【正文】 ge in the public policydebate in the recent years. This paper studies firms39。s accounting and auditing enforcement releases (AAER) over the period 19902000 make up the population studied. The SEC enforcement program investigates and takes subsequent injunctive actions or administrative proceedings against registrants and auditors who have violated the financial reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Feroz et al. (1991) point out that the SEC ranks and pursues targets according to the probability of success. This is because the SEC has more targets than it can practically pursue and formal investigations are both costly and highly visible. An example would be a group of cases where costs were understated in the previous financial statements, the SEC would only pursue the cases where it can demonstrate that management knew or should have known through better internal controls. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that AAER firms knowingly or intentionally engaged in accounting fraud.A. Sample The AAER database is used to extract all sample firms during the period 19902000. Since there are a large number of firms with multiple offenses, we only use their earliest offense as the event date due to the following reasons: previous events may have a residual carryover effect。金融丑聞降低投資者的信心,影響誠(chéng)信經(jīng)營(yíng)。如果會(huì)計(jì)欺詐行為可能引起管理層的人員流動(dòng)率,人們可以認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)機(jī)制已經(jīng)扮演至關(guān)重要的角色管教錯(cuò)誤管理。斯基林接任首席執(zhí)行官前首席執(zhí)行官Kenneth。什么影響會(huì)計(jì)欺詐對(duì)營(yíng)業(yè)額的公司的最高管理層?上面所有的例子似乎暗示一個(gè)明確的答案。阿格拉沃爾來說,1981 1992年期間Karpoff賈菲和研究(1999)疑似或因涉嫌公司欺詐。 Denis (1995)文檔,被迫辭職的頂級(jí)管理官員們往往有相當(dāng)明顯的操作性能下降,伴隨著大改進(jìn)他們的股價(jià)表現(xiàn)。比較AAER公司來控制公司表明,他們更可能陷入財(cái)務(wù)危機(jī),管理層的人員流動(dòng)率高得多。一個(gè)例子是一個(gè)組的病例中,成本在前面的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表低調(diào),SEC只會(huì)追求案例可以證明管理知道或者應(yīng)當(dāng)知道通過更好的內(nèi)部控制。最高管理層的成分(董事長(zhǎng),首席執(zhí)行官兼總裁),財(cái)務(wù)管理(CFO、司庫(kù)和控制器)和董事會(huì)在五年的事件窗口(2，2)是記錄。因此我們覺得前兩年管理層的人員流動(dòng)率是重要文件對(duì)于的每年AAER事件。你也必須謹(jǐn)慎的解釋該公司的管理層的人員流動(dòng)率AAER自會(huì)計(jì)欺詐行為之間的差距,證交會(huì)強(qiáng)制信息披露可能是漫長(zhǎng)的。記錄信息的管理層的人員流動(dòng)率這些291家公司,標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和貧窮。Feroz等(1991)指出,SEC的等級(jí)和追求目標(biāo)根據(jù)成功的可能性。我們也想文檔管理失誤的決定因素的多元邏輯回歸設(shè)置。在本文中,我們擴(kuò)展?fàn)I業(yè)額為三層分析:總管理層的人員流動(dòng)率(即董事長(zhǎng),首席執(zhí)行官、總裁、首席財(cái)務(wù)官、司庫(kù)和控制器),最高管理層的人員流動(dòng)率(即主席,首席執(zhí)行官,總裁)和金融管理營(yíng)業(yè)額(即首席財(cái)務(wù)官司庫(kù)和控制器)更長(zhǎng)事件窗口(2，2)。大量的會(huì)計(jì)錯(cuò)誤表明,公司的價(jià)值被夸大了,懷疑先前的財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表的準(zhǔn)確性。埃伯斯辭職。在那一年最高管理層的人員流動(dòng)率暗示不穩(wěn)的安然。學(xué)術(shù)界已經(jīng)討論如何有效防止高管的行為是從事會(huì)計(jì)欺詐。結(jié)果表明：企業(yè)logistic回歸最高管理層的人員流動(dòng)率密切相關(guān),SEC執(zhí)法行動(dòng)在控制了企業(yè)特有的特征。 financial statements.We hypothesize that AAER firms are more likely to be financially distressed and that they more frequently turn to fraudulent accounting practices in an attempt to meet earning expectations. Only after accounting fraud is detected by the SEC does it have a severe impact on the firm. The occurrence of SEC investigation generally signals poor accounting quality to investors, and stock prices can quickly reflect this negatively. A large amount of accounting error indicates that the firm value is overstated, casting doubt about the accuracy of previous financial statements. We