IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v62y2022is1p1273-1306.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditors’ propensity and accuracy in issuing going‐concern modified audit opinions for charities

Author

Listed:
  • Yitang (Jenny) Yang
  • Roger Simnett
  • Elizabeth Carson

Abstract

This paper identifies factors contributing to the auditor’s propensity to issue going‐concern modified audit opinions (hereafter, GCOs) for charities and examines their association with subsequent revocation of their charitable status. We find that about 4 percent of charities receive GCOs and these are more likely for those which are smaller, in greater financial distress, received a prior year GCO, and are also affected by dependence on the various types of funding received. After controlling for these factors, Big 4 auditors are less likely to issue GCOs than other audit firms, but there are no differences in their association with subsequent revocation.

Suggested Citation

  • Yitang (Jenny) Yang & Roger Simnett & Elizabeth Carson, 2022. "Auditors’ propensity and accuracy in issuing going‐concern modified audit opinions for charities," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1273-1306, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:62:y:2022:i:s1:p:1273-1306
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.12823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12823
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.12823?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Yuyu Zhang, 2019. "Explaining auditors’ propensity to issue going‐concern opinions in Australia after the global financial crisis," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 59(4), pages 2415-2453, December.
    2. Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Yuyu Zhang, 2016. "Trends in Auditor Reporting in Australia: A Synthesis and Opportunities for Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 26(3), pages 226-242, September.
    3. Jeff L. McMullin & Bryce Schonberger, 2020. "Entropy-balanced accruals," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 84-119, March.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    5. Samuel B. Bonsall & Brian P. Miller, 2017. "The impact of narrative disclosure readability on bond ratings and the cost of debt," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 608-643, June.
    6. Kenneth J. Reichelt & Dechun Wang, 2010. "National and Office‐Specific Measures of Auditor Industry Expertise and Effects on Audit Quality," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 647-686, June.
    7. Yitang (Jenny) Yang & Roger Simnett, 2020. "Financial Reporting by Charities: Why Do Some Choose to Report Under a More Extensive Reporting Framework?," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 56(3), pages 320-347, September.
    8. Larcker, David F. & Rusticus, Tjomme O., 2010. "On the use of instrumental variables in accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 186-205, April.
    9. Wei Chen & Paul Hribar & Samuel Melessa, 2018. "Incorrect Inferences When Using Residuals as Dependent Variables," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 751-796, June.
    10. Michelle H. Yetman & Robert J. Yetman, 2012. "The Effects of Governance on the Accuracy of Charitable Expenses Reported by Nonprofit Organizations," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 738-767, September.
    11. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    12. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    13. DeFond, Mark L. & Lennox, Clive S., 2011. "The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 21-40, June.
    14. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    15. Sascha O. Becker & Andrea Ichino, 2002. "Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 358-377, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee, Hua & Lee, Hsien-Li & Wang, Chen-Chin, 2017. "Engagement partner specialization and corporate disclosure transparency," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 354-369.
    2. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Jian Cao & Feng Chen & Julia L. Higgs, 2016. "Late for a very important date: financial reporting and audit implications of late 10-K filings," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 633-671, June.
    4. Yi-Hsing Liao & Hua Lee & Chao-Jung Chen, 2023. "The informational role of audit partner industry specialization," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 69-109, January.
    5. Hasan, Mostafa Monzur & Hossain, Ashrafee & Hossain, Takdir, 2023. "CEO inside debt holdings and credit ratings," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    6. Huh, Bong Gu & Lee, Sunhwa & Kim, Wonsin, 2021. "The impact of the input level of information system audit on the audit quality: Korean evidence," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    7. Bryan, David B., 2017. "Organized labor, audit quality, and internal control," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    8. Nguyen, Lily & Vu, Le & Yin, Xiangkang, 2020. "The undesirable effect of audit quality: Evidence from firm innovation," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    9. Inder K. Khurana & Nathan G. Lundstrom & K. K. Raman, 2021. "PCAOB Inspections and the Differential Audit Quality Effect for Big 4 and Non–Big 4 US Auditors," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 376-411, March.
    10. Pan, Yue & Shroff, Nemit & Zhang, Pengdong, 2023. "The dark side of audit market competition," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1).
    11. Habib, Ahsan & Ranasinghe, Dinithi, 2022. "Labor investment efficiency and credit ratings," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    12. Xiong, Hao & Hou, Fei & Li, Hanwen & Wang, Huabing, 2020. "Does rice farming shape audit quality: Evidence from signing auditors level analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 403-420.
    13. Shivaram Rajgopal & Suraj Srinivasan & Xin Zheng, 2021. "Measuring audit quality," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 559-619, June.
    14. Kharuddin, Khairul Ayuni Mohd & Basioudis, Ilias G & Farooque, Omar Al, 2021. "Effects of the Big 4 national and city-level industry expertise on audit quality in the United Kingdom," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    15. Miguel Minutti‐Meza, 2013. "Does Auditor Industry Specialization Improve Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 779-817, September.
    16. Kristina Peštović & Nikola Milicevic & Nenad Djokic & Ines Djokic, 2021. "Audit Service Quality Perceived by Customers: Formative Modelling Measurement Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Ji, Xu-dong & Lu, Wei & Qu, Wen, 2018. "Internal control risk and audit fees: Evidence from China," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 266-287.
    18. Anna Alon & Oksana Kim, 2022. "Protectionism through legislative layering: Implications for auditors and investors," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(3), pages 363-383, September.
    19. Kim Ittonen & Karla Johnstone & Emma-Riikka Myllym�ki, 2015. "Audit Partner Public-Client Specialisation and Client Abnormal Accruals," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 607-633, September.
    20. Phillip J. Quinn, 2018. "Shifting corporate culture: executive stock ownership plan adoptions and incentives to meet or just beat analysts’ expectations," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 654-685, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:62:y:2022:i:s1:p:1273-1306. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.