审计师收取客户债务风险溢价了吗?

Does the Auditor Charge Risk Premium on the Client’s Debt?

已有研究发现,公司债务风险越高,审计师收取的审计费用越高;然而,审计费用提高的原因可能是审计投入的增加,也可能是审计师收取客户公司的债务风险溢价。由于缺少审计投入的数据,已有研究无法回答审计师是否收取客户公司债务风险溢价的问题。本文以我国A股上市公司为研究样本,运用我国独到的审计工时数据,就此展开相关问题研究。研究发现,在控制了审计投入之后,客户债务风险与审计费用显著正相关,表明审计师收取了客户公司的债务风险溢价。进一步研究表明,审计师对财务状况较差和治理较差的公司以及非国有企业收取更高的债务风险溢价,规模较小的会计师事务所收取的债务风险溢价高于规模较大的会计师事务所。

Previous researches find that the higher the debt risk of clients,the higher the audit fees charged by auditors.However,the increase in audit fees may be due to the increase in audit input,or the debt risk premium charged by auditors.Due to the lack of audit input data,whether auditors charge the debt risk premium of clients is still an open question.Using the unique audit man-hour data in China,this paper investigates this issue based on the sample of A-share listed firms in China.We find that,after controlling for the audit man-hour,clients’ debt risk is significantly and positively associated with audit fees,suggesting that auditors charge the debt risk premium of client companies.Further analysis shows that auditors charge a higher debt risk premium in firms with poor financial status,firms with poor governance,and non-state-owned enterprises.Small accounting firms charge a higher debt risk premium than larger accounting firms do.