我國會計師事務所品牌價值之探討-以國際型四大事務所為例

The research of Taiwan CPA Firm's value of brand name-Big 4 of international Accounting firm

郭柔蘭(Rou-Lan Kuo)

指導教授 ： 楊清溪

國立臺北大學/商學院/會計學系/碩士(2008年)

摘要

以往探討品牌之文獻及相關研究多著重於製造業及資訊產業，少有學者對服務性產業－會計師行業進行品牌價值探討。會計師行業之品牌研究多與審計品質有所關聯，並未有針對品牌價值進行進一步之探討。近年來企業舞弊事件接二連三發生，會計師行業除受社會大眾密切關注外，亦背負許多負面評價及觀感，在這樣情況下，會計師事務所之品牌價值是否會隨之提升或下降？何種評價模式適合用在會計師事務所上？
本研究將Hirose評價模型進行修正，並針對台灣四大會計師事務所進行研究，其結果分別為7,289百萬元、1,040百萬元、2,352百萬元及1,577百萬元；直接依Hirose評價模型之計算結果分別為2,040百萬元、525百萬元、968百萬元及634百萬元。另，依據中國註冊會計師協會西元2006年11月通過並發布之《會計師事務所綜合評價辦法(試行)》所計算分數分別為1,325分、570分、780分及744分，此排名順序與本研究之修正模型計算之排名順序一致，惟得分部分因計算基礎不一致，故無法比較。
本研究歸納之結論：
（一）『品牌』對消費者（第三者）有一定之影響力，品牌管理及維護對企業生存確實佔有一定地位。
（二）四大會計師事務所確實有進行惡意的削價競爭，尤其安隆案後，Arthur Anderson解散，台灣勤業事務所與眾信事務所進行合併因而促使台灣審計市場出現客戶重新分配情況，也因為爭奪客戶事件，出現審計公費呈現負成長率，審計案件量卻呈現正向成長率之異常情況。
（三）四大事務所專業人員之成本成長率與大於公費成長率，台灣審計公費收費標準相較於世界其他國家而言係顯著低廉，然台灣審計客戶普遍不存在『使用者付費』概念，且台灣會計師以低價搶客戶事件層出不窮，這也是審計公費遲遲無法提升的重要因素之ㄧ。

關鍵字

品牌價值 ； 四大會計師事務所 ； Hirose

並列摘要

In the past, literatures of brands and related research are more focused on the manufacturing and information industries, rather than service industries, especially brand value of accounting professionals. Some research on brand of accounting professionals emphasized on quality of audit service, but did not address on the value of the brand.
In recent years, more and more corporate frauds draw public’s attention and the society began to evaluate the accounting professionals based on their perceptions. Under such circumstances, will the brand value of accounting firm rise or fall? What kind of model to evaluate the value of brand is suitable for use for the accounting firms?

This study revised Hirose model, and investigated the four major accounting firms in Taiwan, which are also international accounting firms called “ big four”. The value of brand for the 4 firms are 7,289 million, 1,040 million, 2,352 million and 1,577 million ( in NTD) respectively. In addition, calculated by Hirose model, the respective results for the 4 firms are 2040 million, 525 million, 968 million and 634 million ( in NTD).
Furthermore, according to China Association of Registered Accountants issued in November 2006 "accounting firms comprehensive evaluation methods (for trial implementation)" , the scores for the 4 firms were 1325 points, 570 points, 780 points and 744 points. This ranking for the 4 firms is the same as this study by using revised Hirose model.

However, because of the scores basis of calculation for the 2 models are not the same, the value calculated for the 4 firms by these 2 models can not be compared.
Summarized the conclusions of this study:

1.Brand has a certain extent of influence to consumer (the third party), and brand management and maintenance of the enterprise stand an important position.
2.There is malicious price competition among the four major accounting firms. Especially after Enron’s fraud happened and its accounting firm Arthur Anderson (one of the international accounting firm) dissolved, the market share of audit business in Taiwan rearranged after the accounting professional members of Arthur Anderson and Deloitte Touche in Taiwan merged. Therefore, an abnormal situation of negative growth rate in audit fee with positive quantity volume growth rate was happened.
3.The growth rate of the cost of professional staff is higher than the growth rate of audit fees. It is because the audit fees in Taiwan are much lower to those of other countries in the world. The main reason is that the audit clients in Taiwan generally do not have 'user pays' concept. In addition, using low-price tactic to win clients by accounting firms is also a main reason that the audit fees cannot growth as cost.

並列關鍵字

Brand value ； Big 4 ； Hirose

參考文獻

13.張文瀞、吳幸螢（2005），品牌聲譽、產業專業化與審計人員占有率關聯性：取消審計公費下限分析，會計評論，第40期，2005年1月，第91-118頁

5.林相君2004 台灣經濟研究院產經資料庫－會計服務業調查報告

2.Becker, C., M Defond, J. Jiambalvo, and K. Subramanyam.1998. The effect of audit quality on earning management. Contemporary Accounting Research15:1-24.

5.DeAngelo, L.E. 1981.Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3（3）：183-199.

8.Dye,R.1993.Auditing standards, legal liability and auditor wealth. Journal of Political Economy 101：887-914.