Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği

Zeynep YAROĞLU, (Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye)
Ganite KURT (Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi, Bankacılık ve Sigortacılık Yüksekokulu, Ankara, Türkiye)
Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları
11 2
Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1 Sayfa Aralığı: 125 - 155 Metin Dili: Türkçe DOI: 10.29067/muvu.1243311 İndeks Tarihi: 10-03-2023

Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği

Öz:
Bu çalışma ile denetim kalitesi göstergeleri ve bir denetim kalitesi çerçevesi oluşturulup oluşturulamayacağı incelenmiştir. Genel kabul görmüş bir denetim kalitesi tanımının olmaması nedeniyle, denetim kalitesinin nasıl tanımlanacağı ve ölçüleceği tartışmaları akademisyenlerin ve düzenleyicilerin gündeminde yer almaktadır. Türkiye’deki literatürde yer alan çalışmalar bütüncül bir yaklaşım yerine denetim kalitesini bir açıdan ele alırken ya da yatırımcılar, denetim komiteleri ve denetçiler gibi paydaşların denetim kalitesi algısını ölçerken; herhangi bir düzenleyici kurum tarafından denetim kalitesi çerçevesi oluşturulmak üzere yürütülen denetim kalitesi göstergeleri projesi bulunmamaktadır. Borsa İstanbul’da İmalat sektöründe 2016 ve 2020 yılları arasında yer alan halka açık işletmelerden oluşan panel veriye ait analizin F- testi sonuçları, önerilen denetim kalitesi göstergeleri modelinin bir bütün olarak istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olduğunu göstermektedir. Analiz sonuçları, sorumlu ortak, etik ve bağımsızlık eğitim saati ve müşteri işletme büyüklüğü göstergelerinin denetim kalitesi (kar kalitesi) ile arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Ampirik sonuçlar teori ile tutarlı olduğu için, denetim kalitesini etkileyen muhtemel göstergelerin tümü önerilen denetim kalitesi modeline dahil edilmiştir. Düzenleyiciler, denetçiler, denetim komiteleri ve yatırımcılar için potansiyel ilgi alanını oluşturacak olan analiz bulguları, Türkiye'de bir denetim kalitesi projesi oluşturmanın önemini vurgulamaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: Denetim Kalitesi Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Kar Kalitesi

Audit Quality Indicators And A Proposed Model: Evidence From Borsa İstanbul

Öz:
In this study, it is examined whether and how the potential audit quality indicators constitute an audit quality framework. Since there is no generally accepted audit quality definition, the debate on how to define and measure audit quality remain on the agenda of both academicians and regulators. While existing research in Turkey approaches one aspect of audit quality (instead of holistic approach) or surveys perception of stakeholders such as investors, audit committees and auditors, there is no existing audit quality project in order to construct an audit quality framework by any Turkish regulatory body. Based on the panel data obtained from Borsa Istanbul Manufacturing Sector between 2016 and 2020, the empirical findings suggest that the overall F-test of the proposed audit quality model is statistically significant. The results also indicate that the relation between audit partner tenure, ethics and independence training hours and client size indicators and audit quality (earnings quality) are statistically significant. Since the empirical results are consistent with the theory, all possible indicators that will affect audit quality are included to the proposed audit quality model. Our findings highlight the importance of establishing an audit quality project in Turkey. The findings are of potential interest to regulators, professionals, audit committees and investors.
Anahtar Kelime: Audit Quality Audit Quality İndicators Earnings Quality

