IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ausact/v5y1995i10p26-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Issues Relating To Going-Gongern Audit Qualifications And Corporate Failure

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy Green

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy Green, 1995. "Addressing Issues Relating To Going-Gongern Audit Qualifications And Corporate Failure," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 5(10), pages 26-34, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ausact:v:5:y:1995:i:10:p:26-34
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1835-2561.1995.tb00378.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jason J. Constable & David R. Woodliff, 1994. "Predicting Corporate Failure Using Publicly Available Information," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 4(7), pages 13-27, May.
    2. Kida, T, 1980. "An Investigation Into Auditors Continuity And Related Qualification Judgments," Journal of Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 506-523.
    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. 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.
    2. Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Yuyu Zhang, 2016. "Trends in Auditor Reporting in Australia: A Synthesis and Opportunities for Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 26(3), pages 226-242, 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. 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.
    2. W.P. Hogan & Ian G. Sharpe, 1990. "Prudential Supervision of Australian Banks," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 66(2), pages 127-145, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Nathan R. Berglund, 2020. "Do Client Bankruptcies Preceded by Clean Audit Opinions Damage Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1914-1951, September.
    5. Thomas E. Mckee, 2000. "Developing a bankruptcy prediction model via rough sets theory," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(3), pages 159-173, September.
    6. Sudhir Nanda & Parag Pendharkar, 2001. "Linear models for minimizing misclassification costs in bankruptcy prediction," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 155-168, September.
    7. Teija Laitinen & Maria Kankaanpaa, 1999. "Comparative analysis of failure prediction methods: the Finnish case," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 67-92.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Sarowar Hossain & Larelle Chapple & Gary S. Monroe, 2018. "Does auditor gender affect issuing going‐concern decisions for financially distressed clients?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 58(4), pages 1027-1061, December.
    12. 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).
    13. Kim, Hyonok & Fukukawa, Hironori & Routledge, James, 2020. "A comparison of management and auditor going concern risk disclosure: Evidence from regulatory change in Japan," Working Paper Series 234, Management Innovation Research Center, School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University Business School.
    14. WILLIAM HOPWOOD & JAMES McKEOWN & JANE MUTCHLER, 1988. "The sensitivity of financial distress prediction models to departures from normality," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(1), pages 284-298, September.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Janne Chung & Gary Monroe, 1999. "The effects of counterexplanation and source of hypothesis on developing audit judgment," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 111-126.
    18. 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.
    19. Joanna L.Y. Ho, 1999. "Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 33-49, January.
    20. Nora Muñoz-Izquierdo & María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano & María-Jesús Segovia-Vargas & David Pascual-Ezama, 2019. "Is the External Audit Report Useful for Bankruptcy Prediction? Evidence Using Artificial Intelligence," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.

    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:ausact:v:5:y:1995:i:10:p:26-34. 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: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1035-6908 .

    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.