IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v3y1987i2p302-315.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties

Author

Listed:
  • KRISHNAGOPAL MENON
  • KENNETH B. SCHWARTZ

Abstract

. This study presents a logistic regression model which is used to identify U.S. companies that are likely to have their financial statements qualified for going concern reasons. The model is developed using financial statement data for a sample of failing companies. Validation tests performed on independent samples of bankrupt and nonbankrupt companies indicate that the model has reasonable explanatory power. The findings from this study indicate that the auditor's qualification for companies in financial distress is correlated with variables derived from financial statement data. The variables that are consistently identified as being closely associated with the auditor's decision whether to qualify his opinion are recurring operating losses and change in a company's liquidity position. Résumé. Cette étude présente un modèle de régression logistique utilisé afin d'identifier les sociétés américaines dont les états financiers sont susceptibles d'être accompagnés d'une opinion avec restriction quant à la permanence de l'entreprise. Le modèle est construit à l'aide de données tirées d'états financiers provenant d'un échantillon d'entreprises en difficultés. Des tests de validation effectués sur des échantillons indépendants de société faillies et non†faillies, indiquent que le modèle démontre une capacité explicative acceptable. Les résultats de cette étude montrent une corrélation entre, d'une part, l'opinion avec restriction dans le cas de sociétés en difficultés financières et entre, d'autre part, des variables tirées des données d'états financiers. Les variables qui sont régulièrement identifiées comme étant reliées de près à la décision du vérificateur d'émettre un rapport avec restriction, sont les pertes d'exploitation répétitives et la variation dans la position de trésorerie d'une société.

Suggested Citation

  • Krishnagopal Menon & Kenneth B. Schwartz, 1987. "An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 302-315, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:3:y:1987:i:2:p:302-315
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00640.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00640.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1987.tb00640.x?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. Mutchler, Jf, 1985. "A Multivariate-Analysis Of The Auditors Going-Concern Opinion Decision," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 668-682.
    2. Kida, T, 1980. "An Investigation Into Auditors Continuity And Related Qualification Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 506-523.
    3. 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.
    4. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Hian Koh & Sen Tan, 1999. "A neural network approach to the prediction of going concern status," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 211-216.
    2. Reynolds, J. Kenneth & Francis, Jere R., 2000. "Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 375-400, December.
    3. Yihan Guo & Deborah Delaney & Ammad Ahmed, 2020. "Is an Auditor's Propensity to Issue Going Concern Opinions a Valid Measure of Audit Quality?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 30(2), pages 144-153, June.
    4. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    5. Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Fotios Pasiouras & Charalambos Spathis & Constantin Zopounidis, 2007. "A comparison of nearest neighbours, discriminant and logit models for auditing decisions," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1‐2), pages 23-40, January.
    6. Hermanson, Heather M. & Hermanson, Dana R. & Carcello, Joseph V., 1996. "An analysis of multinational "audit failures"," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 281-291.
    7. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    8. WILLIAM HOPWOOD & JAMES C. McKEOWN & JANE F. MUTCHLER, 1994. "A Reexamination of Auditor versus Model Accuracy within the Context of the Going†Concern Opinion Decision," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 409-431, March.
    9. Ahsan Habib & Mabel D' Costa & Hedy Jiaying Huang & Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Li Sun, 2020. "Determinants and consequences of financial distress: review of the empirical literature," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(S1), pages 1023-1075, April.
    10. Fabrizio Bava & Melchior Gromis di Trana, 2021. "Big4 Versus Non-Big4 Opinion about the Going Concern Assessment: A Survey," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(2), pages 1-87, July.
    11. Chen, Peter F. & He, Shaohua & Ma, Zhiming & Stice, Derrald, 2016. "The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 121-144.
    12. Emiliano Ruiz-Barbadillo & Nieves Gomez-Aguilar & Cristina De Fuentes-Barbera & Maria Antonia Garcia-Benau, 2004. "Audit quality and the going-concern decision-making process: Spanish evidence," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 597-620.
    13. Chrysovalantis Gaganis, 2009. "Classification techniques for the identification of falsified financial statements: a comparative analysis," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 207-229, July.
    14. Mary Jane Lenard & Pervaiz Alam & David Booth & Gregory Madey, 2001. "Decision‐making capabilities of a hybrid system applied to the auditor's going‐concern assessment," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, March.
    15. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    16. Emiliano Ruiz Barbadillo & Nieves Gómez Aguilar & Nieves Carrera Pena, 2006. "Evidencia empírica sobre el efecto de la duración del contrato en la calidad de la auditoría: análisis de las medidas de retención y rotación obligatoria de auditores," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 30(2), pages 283-316, May.
    17. Gregory D. Kane & Frederick M. Richardson & Patricia Graybeal, 1996. "Recession†Induced Stress and the Prediction of Corporate Failure," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 631-650, September.
    18. Arber H. Hoti & Hysen Ismajli & Skender Ahmeti & Arben Dermaku, 2012. "Effects of Audit Opinion on Stock Prices: The case of Croatia and Slovenia," EuroEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 2(31), pages 75-87, May.
    19. Jennifer C. Ireland, 2003. "An Empirical Investigation of Determinants of Audit Reports in the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7‐8), pages 975-1016, September.
    20. Yu‐Feng Hsu & Wei‐Po Lee, 2020. "Evaluation of the going‐concern status for companies: An ensemble framework‐based model," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 687-706, July.
    21. Bartov, Eli & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Tsui, J.S.L.Judy S. L., 2000. "Discretionary-accruals models and audit qualifications," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 421-452, December.
    22. Bhimani, Alnoor & Gulamhussen, Mohamed Azzim & Lopes, Samuel, 2009. "The effectiveness of the auditor's going-concern evaluation as an external governance mechanism: Evidence from loan defaults," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 239-255, September.