hypothesize that boards of directors are more likely to replace management teams due to the following reasons: to recover reputation loss, to guarantee an unbiased SEC investigation, or to satisfy the anxious investors.Agrawal, Jaffe and Karpoff (1999) study firms suspected or charged with fraud during 19811992. Their study includes the following types of fraud: fraud against shareholders, fraud against government, financial reporting fraud and regulatory violations. They do not find systematic evidence of unusually high turnover among senior managers and directors. Even for financial fraud firms, they do not find higher top management and director turnover rates than control firms. Their findings are rather surprising since accounting fraud signals lower firm value and large fraud could be detrimental to shareholders’ interests. Retention of the old management team is not conducive to a smooth investigation by the SEC and may result in significant reputation losses. In this paper we extend turnover analysis to three levels: total management turnover (. Chairman, CEO, President, CFO, Treasurer and Controller), top management turnover (. Chairman, CEO, President) and financial management turnover (. CFO, Treasurer and Controller) over a longer event window (2, 2).Denis amp。M）著，公允價(jià)值會(huì)計(jì)舞弊新全球風(fēng)險(xiǎn)與偵察技術(shù)，上海復(fù)旦大學(xué)出版社，2010,6[16]O根據(jù)我國(guó)目前經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中會(huì)計(jì)誠(chéng)信問題的情況,和國(guó)外誠(chéng)信制度發(fā)展過程中的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和教訓(xùn),系統(tǒng)的考慮會(huì)計(jì)誠(chéng)信體系建設(shè)，并一步一步去實(shí)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)。加大股東，銀行等財(cái)務(wù)信息使用者和需求者參與監(jiān)督的可能性，包括定時(shí)召開股東會(huì)，監(jiān)事會(huì)，健全董事會(huì)、獨(dú)立董事制度、建立審計(jì)委員會(huì)等措施，維護(hù)中小股東利益。這樣，可提高會(huì)計(jì)人員在委派單位中的相對(duì)獨(dú)立性，在一定程度上，不受單位負(fù)責(zé)人違規(guī)違法的壓迫，充分展現(xiàn)會(huì)計(jì)的監(jiān)督作用。可以根據(jù)會(huì)計(jì)相關(guān)人員不同層次上的需求，給予相應(yīng)的激勵(lì)。那么，應(yīng)該完善會(huì)計(jì)準(zhǔn)則和會(huì)計(jì)制度，縮小會(huì)計(jì)政策的自由選擇度，減少主觀選擇度，減小財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)告粉飾的空間，適當(dāng)增加財(cái)務(wù)報(bào)表附注、鼓勵(lì)企業(yè)披露非財(cái)務(wù)信息、進(jìn)一步完善與嚴(yán)格規(guī)范關(guān)聯(lián)交易的披露、加強(qiáng)對(duì)現(xiàn)金流量信息的呈報(bào)和考核。（二）完善會(huì)計(jì)法規(guī)制度會(huì)計(jì)誠(chéng)信體系的建立和完善，有其自身的特殊性。那么公司的經(jīng)營(yíng)者往往對(duì)公司的了解程度更深，當(dāng)所有者與經(jīng)營(yíng)者利益發(fā)生沖突時(shí)，即委托代理雙方的效用函數(shù)不一致時(shí)，會(huì)計(jì)失信就會(huì)產(chǎn)生。（四）會(huì)計(jì)審計(jì)缺乏獨(dú)立性在我國(guó)，會(huì)計(jì)是屬于一個(gè)單位或企業(yè)的一部分，當(dāng)然會(huì)計(jì)就從屬于一個(gè)企業(yè)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。所以，應(yīng)該對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)失信制定明細(xì)的懲罰措施，加大懲罰力度，讓會(huì)計(jì)失信者身敗名裂。由此可見，當(dāng)實(shí)際收益小于兩倍的精神收益時(shí)，就會(huì)選擇會(huì)計(jì)誠(chéng)信；相反，當(dāng)實(shí)際收益大于兩倍的精神收益時(shí)，就會(huì)選擇會(huì)計(jì)失信。因此，可以用以下公式表示其相關(guān)關(guān)系：A=a1+a2+a3a3=m*pR=r*（1p）A是作假的總成本，a1是為作假而花費(fèi)的財(cái)物，a2是為作假而花費(fèi)的腦力體力，精力與時(shí)間，以及其他機(jī)會(huì)成本，a3是被查出后要付出的代價(jià)和成本。三、會(huì)計(jì)失信的原因分析（一）自身利益的驅(qū)動(dòng)會(huì)計(jì)失信的一個(gè)重要原因就是造假者追求自身利益，自身利益是會(huì)計(jì)失信的內(nèi)在驅(qū)動(dòng)力。在2011年，漢王科技，紫鑫藥業(yè)，綠大地等財(cái)務(wù)造假層出不窮，會(huì)計(jì)誠(chéng)信嚴(yán)重缺失，給中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)帶來了嚴(yán)重的損失，給股民也帶來了嚴(yán)重的損失。、利潤(rùn)不實(shí)2823萬(wàn)元，少繳各項(xiàng)稅款164萬(wàn)元。近些年來，國(guó)內(nèi)外發(fā)生的一系列會(huì)計(jì)造假事件引起了全社會(huì)對(duì)會(huì)計(jì)誠(chéng)信問題的關(guān)注。