34.201.37.128
34.201.37.128
close menu
KCI 등재
감사시장에 대한 파트너 차원의 조사: 기술통계분석을 중심으로
Audit Market at the Engagement Partner Level: A Descriptive Analysis
최승욱 ( Seung Uk Choi ) , 이재은 ( Jae Eun Lee ) , 배길수 ( Gil S Bae )
회계저널 24권 1호 71-115(45pages)
UCI I410-ECN-0102-2015-300-002130738

우리나라 회계법인의 파트너차원 정보는 거의 알려져 있지 않고 있다. 본 연구는 우리나라 회계법인의 상장피감사기업 자료를 파트너별로 분석하여 기초적인 기술적 통계치를 제시한다. 구체적으로 파트너담당 상장감사개수, 총상장감사시간, 총상장감사보수의 분포를 조사하고, 이들이 감사품질(재량발생액)과 관련성을 가지는지를 조사한다. 또한 이들 파트너 차원 지표가 대형회계법인과 소형회계법인간에 차이가 있는지를 조사하며, 대형회계법인 내에서도 네 개 회계법인 간에 차이가 있는지를 조사한 결과를 제시한다. 연구결과, 전체 감사파트너수는 서서히 증가하는 추세이지만 회계법인별로는 증가하는 추세에 다소 차이가 있다. 파트너가 한 해에 담당하는 상장감사개수가 1개, 총상장감사시간이 500시간, 총상장감사보수 5천만원 정도인 파트너가 전체의 상당한 비중을 차지한다. 이는 국내 감사시장의 영세성을 나타내며 동시에 파트너의 감사전문성에 의구심을 야기한다. 그러나 1인 파트너가 한 해에 담당한 상장개수의 분포는 큰 편자를 보여 최고 27개 상장감사를 담당한 파트너도 존재한다. 1인 파트너가 담당하는 상장감사개수 분포의 편차가 크다는 것은 많은 고객을 보유한 몇몇 파트너들에게 과도하게 업무가 집중된다는 해석도 가능하다. 추가로 본 연구는 파트너의 상장감사개수, 총감사시간, 총감사보수, 총피감사기업매출액과 감사품질 사이의 관련성을 조사하였다. 조사결과 파트너가 담당하는 상장감사개수, 상장감사총감사시간과 총피감사기업매출액 등으로 표시된 지표가 클수록 감사품질은 더 높고, 반면에 파트너의 총감사보수와 비감사보수는 감사품질과 음의 관계를 보인다. 특히 상장감사개수가 1개인 파트너들이 다수라는 점을 고려하여 상장감사개수가 1개인 파트너와 다른 파트너들과의 감사품질 차이를 추정한 결과, 상장감사가 1개인 파트너의 감사품질이 그렇지 않은 파트너에 비해 상대적으로 더 낮은 것으로 나타났다. 그러나 이상의 관계는 대부분 Non-Big 4 표본에 의해 유도된다. 마지막으로 본 연구는 파트너의 계속감사기간과 피감사기업 의존도 및 IFRS 의무도입 전후로 표본을 구분하여 파트너 특성변수와 감사품질의 관련성을 조사하였다. 파트너 계속감사기간의 증가는 감사법인의 계속감사기간을 통제한 후에도 감사품질의 향상과 관련이 있었다. 또한 피감사기업에 대한 의존도가 증가할수록 감사품질은 하락하였으며, 파트너 특성변수와 감사품질의 관련성은 주로 IFRS 의무도입 이전 기간에 나타났다. 본 연구는 그동안 국내에서는 파트너차원의 지표에 대한 이해가 거의 없는 상황에서 파트너차원에 대한 기술통계를 조사한 점에 그 가장 큰 공헌이 있다. 특히 상장감사가 1개인 파트너가 다수라는 점 등의 파트너차원 분석 결과는 향후 학술연구와 실무 목적의 회계제도 개선에도 유용한 정보가 될 것으로 보인다.

