时间：2022-05-23 11:28:49
Abstract. The assets valuation industry in China is the product， which comes from the reform and open policy and the development of the socialist market economy. Under more than 20 years of development which begins to bud in the beginning of the nineteen nineties， the assets valuation industry has become the indispensable Intermediary trade of the socialist market economy system in China. With the scale of assets valuation agency enlarging and its rapidly growing business in recent years， however， some problems have been exposed gradually， which harm the social image of the industry of asset valuation seriously. So the social public and the relevant administrative departments pay close attention on the quality of the asset valuation. To know about what are the essential causes that affect the assets valuation industry managers' decision， this paper， through using some means which include literature research， interview and questionnaire investigation and utilizing the method of the factor analysis， relegates 24 questions which come from some answers of the respondents to three factors which are the practicing quality factor， the sting factor of an organization and the internal management factor of valuation organization. Furthermore， it will analyze the features of these factors which are divided into two factors that are internal motivation and external motivation， looking for the key cause of the assets valuation industry quality problem of China which purposes in order to promote the healthy development of valuation profession and much better standard the internal quality of valuation industry of China.
Key words： Valuation Industry； Quality Problem； Factor Analysis
1. Introduction
In recent years， China's asset evaluation industry about quality issues research has also made a considerable progress. International and domestic academic quality asset appraisal industry have done a lot of researches and explorations， and achieved success. However， from the existing literature documentary， the existing literature on asset appraisal industry is not in-depth study of quality problems， mostly focusing on the theoretical analysis， which can only provide limited reference value for its practitioners and regulators. The author of this article made an in-depth field research on the asset evaluation industry quality system， in order to provide direct evidence. In addition， this study can be used as regulators and practitioners of reference.
Therefore， this paper will use the following methods of factor analysis of asset evaluation industry to standardize the quality of analysis and empirical research， in order to be able to asset evaluation industry regulators and practitioners provide direct reference.
2. Survey and sample characteristics
This study of the quality problems of assets valuation industry is based on a comprehensive， objective， fair and prudent principle. As of December 31， 2011， picking 90 asset managers and practitioners of 85 asset valuation industries from Xinjiang， Beijing， Shanxi， Anhui and other four places as study objects of this assessment questionnaire. All questionnaires are used to collect anonymous data of both sample enterprises and both large asset evaluation agencies， including small and medium sized asset valuation agencies. With the help of friends， classmates and related business people， 90 questionnaires were distributed， among which 73 were returned， as a result， the response rate was 81.11%. Bound by no serious answer， not exactly answer the questionnaire， 69 questionnaires were valid and the efficiency is 94.52%. The respondents were with a positive attitude and they fill in earnest， which has laid a good foundation of our post-questionnaire.
In general， respondents’ background characteristics， age characteristics， occupational status characteristics --- the longer their working life is， the greater their ages are， the higher their positions are， and the richer their asset valuation experience will be； the characteristics of the surveyed areas --- the more developed their regional economies are， the stronger the asset evaluators can accept things， the more extensive and more abundant their experience will be， and the higher the quality will be； respondents characterized the unit size - the larger the unit is， the more widely the evaluators can handle business knowledge， and the richer their experience will be； respondents academic characteristics --- the higher their education level is， the higher the quality of personnel will be， able to better understand and recognize the quality of our asset evaluation industry issues so that they can better evaluate and judge its quality the level of the conclusions of the questionnaire and be more representative.
3. Motives of the quality problems of
asset valuation industry
This paper surveys by means of the literature review and interviews， the first attempt of the proposed 24 factors， referred to herein as motivation variables （Table 1）， followed by using SPSS17.0 and EXCEL2007， combined with descriptive statistics and measurement reliability analysis method of testing the questionnaire letter degree and content validity， while using exploratory factor analysis method to extract factors and conduct research and analysis.
3.1 The reliability and validity testing of the questionnaires
In this paper， the obtained information of asset appraisers evaluate and judge the quality of our asset evaluation industry factors in reliability analysis of the 69 valid questionnaires， 24 variables krone motivation Bach （Cronb-ach） α coefficient values ② is 0.7467， greater than 0.6， to achieve an acceptable level （Carmines & Zeller， 1979）， which indicates that the questionnaire reliability is quite good.
This questionnaire validity test used the content validity analysis proposed by Li Ying， etc. （2012）， selecting the sum of the individual and the correlation coefficient to measure the validity of the questionnaire， which is calculated for each item score and total score correlation coefficient. If the correlation coefficient is not significant， it indicates that the project has a low discernment， and vice versa. The total amount of each individual is highly associated with the comparatively （Table 1）， indicating that the analysis of the reliability issues in factor.
