IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/medarp/medar-06-2019-0514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiple discriminant analysis of the auditor’s going concern opinion: the case of audit opinions in Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Maffei
  • Clelia Fiondella
  • Claudia Zagaria
  • Annamaria Zampella

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to develop a model for assessing the audit evidence of the going-concern (GC) assumptions underlying the preparation of financial statements. Design/methodology/approach - This research analyses 678 audit opinions of Italian listed firms from 2007 to 2016 and uses a multiple linear discriminant analysis to create a GC score, which includes variables suggested by the international standards on auditing (ISA) 570 and by literature on GC. Findings - The model provides three cut-off scores which can orient auditors towards issuing the most appropriate GC audit opinions (unmodified opinion, unmodified opinion, which includes emphases of matter, qualified opinion or disclaimer of opinion). Research limitations/implications - The development of the model is mainly based on public data and does not assess confidential information that is not disclosed in audit opinions. Practical implications - This model can enable auditors to identify the most appropriate GC opinion and align auditor’s opinions in similar circumstances, thereby reducing their reliance on discretion and increasing the reliability of their judgement with a higher degree of accuracy. Moreover, this research lists additional events or conditions that may individually or collectively cast significant doubt on GC assumptions. Originality/value - This study goes beyond the traditional decision-making process, apparently binary in nature, between “continuity” and “failure” or between “unmodified” and “modified” opinions. It is conceived to detect the different degrees of uncertainty that affect GC evaluations to orient auditors’ professional judgements.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Maffei & Clelia Fiondella & Claudia Zagaria & Annamaria Zampella, 2020. "A multiple discriminant analysis of the auditor’s going concern opinion: the case of audit opinions in Italy," Meditari Accountancy Research, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 28(6), pages 1179-1208, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:medarp:medar-06-2019-0514
    DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-06-2019-0514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2019-0514/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2019-0514/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2019-0514?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Proho Mahir, 2023. "Going concern assessment: a literature review," Journal of Forensic Accounting Profession, Sciendo, vol. 3(2), pages 48-62, December.

    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:eme:medarp:medar-06-2019-0514. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.