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Albersmann, B. T. & Quick, R. (2020). The impact of audit quality indicators on the timeliness of goodwill impairments: Evidence from the German setting. Abacus, 56(1), 66-103.
  • Ashbaugh, H., LaFond, R. & Mayhew, B. W. (2003). Do nonaudit services compromise auditor independence? Further evidence. The Accounting Review, 78(3), 611-639.
  • Asthana, S. C. & Boone, J. P. (2012). Abnormal audit fee and audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(3), 1-22.
  • Balsam, S., Krishnan, J. & Yang, J. S. (2003). Auditor industry specialization and earnings quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(2), 71-97.
  • Baltagi, B. H. & Baltagi, B. H. (2021). Econometric analysis of panel data. 6. Baskı, İsviçre: Springer Nature.
  • Becker, C. L., DeFond, M. L., Jiambalvo, J. & Subramanyam, K. R. (1998). The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1998.tb00547.x
  • Behn, K. B., Choi, J. H. & Kang, T. (2008). Audit quality and properties of analyst earnings forecasts. The Accounting Review, 83(2), 327–349.
  • Bell, T. B., Causholli, M. & Knechel, W. R. (2015). Audit firm tenure, non audit services, and internal assessments of audit quality. Journal of Accounting Research, 53(3), 461-509.
  • Boone, J. P., Khurana, I. K. & Raman, K. K. (2010). Do the Big 4 and the second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 29(4), 330-352.
  • Caramanis, C. & Lennox, C. (2008). Audit effort and earnings management. Journal of Accounting and Economics. 45, 116–138, DOI: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2007.05.002
  • Carcello, J. V. & Nagy, A. (2004b). Audit firm tenure and fraudulent financial reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Theory & Practice, 23(2), 55-69.
  • Carcello, J. V. & Nagy, A. L. (2004a). Client size, auditor specialization and fraudulent financial reporting. Managerial Auditing Journal, 19(5), 651-668.
  • Carcello, J. V., Hermanson, D. R., Neal, T. L. & Riley, R. A. (2002). Board characteristics and audit fees. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(3), 365–384. https://doi.org/10.1506/CHWK-GMQ0-MLKE-K03V.
  • Carcello, J. V., Hollingsworth, C. & Mastrolia, S. A. (2011). The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality. Research in Accounting Regulation, 23(2), 85-96.
  • Carey, P. & Simnett, R. (2006). Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 81(3), 653-676.
  • Carson, E. (2009). Industry specialization by global audit firm networks. The Accounting Review, 84(2), 355-382.
  • Chan, D. K. & Wong, K. P. (2002). Scope of auditors’ liability, audit quality, and capital investment. Review of Accounting Studies, 7(1), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017 983614986
  • Chang, X., Dasgupta, S. & Hikiry, G. (2009). The effect of auditor quality on financing decisions. The Accounting Review, 84(4), 1085–1117. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.4. 1085
  • Che, L., Langli, J. C. & Svanström, T. (2018). Education, experience, and audit effort. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(3), 91-115.
  • Chen, C. Y., Lin, C. J. & Lin, Y. C. (2008). Audit partner tenure, audit firm tenure, and discretionary accruals: Does long auditor tenure impair earnings quality?. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(2), 415-445.
  • Chen, Y. S., Chang, B. G. & Lee, C. C. (2008). The association between continuing professional education and financial performance of public accounting firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(9), 1720-1737.
  • Chen, Y. S., Yang, C. C. & Yang, Y. F. (2020). Higher academic qualifications, professional training and operating performance of audit firms. Sustainability, 12(3), 1254.
  • Choi, J. H, Kim, C. F., Kim, J-B & Zang, Y. (2010). Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 29(1), 73-97. DOI: 10.2308/aud.2010.29.1.73
  • Craswell, A. T., Francis, J. R. & Taylor, S. L. (1995). Auditor brand name reputations and industry specializations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 20, 297- 322.
  • DeAngelo, L. E. (1981a). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183-199.
  • DeAngelo, L. E. (1981b). Auditor independence, ’low balling’, and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(2), 113–127.
  • DeAngelo, L. E. (1986). Accounting numbers as market valuation substitutes: A study of management buyouts of public stockholders. The Accounting Review, 61(3), 400-420.
  • DeFond, M. L. & Lennox, C. S. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21-40.
  • DeFond, M. L., Francis, J. R. & Wong, T. J. (2000). Auditor industry specialization and market segmentation: Evidence from Hong Kong. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 19(1), 49-66.
  • DeFond, M. L., Raghunandan, K. & Subramanyam, K. R. (2002). Do non–audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247-1274.