Subsequent test of spherical KMO-Bartlett showed that Bartlett spherical test P = 0.000， which can explain the correlation coefficient matrix and the unit matrix have a significant difference. Meanwhile， KMO = 0.881， based on metrics that KMO， this variable is suitable for the motivation factor analysis in this article.
3.2 Analysis on exploratory factors
In this paper， Hotelling （1933） proposed principal component analysis （PCA） and Comrey （1978） proposed KMO - Bartlett test of sphericity of the quality of our asset evaluation industry issues motivation for exploratory factor analysis.
3.2.1 Analysis of results
On the quality of our asset evaluation industry motive for exploratory factor analysis found that the scale KMO is 0.881， Bartlett's test of sphericity P = 0.000， indicating that the correlation matrix and the matrix are significant differences， rejected the correlation matrix for the hypothesis matrix， thus satisfying the condition of the factor analysis.
3.2.2 Analysis of factors
3.2.2.1 Internal management factors of assessment agency
The variance contribution rate of internal management factor of assessment agency is the largest among the three common factors. The factor is determined by the internal quality control system or no effective implementation of non-payment of dues groups. There are significant financial management issues， unprofessional， branch management confusion， the internal management structure of asset valuation and other factor six motivation variables.
3.2.2.2 Certified quality factors
Site verification procedures often have an important impact on the quality problems of asset valuation industry in China. Certified quality factors behind the internal management factors of asset valuation agencies have explained 30% of all the variables， and the largest factor loadings " on-site verification procedures are not standardized " （R = 0.859） of motivational variables affect the quality of our asset valuation industry， which is derived from Table 1. The quality factors of “on-site verification procedures are not standardized” （mean = 3.76） of the mean maximum motivation variable have demonstrated this fact. Quality factors respectively， by practicing basic content of the worksheet incomplete assessment report content and format incomplete or not standardized， on-site verification procedures are not standard， the lack of three review， in violation of asset valuation practices， the report issued by major omissions， no working papers ， allowing others in order to issue a report on behalf of the institution， in violation of intangible assets evaluation criteria， other factors such as the quality of practice 10 variables constitute a motive， and the high degree of correlation （ Table 1 ）. According to the point of view in this research of quality problems of China's asset valuation industry， quality problems caused by one important factor is the practicing quality factor， obtained by the two quality factor of the " basic contents of the worksheet incomplete " （ 3.47 ） ， "Field verification procedures are not standard " （ 3.76 ） ， "breach of assets Appraisal Practice " （ 3.52 ） ， "There is no working papers " （ 3.68 ） ， " which allows others to issue a report on behalf of the organization " （ 3.74 ） ， "breach of intangible assets evaluation guidelines " （ 3.19 ） ， " quality of practice and other factors " （ 3.71 ） and other seven motive variables that affect the quality of our asset valuation industry， and further in accordance with the mean size from large to sort results ： " site verification procedures are not standard " （ 3.76 ） >" allow others to issue a report on behalf of the organization " （ 3.74 ） >" practice quality and other factors " （ 3.71 ） >" No working Papers " （ 3.68 ） >" breach of assets Appraisal practice " （ 3.52 ） >" basic content of working papers incomplete " （ 3.47 ） >" breach of intangible Assets Valuation Standards " （ 3.19 ） the result of " on-site verification procedures are not standard "（R = 0.859）>" allow others to issue in the name of the institution report "（R = 0.892）>" practice quality and other factors "（R = 0.882）>" no working Papers "（R = 0.871）>" violation of assets Appraisal practice "（R = 0.779）>" basic content of working papers incomplete "（R = 0.774）>" violation of intangible assets evaluation criteria "（R = 0.753）.
3.2.2.3 Established factors of rating agencies
The variance contribution rate of established factors of rating agencies is 27.215%， referring to the interpretation of this variable intensity of 27%. The factor is composed by eight variable motivations， such as the insufficient number of registered value， institutional investors and franchise partners are not eligible， full-time staff employed within the underrepresented age， name of institution does not meet the requirements， the registered capital or capital deficiency， concurrently institutions without Evaluation Department， no fixed office space， and rating agencies established by other factors， mainly reflecting the rating agencies on the establishment of asset evaluation industry quality problems.
4. Revisited motives of quality problems of asset valuation industry
4.1 The descriptive statistics of quality problems of asset valuation industry
4.1.1 Mean analysis
As shown in Table 5. Among them， the rating agencies internal management factors （mean = 3.35）， practicing quality factor （mean = 3.32） the top two， which means that respondents believe that these factors on the quality of our asset evaluation industry influence is "relatively important"； the rating agencies established factors mean minimum （mean = 3.09）， indicating that respondents believe that the number of registered value， whether from lack of institutional investors and franchise partners are not eligible， full-time job within age insufficient number of practitioners， institutional name compliance perspective， or from the lack of registered capital or capital contributions， concurrently institutions without evaluation Department， no fixed work place， the rating agencies established in the perspective of other factors， for its assessment of asset quality issues affecting the industry is not so important.
