IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pep/journl/v7y2002i1p37-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closely Held Firms As Going Concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Michael S. Long

    (Rutgers University)

  • Stephan E. Sefcik

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

This current GAAP determination of a going concern is shortsighted for two important reasons. The most important deals with creditors and other stakeholders involved with the business. Do they enter into contracts with the business or with the individual owner/manager? Currently, they contract with both since, in reality, they make no determination whether a separate firm (entity) exists. The second deals with valuing a business. If the business is not really a separate going concern, it would typically be valued as the sum of its individual assets instead of the present value of its future cash flows. Many times when buying a business, the acquirer is really just buying the assets to start his own business. This is particularly true in most service businesses. The purpose of this paper is to advocate reintroducing a qualification to the going concern audit opinion when an entity separate from its owner/manager does not exist. Criteria for determination are also proposed. Arguably, this will make audited accounting statements more meaningful for closely-held firms. More important, this should produce information useful for potential creditors and outside owners. Traditionally, banks have extended loans to small, closely-held firms with only compiled statements; there was no need to provide audited statements. However, the process of lending is changing from a direct, face-to-face process between borrower and lender to an indirect one where credit scoring systems are used. Audited statements can provide better, higher quality information to lenders extending credit.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael S. Long & Stephan E. Sefcik, 2002. "Closely Held Firms As Going Concerns," Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, vol. 7(1), pages 37-50, Spring.
  • Handle: RePEc:pep:journl:v:7:y:2002:i:1:p:37-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jefsite.org/RePEc/pep/journl/jef-2002-07-1-e-long.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitchell A. Petersen & Raghuram G. Rajan, 2002. "Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(6), pages 2533-2570, December.
    2. Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
    3. Mitchell A. Petersen & Raghuram G. Rajan, 2000. "Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending," NBER Working Papers 7685, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Choi, Sung K. & Jeter, Debra C., 1992. "The effects of qualified audit opinions on earnings response coefficients," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2-3), pages 229-247, August.
    5. Duane B. Kennedy & Wayne H. Shaw, 1991. "Evaluating financial distress resolution using prior audit opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 97-114, September.
    6. Elliott, Ja, 1982. "Subject To Audit Opinions And Abnormal Security Returns - Outcomes And Ambiguities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 617-638.
    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. Willenborg, Michael & McKeown, J.C.James C., 2000. "Going-concern initial public offerings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 279-313, December.
    2. Fernandez, Ana I. & Gonzalez, Francisco, 2005. "How accounting and auditing systems can counteract risk-shifting of safety-nets in banking: Some international evidence," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 466-500, October.
    3. Dong, Bei & Robinson, Dahlia & Robinson, Michael, 2015. "The market's response to earnings surprises after first-time going-concern modifications," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 21-32.
    4. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    5. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    6. Allen N. Berger & Astrid A. Dick & Lawrence G. Goldberg & Lawrence White, 2005. "The Effects of Competition from Large, Multimarket Firms on the Performance of Small, Single-Market Firms: Evidence from the Banking Industry," Working Papers 05-02, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    7. Étienne Wasmer & Philippe Weil, 2002. "Financial Fragility, Business Creation and Job Destruction," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 68(1), pages 185-202.
    8. repec:zbw:bofrdp:2000_009 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Ben R. Craig & Joseph G. Haubrich, 2013. "Gross Loan Flows," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(2-3), pages 401-421, March.
    10. Viral V. Acharya & Jean Imbs & Jason Sturgess, 2011. "Finance and Efficiency: Do Bank Branching Regulations Matter?," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 15(1), pages 135-172.
    11. Herrero, Alicia Garcia & Martinez Peria, Maria Soledad, 2007. "The mix of international banks' foreign claims: Determinants and implications," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1613-1631, June.
    12. Wako Watanabe, 2004. "Availability of Firms' Information and their Choice of External Credit: Evidence from the Data of Small Firms," Econometric Society 2004 Far Eastern Meetings 545, Econometric Society.
    13. Michael Raith, 2003. "Competition, Risk, and Managerial Incentives," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1425-1436, September.
    14. Luigi Guiso & Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2009. "Does Local Financial Development Matter?," Springer Books, in: Damiano Bruno Silipo (ed.), The Banks and the Italian Economy, chapter 0, pages 31-66, Springer.
    15. Bonaccorsi di Patti, Emilia & Gobbi, Giorgio, 2001. "The changing structure of local credit markets: Are small businesses special?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(12), pages 2209-2237, December.
    16. Hans Degryse & Steven Ongena, 2005. "Distance, Lending Relationships, and Competition," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 231-266, February.
    17. Rajan, Raghuram & Laeven, Luc & Klapper, Leora F., 2004. "Business Environment and Firm Entry: Evidence from International Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 4366, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Klapper, Leora & Laeven, Luc & Rajan, Raghuram, 2006. "Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 591-629, December.
    19. Cacciatore, Matteo & Ghironi, Fabio & Stebunovs, Viktors, 2015. "The domestic and international effects of interstate U.S. banking," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 171-187.
    20. Inderst, Roman & Mueller, Holger M., 2007. "A lender-based theory of collateral," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 826-859, June.
    21. Paul Edelstein & Donald P. Morgan, 2006. "Local or state? Evidence on bank market size using branch prices," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 12(May), pages 15-25.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Closely Held Firm; Small Firm; Family Firm; Small Business;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M13 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - New Firms; Startups
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    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:pep:journl:v:7:y:2002:i:1:p:37-50. 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: Craig Everett (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bapepus.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.