  • DeFond, M. & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014. 09.002
  • Detzen, D. & Gold, A. (2021). The different shades of audit quality: A review of the academic literature. Maandblad Voor Accountancy en Bedrijfseconomie, 95(1/2), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.5117/mab.95.60608
  • Francis, J. R. (2004). What Do We Know About Audit Quality?. The British Accounting Review, 36(4), 345-368.
  • Francis, J. R. (2022). Going Big, Going Small: A Perspective on Strategies for Researching Audit Quality. The British Accounting Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2022.101167.
  • Francis, J. R. & Yu, M. D. (2009). Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1521-1552.
  • Francis, J. R., Maydew, E. L. & Sparks, H. C. (1999). The Role of Big 6 Auditors in the Credible Reporting of Accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice& Theory. 18(2), 17-34.
  • GAO. (2003). Public Accounting Firms: Required study on the potential effects of mandatory audit firm rotation. GAO-04-216. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Web: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04216.pdf adresinden 22 Kasım 2019’da alınmıştır.
  • Gaynor, L. M., Kelton, A. S., Mercer, M. & Yohn, T. L. (2016). Understanding the relation between financial reporting quality and audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(4), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51453
  • General Accounting Office (GAO). (2003). Public Accounting Firms: Mandated study on consolidation and competition. GAO-03-864. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office. Web: https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03864.pdf adresinden 10 Ekim 2019’da alınmıştır.
  • Ghosh, A. & Moon, D. (2005). Auditor tenure and perceptions of audit quality. The Accounting Review, 80(2), 585-612.
  • Gramling, A. A., Krishnan, J. & Zhang, Y. (2011). Are PCAOB- identified audit deficiencies associated with a change in reporting decisions of triennially inspected audit firms?. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(3), 59-79.
  • Greene, W.H. (2012). Econometric Analysis, 7.Baskı, Boston: Pearson Education Limited.
  • Gul, F. A., Lynn, S. G. & Tsui, J. S. L. (2002). Audit Quality, Management Ownership, and the Informativeness of Accounting Earnings. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 17(1), 25–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X0201700102
  • Gunny, K. A. & Zhang, T. C. (2013). PCAOB inspection reports and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 32(2), 136-160.
  • Hay, D. (2020). The Future of Auditing. 1. Baskı, Oxon: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  • Hunt, J. O., Rosser, D. M. & Rowe, S. P. (2021). Using machine learning to predict auditor switches: How the likelihood of switching affects audit quality among non-switching clients. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 40(5), 106785.
  • International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2014). A Framework For Audit Quality: Key Elements That Create An Environment For Audit Quality. New York: International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. Web: https://www.ifac.org/system/files/publications/files/A-Framework-for-Audit-Quality-Key-Elements-that-Create-an-Environment-for-Audit-Quality-2.pdf adresinden 9 Aralık 2019’da alınmıştır.
  • Ireland, J. C. & Lennox, C. S. (2002). The large audit firm fee Premium: A case of selectivity bias?. Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance, 17(1), 73-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X0201700104.
  • Jenkins, D. S. & Velury, U. (2008). Does auditor tenure influence the reporting of conservative earnings? Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 27, 115-132.
  • Jensen, M. C. & Meckling, W.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
  • Johnson, V. E., Khurana, I. K. & Reynolds, J. K. (2002). Audit firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research, 19(4), 637-660.
  • Jones, J. J. (1991). Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigations. Journal of Accounting Research, 29(2), 193-228.
  • Kang, M., Lee, H. Y., Son, M. & Stein, M. (2017). The association between human resource investment by audit firms and their audit quality. Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics, 24(3-4), 249-271.
  • Kaplan, E. A., Güler, İ. & Kıraç, İ. (2022). Nitel tercih modeli ile uluslararası göç, istihdam ve mobil telefon abonelikleri ilişkisi: AB aday ülkeler kapsamında bir uygulama. Anadolu Kültürel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 6(1), 16-30.
  • Khurana, I. K., Lundstrom, N. G. & Raman, K. K. (2021). PCAOB inspections and the differential audit quality effect for Big 4 and non–Big 4 US auditors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(1), 376-411.