4.1.2 Correlation analysis
This article further studies the correlation coefficient among common factors， as shown in Table 4. The common factors （Cronbach） α values are greater than the acceptable level of 0.7， and other factors are much larger than the correlation coefficient， which indicates the reliability degree of questionnaires is quite good， with 5.1 questionnaire reliability and validity testing that "24 motivation variables krone Bach （Cronbach） α coefficient is 0.7467， greater than 0.6， to achieve an acceptable level （Carmines & Zeller ， 1979）， indicating that the reliability of the questionnaire is quite good， "the conclusion is consistent， and also shows that it has a certain amount of discriminant validity， internal consistency factor is higher.
4.2 The regression analysis on motivation of quality problems of asset valuation industry
4.2.1 The regression analysis of sociodemographic variables
To further explore the issue of asset valuation industry quality motives， this paper adopts a linear regression analysis， which was proposed by Francis Galton （1889）， to investigate sociodemographic variables on different levels， the quality of our asset valuation industry issues among the three factors， that practice quality factor， the established factors in rating agencies， the internal management causal relationship between the factors in rating agencies. Table 5 shows social statistical variables （gender， region， age， unit size， occupational status， practicing age， educational level） of the seven dimensions as independent variables to the quality of our asset evaluation industry Motivation Scale 3 factor as the dependent variable linear regression analysis.
4.2.2 Motivation regression analysis on the variable itself
For these three common factors， that is， for practicing quality factor， the rating agencies established factors， the rating agencies internal management factors such as the three common factors， the paper operates a comprehensive judgment， further analysis of the intrinsic relationship among the three common factors as well as the quality of our asset evaluation industry issues of interpretation and set up the following model for analysis：
Y=β0+β1X1+β2 X2+β3 X3+ε
Where， Y is a comprehensive motivation which affects the quality of our asset valuation industry. Xi is a motivation factor which affects the quality of our asset valuation industry.
4.2.2.1 The calculation of composite score
First， deriving the three factor scores from the factor score coefficient matrix （data not shown）， based on the variance of each factor contribution of the original message， to determine the weight of the composite index， with common factor scores， for each sample calculate the weighted average composite score， the formation of the equation is as follows：
FAC1=0.320×Branchmanagement confusion+0.028×A material omissionreport+0.004×Other factors of Rating agenciesestablishment...................................................................（1）
FAC2=-0.025×Branchmanagement confusion+0.132×A material omissionreport-0.068×Other factors of Rating agenciesestablishment...................................................................（2）
FAC3=0.037×Branchmanagement confusion-0.415×A material omissionreport+0.029×Other factors of Rating agenciesestablishment...................................................................（3）
F=■.....（4）
F is the value of the original variable composite score， FACi are common factors. Use of the above four formulas can be calculated for each factor score and the original variables corresponding composite score F value.
4.2.2.2 Regression analysis
The above score results used in the model were regressed into different explanatory variables can be found （shown in Table 6）， with each factor in the load scores biggest motivation variable regression A， showed that external motivation and internal motivation of all factors were significantly higher； this regression B， consistent with the results that each regression in B were higher significant factors.
5. Conclusion
This article attempts to provide research on motives methods of quality problems in asset valuation industry to facilitate asset valuation industry practitioners and regulators to judge， risk control and effective supervision， thus improving the quality of our asset valuation industry. Meanwhile， in order to more effectively regulate the quality of our asset valuation industry， to promote its international asset appraisal industry standards， we should， firstly， strengthen internal management aspects of the asset valuation institution. Secondly， we should strengthen the rating agencies to do a good job on internal management， and strengthen the quality of the construction practice， based on the re-establishment of rating agencies to strengthen aspects of the building， while rating agencies should strengthen internal management aspects of the building， the quality of practice， and strengthen the rating agencies established aspects of the building effectively， so in balance， combine to enhance the overall quality of our asset evaluation industry.
5.1 Strengthen integrity and professional ethics
From the above analysis we can see that in violation of professional ethics within the organization is the primary factor of leading quality in the management of asset valuation industry， thus we should enhance internal management in assessment agencies of construction. First， we should start from strengthening the integrity and professional ethics construction.
5.2 Provide effective rectification against the behavior of non-payment of dues for organizations
The above factors showed that the non-payment of dues is the second largest factor to assess the institutional bodies that affect the internal management of the quality of our asset valuation industry. Thus， we should enhancing the assessment of in-house construction management and strengthen the integrity and professional ethics construction.
