A partir des années 1970, la remise en cause du système monétaire des parités fixes entraine l'apparition de risques nouveaux sur les marchés, et conduit les opérateurs financiers à rechercher de nouvelles techniques pour en maitriser les effets : les premiers instruments financiers dérivés naissent de cette volonté. Pour autant, au moment de reconnaitre juridiquement ces instruments, le législateur quant à lui ne prévoit aucune qualification ni définition précises et adopte la technique peu concluante de l'énumération. Ce qui laisse présager que les dérivés ne peuvent fonder une notion juridique unitaire mais constituent simplement l'addition de modèles financiers hétérogènes. Dès lors, la recherche de la nature juridique du dérivé se doit de démontrer sa spécificité en tant qu'instrument de transfert du risque financier à part entière et le caractériser par rapport aux autres familles de contrats nommés. En outre, si le dérivé opère un transfert de risque, il s'avère lui-même générateur d'un risque spécifique, à la fois pour les parties qui le concluent et pour les tiers en relation avec ces dernières: par ses attributs intrinsèques, il est donc fondamentalement porteur de risque pour le système financier dans son ensemble. La nécessité de reconnaitre ce risque et de le contrôler étroitement se pose alors en objectif impérieux. / From 1970s, the questioning of the monetary system of the fixed parities causes the appearance of new risks on markets, and leads financial players to look for new techniques to master the effects: the first derivative financial instruments arise from this will. However, at the time of recognizing legally these instruments, the legislator as for him plans no precise qualification and no definition and adopts the little decisive technique of the enumeration. What leads to predict that derivatives cannot base a unitarian legal notion but constitute simply the addition of heterogeneous financial models. From then on, the research for the legal nature of derivative owes demonstrate its specificity as instrument of transfer of the full financial risk and to characterize it with regard to the other families of named contracts. Besides, if the derivative operates a transfer of risk, it turns out itself generator of a specific risk, at the same time for the parties which conclude it and for thirds in connection with the latter: by its intrinsic attributes, it is fundamentally carrying risk to the whole financial system. The necessity of recognizing this risk and of controlling it closely settles then in compelling objective.

本研究的主要目的是探討會計師事務所審計人員對衍生性金融商品(DFI)的財務報導與查核能力，並分析可能影響此項能力的因素。另一目的則是希望探討審計人員對財務會計準則公報第二十七號的意見及看法，以及對這號公報的瞭解程度。本研究以問卷為蒐集資料的工具，在139份回收的問卷中，只有24位審計人員不知道什麼是DFI，約有九成的審計人員認為查核含有從事DFI交易公司之財務報表之審體審計風險較沒有從事此類交易的公司高。造成審計人員對DFI財務報導的認知程度差異的原因，經統計檢定後，有下列幾項： （1） 審計人員在事務所擔任的職位， （2） 審計人員認定衍生性金融商品的能力，以及 （3） 審計人員是否曾經查過衍生性金融商品。 造成審計人員對DFI財務報導查核能力差異的原因經統計檢定後，有下 列幾項： （1） 事務所的規模， （2） 審計人員之最高學歷， （3） 審計人員是否已取得會計師資格， （4） 審計人員在事務所擔任的職位， （5） 審計人員認定衍生性金融商品的能力， （6） 審計人員對衍生性金融商品的熟悉程度，以及 （7） 審計人員是否曾經查過衍生性金融商品。 審計人員是否曾查核過DFI並不會影響其對第二十七號公報的熟悉程度。此外，約三成的審計人員認為「各類商品之財務風險」與「商品之公平市價」是其依照此號公報查核DFI時最難決定之項目。至於審計人員如何驗證客戶在財務報表上所揭露關於DFI的公平價值，約各有三成的審計人員取得之方式為「採用公開市場之成交價」、「向銀行詢價」。 值得注意的是，在瞭解第二十七號公報的審計人員當中，只有約半數認為依照第二十七號公報揭露DFI，能幫助閱表者評估風險；同樣地，也只有半數的審計人員認為第二十七號公報能對他們在查核DFI時提供更明確的指引。審計人員是否曾經查核過DFI不會影響他們對這兩個問題的看法。 / In this study, the author investigated the degree of auditors' cognition and audit ability on derivative financial instruments (DFI) in Taiwan and he studied some factors that might affect these abilities. Besides, the author also investigated auditors' opinions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 27 in ROC. The author used questionnaire as a tool in gathering data. Factors that might affect auditors' cognition of DFI are as follows: (1) The current job position of auditors. (2) The auditors' abilities to recognize DFI. (3) The auditors' experiences of auditing DFI. Factors that might affect auditors' audit ability of DFI are as follows: (1) Firm size. (2) The highest education auditors received. (3) Whether they have got CPA license. (4) The current job position of auditors. (5) The auditors' abilities to recognize DFI. (6) The auditors' experiences of auditing DFI. (7) The extent of auditors' familiarity toward DFI. Auditors' opinions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 27 in ROC can be concluded as follows: (1) Only half of the auditors who understand this statement think it can help them to audit DFI related disclosures. (2) Whether auditors have audited DFI doesn't affect the extent of auditors' familiarity toward DFI. (3) "Financial risk" and " fair value of DFI" are two of the most difficult items to decide when auditors audit DFI.