    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. Stuart, Iris & Shin, Yong-Chul & Cram, Donald P. & Karan, Vijay, 2013. "Review of choice-based, matched, and other stratified sample studies in auditing research," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 88-113.
    2. K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
    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. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Kathleen Herbohn & Vanitha Ragunathan & Robert Garsden, 2007. "The horse has bolted: revisiting the market reaction to going concern modifications of audit reports," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(3), pages 473-493, September.
    6. Sandro Brunelli & Chiara Carlino & Rosella Castellano & Alessandro Giosi, 2021. "Going concern modifications and related disclosures in the Italian stock market: do regulatory improvements help investors in capturing financial distress?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(2), pages 433-473, June.
    7. Martinez-Blasco, Monica & Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Vivas-Crisol, Laura, 2016. "El informe de auditoría con salvedades: ¿una mayor independencia y competencia del auditor aumenta su contenido informativo?," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 89-101.
    8. Lyn Barkess & Roger Simnett & Paul Urquhart, 2002. "The Effect of Client Fee Dependence on Audit Independence," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(28), pages 14-22, November.
    9. Gómez Aguilar, Nieves & Biedma López, Estíbaliz & Ruiz Barbadillo, Emiliano, 2018. "El efecto de la rotación de socio en la calidad de la auditoría," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 7-18.
    10. Ting Zhang & So Yean Kwack & Yi Si & Gaoliang Tian, 2023. "Non‐GAAP earnings reporting following going‐concern opinions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3217-3252, September.
    11. Elsie C. Ameen & Daryl M. Guffey, 1993. "An Investigation Of The Effect Of Qualified Audit Opinions On The Trading Volume And Bid‐Ask Spread Of Over‐The‐Counter Firms," Review of Financial Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(1), pages 41-50, September.
    12. Gregory D. Kane & Frederick M. Richardson & Patricia Graybeal, 1996. "Recession†Induced Stress and the Prediction of Corporate Failure," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 631-650, September.
    13. Pei, Donglin & Hamill, Philip A., 2013. "Do modified audit opinions for Shanghai listed firms convey heterogeneous information?," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-11.
    14. Bartov, Eli & Gul, Ferdinand A. & Tsui, J.S.L.Judy S. L., 2000. "Discretionary-accruals models and audit qualifications," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 421-452, December.
    15. WILLIAM HOPWOOD & JAMES C. McKEOWN & JANE F. MUTCHLER, 1994. "A Reexamination of Auditor versus Model Accuracy within the Context of the Going†Concern Opinion Decision," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 409-431, March.
    16. Geiger, Marshall A. & Basioudis, Ilias G. & DeLange, Paul, 2022. "The effect of non-audit fees and industry specialization on the prevalence and accuracy of auditor’s going-concern reporting decisions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Ilias G. Basioudis & Evangelos Papakonstantinou & Marshall A. Geiger, 2008. "Audit Fees, Non‐Audit Fees and Auditor Going‐Concern Reporting Decisions in the United Kingdom," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(3), pages 284-309, September.
    19. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    20. Peter J. Carey & Marshall A. Geiger & Brendan T. O’Connell, 2008. "Costs Associated With Going‐Concern‐Modified Audit Opinions: An Analysis of the Australian Audit Market," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(1), pages 61-81, March.
    21. 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.

    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:wly:coacre:v:3:y:1987:i:2:p:302-315. 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://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.