Recently, both regulators and academicians pay considerable attention to the role of individual engagement partners on audit attributes such as audit quality, audit effort, and fees. For instance, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board(PCAOB) in the U.S. currently considers mandatory engagement partner name disclosure, and assesses the benefits and costs associated with disclosing engagement partner names. An implicit assumption underlying the attention to audit partners is that, despite the effort and claims that individual audit partners within the firm are similar to one another, substantial differences might still exist among individual partners. Notwithstanding the interests on the role of engagement partners on several aspects of the audit market, little is known concerning the audit market at the engagement partner level in Korea. Our study attempts to provide some initial understanding about the Korean audit market at the engagement partner level. We provide descriptive evidence on the number of clients per partner, the number of total audit hours that individual partners work, and the amount of total audit fees that individual partners earn. Since the audit market is segmented, we examine partners belonging to the Big 4 and the Non-Big 4 audit firms separately. In addition, we investigate the relationship between engagement partner characteristics and audit quality proxied by widely used performance matched discretionary accruals. We further devide Big 4 audit firms into individual audit firms and provide the descriptive information for each Big 4 firm. Our sample is from a period of 2003-2012. We find that the total number of partners who audit listed companies has increased gradually over time. More specifically, the number of partners who audited one or more listed companies was 522 in 2003 but increased to 648 in 2012. Among the Big 4 audit firms, the number of partners who audit listed companies was the largest in Samil in the earlier years, but the gap Samil and the other Big 4 audit firms has narrowed considerably in the later years. An analysis of the number of client per partner suggests that a strikingly large number of partners has only one public company client. Specifically, 245 out of 522 partners have only one client. Although the number of partners who have only one client is larger among Non-Big 4 partners than Big 4 partners, Big 4 partners also exhibit a similar picture: 54 out of 202 Big 4 partners have only one public company client. However, the distribution of the number of clients per partner is fairly large; the number of clients of some partners is as high as 16. This pattern persists over the sample period. The quantity of total partner hours varies widely, ranging from less than 500 hours to more than 20,000 hours. The analysis indicates that 175 among 522 partners work less than 500 audit hours in 2003 while 118 partners work audit hours between 500 and 1,000 hours. In contrast, four partners work more than 20,000 hours in 2003. In 2012, the number of partner audit hours increased compared to that in 2003: 81 partners logged less than 500 hours and 165 partners worked between 500 and 1,000 hours. Also, 10 partners work more than 20,000 hours. When the sample is split into partners belonging to Big 4 and Non-Big 4, audit firms, the number of total audit hours is significantly larger for Big 4 partners than Non-Big 4 partners. An analysis of the amount of total audit fees per partner presents an unsettling finding: 179 partners earned less than 50 million won per year in 2003 and 133 partners earned larger than or equal to 50 million won but less than 100 million won. In stark contrast, one partner earned more than 2,500 million won and three partners earned more than or equal to 1,200 million won but less than 1,400 million won. As expected, the amount of total audit fees per partner increased over time. In 2012, 87 partners earned less than 50 million won and 201 partners earned more than or equal to 50 million won but less than 100 million won. In particular, one partner earned more than 3,500 million won and another partner earned more than or equal to 2,500 but less than 3,000 million won. On average, the amount of total audit fees of the Big 4 partners is larger than that of the Non-Big 4 partners. Overall, the finding that a large number of partners earn less than 100 million won is consistent with the argument that audit fees are too low in the Korean audit market. Next, we investigate the relationship between the number of clients, the quantity of partner total audit hours, the amount of partner total audit fees, and the partner total client revenues and audit quality proxied by performance matched discretionary accruals. The results suggest that the number of clients, the amount of partner total audit hours, and partner total client revenues are positively associated with audit quality. That is, the larger these variables are, the higher the audit quality of the client company. However, partner total audit and nonaudit fees are negatively associated with audit quality, suggesting that larger total audit and nonaudit fees translate to lower audit quality. Given that the relationship does not exist for the subsample consisted of Big 4 partners, The relationship is attributable to partners affiliated to Non-Big 4 audit firms. Given that the majority of partners have only one or two client companies, our finding that the number of clients is positively associated with audit quality provides an important implication to the policy makers. Our study contributes to the literature by providing some important descriptive insights into the Korean audit market analyzed at the engagement partner level. Our work also provide several policy implications. Importantly, our finding that audit quality is inversely related to the number of clients will provide valuable information to the policy setters.

I. 서 론
Ⅱ. 파트너 자료를 사용한 선행연구
Ⅲ. 파트너 자료의 분석
V. 결 론
REFERENCES
국내 참고 문헌
[자료제공 : 네이버학술정보]
×