自1970年代以後，匯率制度由「固定匯率制度」轉變為「浮動匯率制度」，貨幣政策由「利率管制誘導型」轉變為「貨幣供給量管制型」，而將利率交由市場決定。此種金融環境之變革，使企業為規避匯率及利率風險之風險，發展出許多新金融工具，「衍生性金融商品」乃應運而生。目前，衍生性金融商品在國際金融市場上扮演著不可或缺之角色。由於衍生性金融商品具有高槓桿及高風險的特性，利用衍生性金融商品固可達到交易、籌資、避險之目的，但若操作不當，其引起的損失亦不容輕忽。故操作衍生性金融商品時，應注意其相關之內部控制制度。本研究與瞭解企業操作衍生性金融商品之概況與內部控制情形，並進一步對其內部控制制度提出具體建議。研究方法以問卷調查台灣地區87年度操作衍生性金融商品之非金融業上市公司，樣本數為141份，回收67份，回收率為47.5%。 　　就操作概況而言，企業規模越大，操作衍生性金融商品之種類越多樣化，操作目的也趨向避險與非避險交互運用，此外，操作年數也越長。就內部控制情形而言，企業操作衍生性金融商品之控制環境、風險評估與控制活動、資訊與溝通及監督不會因產業別、資產總額、營業收入淨額、資本型態、對外投資狀況與國外貿易狀況之不同而有太大的差異。但在風險評估與控制活動方面，中外合資之企業於市場風險、信用風險及流動性風險上之表現較純本國投資之企業略佳，而在監督方面，有對外投資之企業較無對外投資之企業表現略佳。 　　在本研究可發現企業於操作衍生性金融商品時，對於應執行之控制政策與程序，幾乎都予以應有的注意並確實執行，這些內部控制政策與程序與公司特性間之關係並未非常顯著。可能原因之一為上市公司操作衍生性金融商品時，應遵循財政部之規定，訂定作業手冊並加以監督，故企業在此強制性之要求下，能維持一定品質之內部控制。可能原因之二為企業操作衍生性金融商品之金額通常不會太大，且交易目的多為避險，其性質較為單純，故可落實相關之內部控制制度。 / Since 1970, the exchange rate system has changed from "fixed rate" to "floating rate", and the monetary system has also changed. In order to avoid the risk of interest rate and exchange rate fluctuations, companies are increasingly using derivative financial instrument (DFI). Since DFI is fairly risky and could cause huge losses, companies must be very careful when using then. The internal controls for DFI is thus very important. This study investigates how companies use DFI and their related internal control systems. This research also provides suggestions for better internal controls for DFI. A questionnaire was used to gather data from the 141 lists firms at the Taiwan Stock Exchange, which are using DFI. The response rate is about 47.5%. (i.e., 67 questionnaires returned) 　　The results of the study are as follows: 　　(1) The larger the company is, the more kinds of DFI they are using and the longer it has been using DFI. 　　(2) The internal control systems are not significantly different with respect to company's industry type, total assets, net operating revenue, capital type and investment conditions. 　　(3) For risk assessment and control activities, joint-venture companies outperforms Taiwanese companies in managing market risk, credit risk and liquidity risk. In monitoring DFI, companies that have outside investments outperforms those that don't. 　　(4) Companies do follow internal control procedures when are using DFI. These control procedures are not significantly related to companies' characteristics. One of the possible reasons is that they are forced to follow regulations set by the Securities and Fu ture Commission. Another reason is the amount of DFI they transact is usually not large, therefore they can enforce their DFI-related internal control procedures.