감사인의 규모가 회계정보의 가치관련성에 미치는 영향

The association between of audit firm size and audit quality has long been of interest to researchers and policy makers in auditing. In a pioneering study, DeAngelo (1981) posits that audit firm size could be a proxy for auditor quality because larger audit firms are less likely to compromise their independence than smaller audit firms due to the larger collateral effect. Dopuch and Simunic (1980) and Lennox (1999) reach a similar conclusion by appealing respectively to the higher brand-value and higher litigation rate associated with audit firm size. Lawrence et al. (2011) observe that audit firm size is associated with more robust training programs, standardized audit methodologies, and more options for appropriate second partner reviews, leading to a positive association with superior audit quality. Subsequent empirical studies have largely validated the theoretical prediction that larger audit firms provide higher quality audits than do smaller audit firms (Palmrose 1988; Becker et al. 1998; Krishnan and Schauer 2000; Behn et al. 2008). The effect of audit firm size on audit quality and audit fees has been discussed largely in terms of the Big4/non-Big4 dichotomy in the extant literature. In fact, DeAngelo (1981) frames the theoretical prediction about the role of audit firm size on audit quality using an example based on the then Big8/non-Big8 dichotomy. A recent extension of the investigation of audit quality to the audit firm office is no exception (Francis et al. 2006; Francis and Yu 2009; Francis and Michas 2011). While auditor size has been widely accepted and employed as an important audit quality proxy, only limited evidence is currently available whether investors indeed interpret auditor size as representing audit quality. In order to shed lights to understanding the market’s interpretation of audit firm size in terms of audit quality, we investigate the relationship between the investors' perception of the value relevance of accounting information and auditor size proxied by Big4/non-Big4 following the previous studies. More specifically, we investigate whether the market assigns predictably differential credibility to accounting information based on audit firm size. Our findings are as follows. If a firm receives audits from a Big4 auditor, the value relevance of book value per share and the value relevance of earnings per share are higher than those of a firm that receives audits from a non-Big4 auditor. This provides compelling evidence that investors interpret the financial statements as more credible when they are audited by a Big4 auditor than by a non-Big4 auditor. Moreover, the value relevance of net income per share is higher than that of book value per share if the firm receives audits from a Big4 auditor. However, the opposite is the case if the firm receives audits from a Non-big4 auditor. In addition, the value relevance of cash flows per share is also higher when the firm is audited by a Big4 auditor than by a non-Big4 auditor. We also find that the value relevance of net income per share is higher than cash flows per share of the firm when the firm is audited by a Big4 auditor. This is consistent with the interpretation that investors assign more weights to net income when they find net income is more credible (i.e., the financial statements are audited by a Big4 auditor), and thereby cash flows become less value relevant, and vice versa. When two additional dimensions, debt ratio and the sources of debts, are considered together with auditor size in the analysis, the results reveal that investors incorporate these factors as well in determining the relative value relevance of each item in the model.