  • Kilgore, A., Harrison, G. & Radich, R. (2014). Audit quality: what’s important to users of audit services. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(9), 776-799. doi: 10.1108/MAJ-08-2014-1062
  • Kim, J. B., Chung, R. & Firth, M. (2003). Auditor Conservatism, Asymmetric Monitoring, and Earnings Management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 20(2), 323-359.
  • Knechel, W. R. (2009). Audit lessons from the economic Crisis: Rethinking audit quality. Açılış Dersi Konuşması. Hollanda: Maastricht University. https://doi.org/10.26481/spe. 20090911rk
  • Knechel, W. R. (2016). Audit quality and regulation. International Journal of Auditing. 20(3), 215-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12077
  • Kothari, S. P., Leone, A. J. & Wasley, C. E. (2005). “Performance matched discretionary accrual measures”. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(1), 163-197.
  • Krishnan, G. V. (2003a). Audit quality and the pricing of discretionary accruals. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 22(1), 109-126.
  • Krishnan, G. V. (2003b). Does Big 6 auditor industry expertise constrain earnings management?. Accounting Horizons, 17, 1-16.
  • Krishnan, J. & Shauer, P. C. (2000). The differentiation of quality among auditors: Evidence from the not-for-profit sector. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. 19(2), 9-25.
  • Krishnan, J., Krishnan, J. & Song, H. (2017). PCAOB international inspections and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 92(5), 143-166.
  • Kwon, S. Y., Lim, C. Y. & Tan, P. M. S. (2007). Legal systems and earnings quality: The role of auditor industry specialization. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(2), 25-55.
  • Lang, M. & Lundholm, R. (1993). Cross-sectional determinants of analyst ratings of corporate disclosures. Journal of Accounting Research, 31(2), 246-271.
  • Lawrence, A., Minutti-Meza, M. & Zhang, P. (2011). Can Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 Differences in Audit-Quality Proxies Be Attributed to Client Characteristics?. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 259-286. DOI: 10.2308/accr.00000009
  • Lennox, C. (1999). Are large auditors more accurate than small auditors? Accounting and Business Research. 29(3). 217-227, DOI: 10.1080/00014788.1999.9729582
  • Litt, B., Sharma, D. S., Simpson, T. & Tanyi, P. N. (2014). Audit partner rotation and financial reporting quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(3), 59-86.
  • Lo, A. W., Lin, K. Z. & Wong, R. M. (2022). Does availability of audit partners affect audit quality? Evidence from China. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 37(2), 407-439.
  • Manry, D. L., Mock, T. J. & Turner, J. L. (2008). Does increased audit partner tenure reduce audit quality?. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 23(4), 553-572.
  • Menon, K. & Williams, D. (1994). The insurance hypothesis and market prices. The Accounting Review, 69(2), 327-342.
  • Moizer, P. (1992). State of the art in audit market research. European Accounting Review, 1(2), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638189200000026
  • Moizer, P. (1997). Auditor reputation: The international empirical evidence. International Journal of Auditing. 1(1), 61-74.
  • Morris, R. D. (1987). Signaling, agency theory and accounting policy choice. Accounting and Business Research, 18(69), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1987.9729347
  • Mulford, C. W. & Comiskey, E. E. (2002). The Financial Numbers Game: Detecting Creative Accounting Practices. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
  • Myers, J. N., Myers, L. A. & Omer, T. C. (2003). Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation?. The Accounting Review, 78 (3), 779-799.
  • Newton, N. J., Wang, D. & Wilkins, M. S. (2013). Does a lack of choice lead to lower quality? Evidence from auditor competition and client restatements. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(3), 31-67.
  • Ocak, M., Ozkan, S. & Can, G. (2022). Continuing professional education and audit quality: evidence from an emerging market. Asian Review of Accounting, 30(4), 432-464.
  • Palmrose, Z. V. (1986). Audit fees and auditor size: Further evidence. Journal of Accounting Research, 24(1), 97-110.
  • Palmrose, Z. V. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63(1), 55–73.
  • PCAOB (2013). Standing Advisory Group Meeting Discussion – Audit quality indicators. Web: https://pcaobus.org/News/Events/Documents/05152013_SAGMeeting/Audit _Quality_Indicators.pdf adresinden 24 Mayıs 2017’de alınmıştır.
  • PCAOB (2015). Concept Release on Audit Quality Indicators. PCAOB Release No. 2015-005. Web: http://pcaobus.org/Rules/Rulemaking/Docket%20041/Release_2015_005 .pdf adresinden 28 Nisan 2016’da alınmıştır.01
