Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija

The aim of this research is analyzing the audit expectation gap in Vietnam. The research result has identified that there are many differences between the auditors’ and the financial-statement users’ opinions about the auditors’ responsibilities. Most of research results about the auditors’ responsibilities show that the perception of financial-statement user regarding to auditors’ responsibilities has been higher than the auditors’, which is the reason for the wide audit expectation gap in Vietnam. Based on the research result, some reasons for the audit expectation gap are listed: the auditors have not fully performed their responsibilities based on the current regulations, the current standards on auditing have not been reasonable, and the most important reason is because the financial-statement users have high expectations (unrealistic expectations) of auditors’ responsibilities. Moreover, based on this research result, some related recommendations have been suggested and they are hoped to provide the useful references for the corporations, the government, auditors and fundraisers to enhance the quality of the financial statements and provide the useful information for the users.

Modern corporate governance standards and principles is becoming vital issues in developing countries such as Vietnam, China, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, etc. The 2006 Taiwan Conference on Corporate Governance showed current company system needs not only back-end CG solution such as “golden parachute” but also internal mechanisms. There are also a few researches which have been done in the field of international corporate governance standards. This paper chooses a different analytical analysis style and among its aims is to give some certain systematic conclusions on China corporate governance (CG) system. First, it separates China standards into two (2) groups: China 2001 and Taiwan 2002 CG principles covered in group 1 and, group 2, including corporate governance principles from Hong Kong conclusion paper and KPMG guides, while it uses OECD principles as reference. Next, it separated independent contents with analysis and identified differences between these above set of standards which are and have been encouraged to use as reference principles for many organizations. In addition to, it aims to build a selected China comparative set of standards for corporate governance system in the post-crisis and scandal time. Last but not least, this paper illustrates some ideas and policy suggestions in order to overcome obstacles in China corporate governance system such as: insider trading, false financial reporting and concentration of state ownership.