance, nonaudit services, and abnormal accrual. The Accounting Review 78, 931-955.

Claessens, S., S. Djankov, and L. Lang. 2000. The separation of ownership and control in East Asia corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 58: 81-112.

Claessens, S., S. Djankov, J. Fan, and L. H. P. Lang. 2002. Disentangling the incentive and entrenchment effects of large shareholdings.

Journal of Finance 57: 2741-2771.

Collins, D. and P. Hribar, 2000. Earnings-based and accrual-based market anomalies: one effect or two? Journal of Accounting and Economics 29, 101-123.

Cronqvist, H., and M. Nilsson. 2003. Agency costs of controlling minority shareholders. Journal of

Financial and Quantitative Analysis 38:

695-719.

DeAngelo, H., L. DeAngelo, and D.J. Skinner, 1994. Accounting choice in troubled companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics 177, 113-144.

Dechow, P. M., and R. M. Sloan. 1997. Returns to contrarian investment strategies: Test of naïve expectations hypotheses. Journal of Financial Economics 43 (1): 3-27.

Dechow, P. M., R. G. Sloan, and A. P. Sweeney, 1995. Detecting earnings management. The Accounting Review 17, 193-225.

Dechow, P. M., R. G. Sloan, and A. P. Sweeney, 1995. Detecting earnings management. The Accounting Review 17, 193-225.

DeFond, M., and J. Jiambalvo, 1994. Debt covenant violation and manipulation of accruals, accounting choices in troubled companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics 17, 145-176.

DeFond, M., and J. Jiambalvo, 1994. Debt covenant violation and manipulation of accruals, accounting choices in troubled companies. Journal of Accounting and Economics 17,

145-176.

Du, J., and Y. Dai. 2005. Ultimate corporate ownership structures and capital structures: Evidence from East Asian economies. Corporate

Governance: An International Review 13 (1):

60-71.

DuCharme, L., P. Malatesta, and S. Sefcik. 2004. Earnings management, stock issues, and shareholder lawsuits. Journal of Financial Economics 71, 27-49. Dye, R. 1995. Incorporation and the audit market.

Journal of Accounting and Economics 19, 75-114.

Dye, R.A., 1993. Auditing standards, legal liability, and auditor wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 887-914.

Fan, J., T.J. Wong, and T. Zhang, 2004. The emergence of corporate pyramids in China. Working Paper, The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Fan, P. H., and T. J. Wong. 2002. Corporate ownership structure and the informativeness of accounting earnings in East Asia. Journal of

Accounting and Economics 23: 401-425

Fan, P. H., and T. J. Wong. 2005. Do External auditors perform a corporate governance role in emerging markets? Evidence from East Asia. Journal of Accounting Research 43 (1): 35-72. FitchRatings. 2004. Credit policy special report.

Evaluating Corporate Governance: The Bondholders’ Perspective. New York.

Francis, J. 1984. The effect of audit firm size and audit prices. Journal of Accounting and Economics 6, 133-152.

Francis, J. R. and J. Krishnan. 1999. Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism. Contemporary Accounting Research 16, 139-165.

Francis, J., D. Philbrick, and K. Schipper. 1994. Shareholder litigation and corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research 32, 137-164. Frankel, R., M. Johnson, and K. Nelson. 2002. The

relation between auditors’ fees for nonaudit services and earnings management. The Accounting Review 77, 71-105.

Gensler, M. and J. Yang. 1996. Auditing Standards of the People’s Republic of China, FT Law and Tai, Asia Pacific

Givoly, D., and C. Hayn. 2000. The changing time-series properties of earnings, cash flows and accruals: Has financial reporting become more conservative? Journal of Accounting and

Economics 29 (3): 287-320.

Greene, W. H. 2003. Econometric Analysis. Fifth edition, Prentice Hall.

Greene, W., 2003. Econometric Analysis, 5rd Prentice-Hall, NJ.

A market-based evaluation of discretionary accrual models. Journal of Accounting Research 34, 83-116.

Hansen, G. A., and C. F. Noe. 1998. Do managers’ accrual decision speak louder than words? Working paper, Pennsylvania State University.

Healy, P. M., 1985. The effect of bonus schemes on accounting decision. Journal of Accounting and Economics 7, 85-107. Jaggi, B., and P. P. Lee, 2003. Earning forecast

regulation and earnings management by IPO firms. International Accounting Section of the 2003 American Accounting Association Meeting, USA. Concurrent Session Paper.

Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Mecking. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305-360.

Joh, S.W. 2003. Corporate governance and firm profitability: Evidence from Korea before the economic crisis. Journal of Financial

Economics 68 (2): 287-322.

Jones, J. J., 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research 29, 193-228.

Jung, K., and S. Y., Kwon. 2002. Ownership structure and earnings informativeness: evidence from Korea. The International Journal of Accounting 37: 301-325.