  • Rajgopal, S., Srinivasan, S. & Zheng, X. (2021). Measuring audit quality. Review of Accounting Studies, 26, 559–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-020-09570-9
  • Smieliauskas W. J., Bewley K. & Robertson J. C. (2013). Auditing: An international approach. McGraw-Hill Ryerson. 6. Baskı. Web: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:J0uJofTSKtUJ:canmedia.mcgrawhill.ca/college/olcsupport/smieliauskas/7e/appendices/SB7e_Appendix_1B.pdf+&cd=5&hl=tr&ct=clnk&gl=tr&client=firefox-b-d adresinden 19 Mayıs 2020’de alınmıştır.
  • Stanley, J. & DeZoort, F. (2007). Audit firm tenure and financial restatements: An analysis of industry specialization and fee effects. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 26, 131-159.
  • Sundgren, S. & Svanström, T. (2013). Audit office size, audit quality and audit pricing: Evidence from small- and medium-sized enterprises. Accounting and Business Research, 43(1), 31-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2012.691710
  • Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi Stata Uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi.
  • Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2016). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi/Stata Uygulamalı. İstanbul: Beta Basım.
  • Tritschler, J. (2014). Audit Quality: Association between published reporting errors and audit firm characteristics. (1. Baskı). Almanya: Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1017/978-3-658-04174-8
  • Unerman, J. & O’Dwyer, B. (2004). Enron, WorldCom, Andersen et al.: A challenge to modernity. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 15 (6–7), 971–93.
  • Wallace, W. (1980). The Economic Role of the Audit in Free and Regulated Markets. 2. Baskı. Virginia, ABD: Open Education Resources (OER).
  • Watts, R. L. & Zimmerman, J. L. (1983). Agency Problems, auditing, and the theory of the firm: some evidence. The Journal of Law and Economics, 3(26), 613-633.
  • Yükçü, S. & Koçakoğlu, Ö. (2016). Halka açık şirketler muhasebe gözetim kurulu (Public company accounting oversight board- PCAOB) denetim kalitesi göstergeleri. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 18 (Özel Sayı-1), 265-293.
APA YAROĞLU Z, Kurt G (2023). Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. , 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
Chicago YAROĞLU Zeynep,Kurt Ganite Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. (2023): 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
MLA YAROĞLU Zeynep,Kurt Ganite Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. , 2023, ss.125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
AMA YAROĞLU Z,Kurt G Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. . 2023; 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
Vancouver YAROĞLU Z,Kurt G Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. . 2023; 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
IEEE YAROĞLU Z,Kurt G "Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği." , ss.125 - 155, 2023. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
ISNAD YAROĞLU, Zeynep - Kurt, Ganite. "Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği". (2023), 125-155. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1243311
APA YAROĞLU Z, Kurt G (2023). Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları, 16(1), 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
Chicago YAROĞLU Zeynep,Kurt Ganite Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları 16, no.1 (2023): 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
MLA YAROĞLU Zeynep,Kurt Ganite Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları, vol.16, no.1, 2023, ss.125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
AMA YAROĞLU Z,Kurt G Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları. 2023; 16(1): 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
Vancouver YAROĞLU Z,Kurt G Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları. 2023; 16(1): 125 - 155. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
IEEE YAROĞLU Z,Kurt G "Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği." Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları, 16, ss.125 - 155, 2023. 10.29067/muvu.1243311
ISNAD YAROĞLU, Zeynep - Kurt, Ganite. "Denetim Kalitesi Göstergeleri Ve Bir Model Önerisi: Borsa İstanbul Örneği". Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları 16/1 (2023), 125-155. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1243311
Sayfa Oluşturulma Tarihi
24-04-2024 6:5

İLETİŞİM

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR Dizin

Yüzüncüyıl, İşçi Blokları Mahallesi

Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Caddesi No:51/C

06530 Çankaya / ANKARA +90 (312) 298 92 00

trdizin@tubitak.gov.tr

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM Ulusal Akademik Ağ ve Bilgi Merkezi Cahit Arf Bilgi Merkezi © Tüm Hakları Saklıdır. Gizlilik Politikası Kullanım Şartları