IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ovi/oviste/vxviiiy2018i2p605-610.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor's Uncertainty About Going Concern – Predictor of Insolvency Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Hategan Camelia Daniela

    (West University of Timisoara)

  • Predictor of Insolvency Risk

    (West University of Timisoara)

Abstract

The primary indications of some uncertainties about the going concern of an entity can be obtained by investors and the general public in the financial statements and in the audit report. The present paper analyzes the going concern principle based on the regulations in the field of financial reporting and on the basis of the regulations in the field of international, European and national auditing. The financial statements must provide a faithful image of the performance and financial position of the entities, and the auditors must to express an opinion on compliance with all accounting principles. The study showed that in most cases the auditors had uncertainties about the going concern that led to insolvency of companies, and the main underlying factors were the reported losses, negative equity, the business history.

Suggested Citation

  • Hategan Camelia Daniela & Predictor of Insolvency Risk, 2018. "Auditor's Uncertainty About Going Concern – Predictor of Insolvency Risk," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 605-610, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ovi:oviste:v:xviii:y:2018:i:2:p:605-610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/RO/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/9-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaSalle, Randall E., 2006. "The civil justice system and going concern audit reports: Comments on "Auditors' decision-making under going concern uncertainties in low litigation risk environments: Evidence from Hong Kong&quo," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 740-745.
    2. Ovidiu Megan & Camelia Haţegan & Leonora Caciuc & Bogdan Cotleţ, 2009. "The Cash-Flow Statement - Between True and Manipulation," Annals of the University of Petrosani, Economics, University of Petrosani, Romania, vol. 9(2), pages 127-136.
    3. Walter Masocha & Pauline Weetman, 2007. "Rhetoric in standard setting: the case of the going‐concern audit," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 20(1), pages 74-100, March.
    4. Lam, Kevin C.K. & Mensah, Yaw M., 2006. "Auditors' decision-making under going-concern uncertainties in low litigation-risk environments: Evidence from Hong Kong," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 706-739.
    5. Barnes, Paul, 2004. "The auditor's going concern decision and Types I and II errors: The Coase Theorem, transaction costs, bargaining power and attempts to mislead," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 415-440.
    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. Pablo de Llano Monelos & Manuel Rodríguez López & Carlos Piñeiro Sánchez, 2013. "Bankruptcy Prediction Models in Galician companies. Application of Parametric Methodologies and Artificial Intelligence," International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), International Journal of Economics & Business Administration (IJEBA), vol. 0(1), pages 117-136.
    2. Barnes, Paul, 2013. "The effects on financial statements of the litigation cost rule in a civil action for negligence against the auditor," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 170-182.
    3. Renata Stenka & Peter Taylor, 2010. "Setting UK standards on the concept of control: An analysis of lobbying behaviour," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 109-130.
    4. La Torre, Matteo & Dumay, John & Rea, Michele Antonio & Abhayawansa, Subhash, 2020. "A journey towards a safe harbour: The rhetorical process of the International Integrated Reporting Council," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    5. Sarowar Hossain & Jenny Jing Wang, 2023. "Abnormal audit fees and audit quality: Australian evidence," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 48(3), pages 596-624, August.
    6. Kim K. Jeppesen, 2010. "Strategies for dealing with standard‐setting resistance," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(2), pages 175-200, February.
    7. Hui Hu & Milind Sathye, 2015. "Predicting Financial Distress in the Hong Kong Growth Enterprises Market from the Perspective of Financial Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Sandra Chapple & Lee Moerman & Kathy Rudkin, 2010. "IFRIC 13: accounting for “customer loyalty programmes”," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 23(2), pages 124-145, September.
    9. Mohammed Hossain & Md. Tarikul Islam & Mahmood Ahmed Momin & Shamsun Nahar & Md. Samsul Alam, 2019. "Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT)," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 563-586, December.
    10. Brennan, Niamh M. & Daly, Caroline A. & Harrington, Claire S., 2010. "Rhetoric, argument and impression management in hostile takeover defence documents," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 253-268.
    11. Hoffmann, Sebastian & Zülch, Henning, 2014. "Lobbying on accounting standard setting in the parliamentary environment of Germany," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 709-723.
    12. Stenka, Renata, 2022. "Beyond intentionality in accounting regulation: Habitual strategizing by the IASB," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Stenka, Renata & Jaworska, Sylvia, 2019. "The use of made-up users," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. Tsipouridou, Maria & Spathis, Charalambos, 2014. "Audit opinion and earnings management: Evidence from Greece," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 38-54.
    15. Linda Myers & Jaime Schmidt & Michael Wilkins, 2014. "An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, July.
    16. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José A. Gonzalo, 2019. "Trusting/Distrusting Auditors’ Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Elaheh Moazedi & Ehsan khansalar, 2016. "Earnings Management and Audit Opinion," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(4), pages 113-122, April.
    18. Grant Samkin, 2010. "Accounting in the media," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(3), pages 237-248, August.
    19. William L. Smith & David M. Boje & Kevin D. Melendrez, 2010. "The financial crisis and mark‐to‐market accounting," Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 7(3), pages 281-303, August.
    20. Rouba Chantiri-Chaudemanche, 2012. "Quand Normalisation Comptable Et Rhetorique Font Bon Menage ... Un Essai D'Organisation De La Litterature," Post-Print hal-00936631, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    going concern; auditor’s opinion; auditor’s report; financial statements; insolvency risk; uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M40 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - General
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:ovi:oviste:v:xviii:y:2018:i:2:p:605-610. 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: Gheorghiu Gabriela (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feoviro.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.