Kothari, S. P., Leone, A. L., and C. E. Wasley. 2005. Performance matched discretionary accrual measures. Journal of Accounting and Economics 39, 163-197.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer and R. Vishny. 1998. Law and finance. Journal of

Political Economy 106: 1113-1155.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. W. Vishny. 2002. Investor protection and corporate valuation. Journal of Finance 57: 1147-1170.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, and A. Shleifer. 1999. Corporate ownership around the world.

Journal of Finance 54: 471-517.

Lang, M., K. Lins, and D. Miller. 2003. ADR’s, analysts, and accuracy: does cross listing in the United States improve a firm’s information environment and increase market value? Journal of Accounting Research 41, 317-345.

Lee, H. Y. and V. Mande. 2003. The effect of the private securities litigation reform act of 1995 on accounting discretion of client managers of big 6 and non-big 6 auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 22, 93-108.

Lee, P. P., K. Gary, and M. F. Lin. Corporate Ownership Structure and Accuracy and Bias of Mandatory Earnings Forecast: Evidence from

Taiwan. 11th Annual International Accounting Section Mid-year Conference and Inaugural Doctoral / New Faculty Consortium, San Antonio, Texas.

Lemmon, M. L., and K. V. Lins. 2003. Ownership structure, corporate governance, and firm value: Evidence from the East Asian financial crisis.

Journal of Finance 58: 1445-1468.

Lent, L. V. 1999. The economics of an audit firm: the benefits of partnership governance. British Accounting Review 31, 225-254.

Letwich, R. 1983. Accounting information in private markets: Evidence from private lending agreements. The Accounting Review 58 (1): 23-42.

Leuz, C., D. Nanda, and P. D. Wysocki. 2003. Discussion of ADRs, analysts, and accuracy: Does cross-listing in the United States improve a firm’s information environment and increase market value? Journal of Accounting Research 41: 347-362.

Li, C., Song, F. M., and S. M. Wong. 2004. Audit firm size effects in China’s emerging audit markets. Working Paper. The university of Hong Kong.

Li, H., and L. Zhou, 2005. Political turnover and economic performance: the disciplinary role of personnel control in China. Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming.

Li, Y., 1999. The Reform, Regulation and Opening-up of China’s Accounting Market, in Contemporary Issues in China Accounting and Finance Policy and Practice, edited by G. Chen, X. Chen and J.K. Cheung. Oxford University Press.

Lin, Y., F. Cai, and Z. Li, 1998. The China miracle: development strategy and economic reform. The Chinese University Press.

Lins, K. V., 2003. Equity ownership and firm value in emerging markets. Journal of Financial and

Quantitative Analysis 38: 159-184.

Lys, T., and R. L. Watts. 1994. Lawsuits against auditors. Journal of Accounting Research 32, 65-93.

Matsumoto, D. 2002. Management’s incentives to avoid negative earnings surprises. The Accounting Review 77, 483-514.

Muzatko, S. R., Johnstone, K. M., Mayhew, B. W., and L. E. Rittenberg. 2004. An empirical investigation of IPO underpricing and the change to the LLP organization of audit firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 23, 53-67.

Nelson, J., J. Ronen, and L. White. 1988. Legal liabilities and the market for auditing services. Journal of Accounting and Finance 3, 255-285. Pope, P. F. and M. Walker. 1999. International

differences in the timeliness, conservatism, and classification of earnings. Journal of Accounting

Research 37 ( Supplement): 53-87.

Reynolds, K. and J. Francis. 2001. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Finance 30, 375-400.

Roychowdhury, S., and R. L. Watts. 2004. Asymmetric timeliness of earnings, market-to-book and conservatism in financial reporting. Working paper.

Schwartz, R. 1997. Legal regimes, audit quality, and investment. The Accounting review 60, 248-261.

Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny. 1997. A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Financial

Economics 53: 737-783.

Simunic, D. 1980. The pricing of audit services: theory and evidence. Journal of Accounting research 18, 161-190.

Soffer, L. C., S. R. Thiagarajan, and B. R. Walther. 2000. Earnings preannouncements. Review of Accounting Studies 5, 5-26.

Wang, Q., Wong, T.J., and L. Xia. 2005. State ownership, institutional environment and auditor choice: evidence form china. Chinese University of Hong Kong, working paper.

Watts R, and J. Zimmerman. 1978. Towards a positive theory of the determination of accounting standards. The Accounting Review 53 (1): 112-134.

Watts, R. 1993. A proposal for research on conservatism. Working paper, University of Rochester.

Watts, R. L. 2003a. Conservatism in Accounting Part I: Explanations and placations. Accounting

Horizons 17: 203-221.

Watts, R. L. 2003b. Conservatism in Accounting Part II: Evidences and Research Opportunities.

Accounting Horizons 17: 287-301.

White H. 1980. A hereroscedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroscedasticity. Econometrica 40, 817-838. Willenborg, M., 1999. Empirical analysis of economic

demand for auditing in the initial public offering market. Journal of Accounting Research 37(1), 225-238.

Yang, J.W., and Yang, J. L. 1999. The Handbook of Chinese accounting. Oxford University Press (China) Ltd.

Zmijewski, M., and R. Hagerman. 1981. An income strategy approach to the positive theory of accounting standard setting/ choice. Journal of