本研究旨在探討在不同企業生命週期下,若公司被報導相同關鍵查核事項時,是否會有不同之價值攸關性,並再進一步觀察財務風險高低和不同投資人屬性之影響。本研究以2016年至2018年為樣本觀察期間,並以金融監督管理委員會公布之前三名關鍵查核事項報導項目(存貨、收入和減損)為主要研究標的。實證結果顯示,高財務風險且機構投資人持股比例高時,關鍵查核事項報導對價值攸關性之影響無顯著關係,顯示機構投資人聚焦於公司有較高之財務風險,而弱化了關鍵查核事項資訊之報導;然而,在低財務風險下且機構投資人持股比例高時,機構投資人對不同項目之關鍵查核事項有不同之價值攸關性判斷。然而,當機構投資人持股比例低時,對於不同企業生命週期、財務風險及不同關鍵查核事項之報導,較無一致之發現,顯示機構投資人持股比例低者,較無法區分投資公司之財務狀況及對於相關資訊解讀之能力也較低。透過本文之實證結果,希冀能提供未來相關研究之參考依據。
The objective of this study was to investigate whether companies possessing different enterprise life cycles but reporting identical key audit matters differ in value relevance. The impact of high and low financial risks and different investor attributes was also observed. The sample observation period of this study ran from 2016 to 2018, and the primary research targets were the three most reported key audit matters (inventory, revenue, and impairment) announced by the Financial Supervisory Commission of Taiwan. The empirical results indicated that in companies where financial risks were high and institutional investors had high shareholding ratios, key audit matters did not have a significant impact on value relevance. This means that institutional investors focus on the higher financial risks, thereby weakening the reports of key audit matter information. In contrast, in companies where financial risks were low and institutional investors had high shareholding ratios, institutional investors judged value relevance depending on the key audit matters that were reported. In companies where institutional investors had low shareholding ratios, the results of different enterprise life cycles, financial risks, and key audit matters were less consistent. This means that institutional investors with low shareholding ratios were less able to distinguish the financial circumstances of the invested company or to interpret relevant information. It is hoped that the empirical results of this study can provide reference for relevant future research.