5.3 Establish an effective quality control system of asset valuation
According to the empirical analysis， which showed that no internal quality control system or ineffective implementation is the third major factor of the internal management of the organization which has an impact on the quality of our asset valuation industry？ Therefore， we should enhance the assessment of in-house construction management， and do a good job in strengthening integrity and professional ethics， in order to establish an effective quality control system.
5.4 Standardize the on-site verification procedures of asset valuation industry
The above analysis showed that the unstandelized practice quality of the on-site verification procedures is the primary factor that caused quality problems of asset valuation industry. As a result， we should enhance the quality of asset valuation industry. Specifically， first， we should establish strict on-site verification procedures of asset valuation industry. Second， we should strengthen the supervision department of the asset evaluation industry's on-site verification procedure.
5.5 Provide effective revamp against the behavior that allowing others to issue a report on behalf of the rating agencies
As we can see from the above analysis， the behavior that allowing others to issue a report on behalf of the rating agencies is the second largest factor that affects the quality of asset valuation industry. Thus， we should enhance the quality of the construction practice to standardize asset valuation industry-site verification procedures.
5.6 Strengthen the revamp against no working papers or working papers with incomplete content
According to the empirical analysis that there are no working papers， or， working papers and other acts of the basic content is incomplete in practice quality has an important impact on the assessment of asset valuation industry. Thus we should enhance the quality of the construction practice in efforts to standardize asset valuation industry site verification procedures， which allow others to assess agency reports. Specifically， we should establish a strict reviewing regulatory system against "no working papers" or "basic contents of the worksheet are incomplete" and other acts.
5.7 Adequacy assessment on the registered capital of agencies
From the above analysis we know that the lack of registered capital is the primary factor led to quality problems of rating agencies establishment in asset evaluation industry. Thus， we should enhance the aspects of rating agencies establishment in the asset valuation industry. First of all， we should start from the contribution of adequacy assessment body of registered capital. Specifically， first， the rating agencies can make adequacy assessment towards agencies by way of bank loans to the registered capital. Secondly， the rating agencies can make adequacy assessment through the issuance of company stock. Again， the rating agencies can be financed through the issuance of corporate bonds way to the registered capital adequacy assessment agency or capital.
5.8 Strengthen the revamp against franchise partner of investors and rating agencies which are not eligible or have no fixed office space and other acts.
The above factor analysis showed that the franchisee investors and partners are not eligible， and with no fixed office space is the second and the third largest factor of quality problems of institutional asset valuation industry. Thus we should enhance the establishment of rating agencies to make adequate assessment of agency registered capital.
5.9 Strengthen the evaluation team construction of evaluators and CPV.
According to the empirical analysis， the shortage of employees within the age of full-time staff is an important factor for institutions to establish our asset valuation industry. Thus， we should enhance the rating agencies establishment， in good enough rating agencies registered capital or capital， and based on the strengthening of the franchise partner of investors and rating agencies which are not eligible， we should still strengthen the internal evaluators， CPV peer evaluation team construction.
In addition， apart from the few suggestions above to improve the quality of our asset valuation industry， we should also take other measures， such as the establishment of an effective regulatory system of asset valuation practices， the establishment of an effective system of three-review asset valuation and specification， or complete asset valuation report content and format.
6. Acknowledgement
This article was financially supported by the National Natural Science Fund Project "Financial Development， heterogeneous debt and capital allocation efficiency" （Grant NO. 71262007） and the National Treasury "national asset evaluation leader （reserve） personnel" phased research project.
References
[1] Fangfang Jia. Assess the quality of our asset Economic Perspective [D]. Hebei Agricultural University， master's degree thesis， 2005.
[2] Jiachun Le. Asset valuation you really know how much？ [N]. Shanghai Securities News， 2005 -10-25.
[3] Junze Wang. A numbers game？ - Look to settle their debts from assets evaluation [N]. Securities Times，2002-5-22.
[4] Yinghua Jiang. Asset evaluation should prevent overestimation [N]. Securities Market Weekly， 2000-2005 -1-29.
[5] Yinghong Li. Asset evaluation industry in need of specification - Summarization of asset evaluation industry [N]. Securities Times，2002-5-22.
[6] Hotelling，H.Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components.Journal of Educational，Psychology，1933，24：417～520.
[7] Comrey，mon methodological problems in factor analytic studies.Journal of Clinical and Consulting，Psychology，1978，46（4）：648～659.
[8] Galton， F. ，Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature.Nature，1889，15： 246～263.
上一篇：Behavioral Finance Theory and Its Applicati... 下一篇：The Gap and Bridge between the Cultivation ...