本篇研究主要探討供應鏈會計師與公允價值保守之間的關聯性，台灣在實施國際財務報導準則第7號下，國際財務報導準則第7號規定企業應揭露金融工具於公允價值層級中所屬之等級。本篇之研究期間為2010年至2013年，使用之迴歸模型是由1997年Basu的研究模型做延伸，測試當企業衡量不同層級金融工具之公允價值時是否會更傾向公允價值保守，除此之外，測試由供應鏈會計師查核的企業在衡量不同層級金融工具之公允價值時是否會更傾向公允價值保守。本篇實證結果顯示台灣上市上櫃公司在衡量第二及第三層級金融工具時並不傾向保守；由供應鏈會計師查核的公司在衡量第一層級金融工具之公允價值時是更傾向公允價值保守的；而由供應鏈會計師查核的公司在衡量第二及第三層級金融工具之公允價值時並不傾向公允價值保守。

This study examines the associations between supply chain auditors and fair value conservatism. Under the implanting of IFRS7 which requires the companies disclose fair value hierarchy of financial instruments in the financial statements, this study investigates whether the companies will show more fair value conservatism based on disclosure of different fair value hierarchy. Furthermore, this paper discusses whether the companies will show more fair value conservatism when it was audited by supply chain auditors compare to non-supply-chain auditors. Using the data from 2010 to 2013, and the OLS regression model expanded from Basu’s research (1997). The empirical results indicate that the correlation between the measurement of level 2 and 3 financial instruments and fair value conservatism is negative in Taiwan listed companies. When companies audited by supply chain auditors, the correlation between the measurement in level 1 financial instruments and fair value conservatism is positive; The correlation between the measurement in level 2 and 3 financial instruments and fair value conservatism is negative. The findings imply that fair value conservatism is positive when recognizing fair value measurement of level 1 financial instruments.

1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis 5
2.1 Supply Chain Auditors 5
2.2 Fair Value Conservatism (Conditional Conservatism) 6
2.3 Supply Chain auditors and Fair Value Conservatism 8
3. Research Design 11
3.1 Data and Sample Selection 11
3.2 Model Design 11
3.3 Results 13
4. Empirical Results 15
4.1 Descriptive Statistics 15
4.2 Regression Results 15
5. Discussion and Conclusion 21
5.1 Conclusion 21
5.2 Limitations and Suggestions of the Study 23
References 25
Appendix 29
Tables 31

Agrawal, M. K. and Park, M. H. 2001. Getting smart about supply chain management. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 22-25.
Badia, M., Duro, M., Penalva, F., & Ryan, S. 2017. Conditionally conservative fair value measurements. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 63(1), 75-98.
Ball, R. and L. Shivakumar, 2005. Earnings quality in UK private firms: comparative loss recognition timeliness, Journal of Accounting and Economics 39, 83-128.
Basu, S. 1997. The conservatism principle and the asymmetric timeliness of earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 24(1), 3-37.
Beamon, B.M., 1998. Supply chain design and analysis: Models and methods. International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55(3), 281-294.
Black, J., Chen, J. Z., & Cussatt, M. 2017. The association between SFAS No. 157 fair value hierarchy information and conditional accounting conservatism. The Accounting Review, 93(5), 119-144.
Cachon, G. P. 2003. Supply chain coordination with contracts. Handbooks in operation and managements science: supply chain management, 11, 227-339
Christopher, M., 1998. Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Strategies for Reducing Cost and Improving Service. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Application, Vol. 2, No. 1, 103-104.
Chung, S. G., Lee, C., & Mitra, S. 2016. Fair Value Accounting and Reliability. The CPA Journal, 86(7), 60.
Cox, A., 1999. Power, value and supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4(4), 167-175.
Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., & Viaene, J. 2007. Innovation in food firms: contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(3), 209-226.
Holthausen, R. W., and R. L. Watts. 2001. The relevance of the value-relevance literature for financial accounting standard setting. Journal of Accounting and Economics 31(1): 3-57.
Johnstone, K. M., Li, C., & Luo, S. 2014. Client-auditor supply chain relationships, audit quality, and audit pricing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(4), 119-166..
LaFond, R., & Watts, R. L. 2008. The information role of conservatism. The Accounting Review, 83(2), 447-478.
Lambert, D.M. and M.C. Cooper, 2000. Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29(1), 65-83.
Pearson, M. and A. Samali, 2005. Offsite Solution Delivery Centers Increasingly Important to High-performance Supply Chains. Outlook Point of View, Vol. January.
Raman, K., & Shahrur, H. 2008. Relationship-specific investments and earnings management: Evidence on corporate suppliers and customers. The Accounting Review, 83(4), 1041-1081.
Ramanna, K, 2008. The implications of unverifiable fair-value accounting: Evidence from the political economy of goodwill accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45.2-3: 253-281.
Riedl, E. J., & Serafeim, G. 2011. Information risk and fair values: An examination of equity betas. Journal of Accounting Research, 49(4), 1083-1122.
Song, C. J., Thomas, W. B., & Yi, H. 2010. Value relevance of FAS No. 157 fair value hierarchy information and the impact of corporate governance mechanisms. The Accounting Review, 85(4), 1375-1410.
Watts, Ross L, 2003. Conservatism in accounting part I: Explanations and implications. Accounting Horizons, 17.3: 207-221.