IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v64y2024i2p1525-1547.html

Aligning disclosure requirements for managerial assessments of going concern risk: Initial evidence from New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Grosse
  • Tom Scott
  • Zeting Zang

Abstract

This study examines the impact of the Financial Reporting Standard No. 44 New Zealand Additional Disclosures (FRS 44) amendment issued by the New Zealand Accounting Standards Board (NZASB). The FRS 44 amendment aligned disclosure requirements for managerial assessments of going concern risk in financial reports with auditing standards for periods ending on or after 30 September 2020. We first present descriptive evidence on the frequency of going concern opinions (GCO), frequency of going concern issues identified as key audit matters (GCKAM), and frequency and content of managerial assessments of going concern risk (GCMA) before and after the FRS 44 amendment. Second, we show lower audit fees and shorter audit lags for financially distressed companies post‐FRS 44 implementation. This suggests that the harmonisation of accounting and auditing disclosure requirements alleviates tension during the going concern decision‐making process for affected companies, subsequently leading to reduced audit fees.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Grosse & Tom Scott & Zeting Zang, 2024. "Aligning disclosure requirements for managerial assessments of going concern risk: Initial evidence from New Zealand," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 64(2), pages 1525-1547, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:64:y:2024:i:2:p:1525-1547
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.13188
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.13188
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.13188?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. Philip Chan & Mahmoud Ezzamel & David Gwilliam, 1993. "Determinants Of Audit Fees For Quoted Uk Companies," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(6), pages 765-786, November.
    2. El’Fred Boo & Roger Simnett, 2002. "The Information Content of Management’s Prospective Comments in Financially Distressed Companies: A Note," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 38(2), pages 280-295, June.
    3. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    4. Griffin, Paul A. & Lont, David H. & Sun, Yuan, 2008. "Corporate Governance and Audit Fees: Evidence of Countervailing Relations," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 18-49.
    5. Kathleen Bakarich & Devon Baranek, 2020. "Evidence on going concern reporting before and after ASU 2014–15," Accounting Research Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(6), pages 757-772, December.
    6. Steven Cahan & Stephen Higgins & David Lont & Tom Scott & Steven Cahan, 2016. "Longer term audit costs of IFRS and the differential impact of implied auditor cost structures," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 56(1), pages 165-203, March.
    7. Michael Bradbury & Neil Fargher & Brad Potter & Stephen Taylor, 2022. "Going Concern Uncertainty: What Do Firms Disclose?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 32(3), pages 294-314, September.
    8. Subramanyam, K. R., 1996. "The pricing of discretionary accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1-3), pages 249-281, October.
    9. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    10. Paul A. Griffin & David H. Lont & Yuan Sun, 2009. "Governance regulatory changes, International Financial Reporting Standards adoption, and New Zealand audit and non‐audit fees: empirical evidence," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 49(4), pages 697-724, December.
    11. Md Humayun Kabir & Fawzi Laswad & Md Ainul Islam, 2010. "Impact of IFRS in New Zealand on Accounts and Earnings Quality," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 20(4), pages 343-357, December.
    12. Rajib Doogar & Padmakumar Sivadasan & Ira Solomon, 2010. "The Regulation of Public Company Auditing: Evidence from the Transition to AS5," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 48(4), pages 795-814, September.
    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. Xiaoqian Zhu & Huidong Wu & Yanpeng Chang & Jianping Li, 2025. "Accounting fraud detection through textual risk disclosures in annual reports: From the perspective of SEC guidelines," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 65(2), pages 1837-1862, June.

    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. Cao, June & Ee, Mong Shan & Hasan, Iftekhar & Huang, He, 2024. "Asymmetric reactions of abnormal audit fees jump to credit rating changes," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(2).
    2. Incheol Kim & Joon Ho Kong & Rong Yang, 2024. "The impact of board reforms on audit fees: International evidence," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1-2), pages 45-83, January.
    3. Liangliang Jiang & Hui Zhou, 2017. "The role of audit verification in debt contracting: evidence from covenant violations," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 469-501, March.
    4. Qinglu Jin & Yuchao Jin & Gary Gang Tian & Yang Xuan, 2021. "Does Internal Corporate Governance Complement or Substitute for External Auditing? Evidence from China's Anti‐corruption Campaign," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 57(1), pages 153-182, March.
    5. Minjung Kang & Jung‐wha Lee & Mihye Ha & Moon‐Kyung Cho, 2021. "Impact of IFRS adoption on audit pricing: evidence from audit hours and unit audit price in the Korean audit market," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(2), pages 3517-3564, June.
    6. Linus Axén & Torbjörn Tagesson & Denis Shcherbinin & Azra Custovic & Anna Ojdanic, 2019. "Does municipal ownership affect audit fees?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 693-713, September.
    7. Mercedes Mareque & Angel Barajas & Francisco Lopez-Corrales, 2018. "The Impact of Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) Financial Fair Play Regulation on Audit Fees: Evidence from Spanish Football," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Muhammad Nurul Houqe, 2017. "IFRS Adoption and Audit Fees-Evidence from New Zealand," International Journal of Business and Economics, School of Management Development, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, vol. 16(1), pages 75-100, June.
    9. repec:pra:mprapa:121883 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Michael E. Bradbury & Tom Scott, 2021. "What accounting standards were the cause of enforcement actions following IFRS adoption?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(S1), pages 2247-2268, April.
    11. Umapathy Ananthanarayanan, 2018. "Do Corporate Governance Measures Impact Audit Pricing Of Smaller Firms? Evidence From The United States And New Zealand," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 12(2), pages 77-94.
    12. Kitto, Andrew R., 2024. "The effects of non-Big 4 mergers on audit efficiency and audit market competition☆," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1).
    13. Chen, Xiao & Dai, Narisa Tianjing & Liu, Leo Jiahe, 2025. "Audit implications of major customer diversity," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2).
    14. Kausar, Asad & Shroff, Nemit & White, Hal, 2016. "Real effects of the audit choice," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 157-181.
    15. Hye‐Jeong Nam, 2018. "The Impact of Mandatory IFRS Transition on Audit Effort and Audit Fees: Evidence from Korea," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 28(4), pages 512-524, December.
    16. Habib, Ahsan, 2011. "Audit firm industry specialization and audit outcomes: Insights from academic literature," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 114-129.
    17. Liwei Shan & Albert Tsang & Xiaoxue Zhang, 2024. "Transporting Audit Quality Across Countries: Returnee CEOs and Audit Fees," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 192(4), pages 845-874, July.
    18. Chen, Anthony & Duong, Hong & Ngo, Anh, 2019. "Types of nonaudit service fees and earnings response coefficients in the post-sarbanes-oxley era," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 132-147.
    19. Muhammad Farhan Malik & Yuan George Shan & Jamie Yixing Tong, 2022. "Do auditors price litigious tone?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1715-1760, April.
    20. Bilokha, Alona & Kong, Joon Ho & Micale, Joseph A., 2024. "Universal demand laws and stakeholders: Evidence from the auditor's perspective," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    21. Hope, Ole-Kristian & Hu, Danqi & Zhao, Wuyang, 2017. "Third-party consequences of short-selling threats: The case of auditor behavior," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 479-498.

    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:64:y:2024:i:2:p:1525-1547. 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.