IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/advacc/v33y2016icp68-84.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of going concern opinions and audit fees for development stage enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Foster, Benjamin P.
  • Shastri, Trim

Abstract

Startup entities have been the focus of much political and academic interest recently. Development stage enterprises (DSEs), as defined by SFAS 7, are startup entities for which some publicly available information exists. New accounting standards have removed the DSE designation and related extra reporting requirements, and placed more responsibility on owners and managers to assess the ability of entities to continue as a going concern. We examined information from financial statements and audit reports of companies previously reporting as DSEs to investigate what increases the likelihood of receiving a going concern modification in auditors' opinions (GCO) and what affects audit fees. Our overall analyses indicate that the asset size of DSEs, negative working capital, and prior-year going concern modifications consistently influence going concern modifications to auditors' opinions. Managers should clearly consider these conditions when making their assessment of their companies' future going concern status. Our results indicate that the size of the audit firm did not influence the going concern modification decision, but Big4 auditors charge significantly higher fees than other auditors. Thus, managers/owners of DSEs should weigh the benefits of having a Big4 firm audit on their financial statements against the higher fees charged by those firms.

Suggested Citation

  • Foster, Benjamin P. & Shastri, Trim, 2016. "Determinants of going concern opinions and audit fees for development stage enterprises," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 68-84.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:advacc:v:33:y:2016:i:c:p:68-84
    DOI: 10.1016/j.adiac.2016.05.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0882611016301006
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.adiac.2016.05.001?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    2. Mutchler, JF & Hopwood, W & McKeown, JM, 1997. "The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 295-310.
    3. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    4. Benjamin Patrick Foster & Robert P. Garrett & Jr & Trimbak Shastri, 2016. "Independent accountant’s reports: signaling and early-stage venture funding," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 31(4/5), pages 362-386, April.
    5. Hunt, Allen K. & Lulseged, Ayalew, 2007. "Client importance and non-Big 5 auditors' reporting decisions," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 212-248.
    6. DeFond, Mark L. & Lennox, Clive S., 2011. "The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 21-40, June.
    7. Lili Sun, 2007. "A re-evaluation of auditors’ opinions versus statistical models in bankruptcy prediction," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 55-78, January.
    8. Mark L. DeFond & K. Raghunandan & K.R. Subramanyam, 2002. "Do Non–Audit Service Fees Impair Auditor Independence? Evidence from Going Concern Audit Opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 1247-1274, September.
    9. Willenborg, M, 1999. "Empirical analysis of the economic demand for auditing in the initial public offerings market," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 225-238.
    10. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    11. 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.
    12. Jan Smolarski & Neil Wilner & Weifang Yang, 2011. "The use of financial information by private equity funds in evaluating new investments," Review of Accounting and Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 10(1), pages 46-68, February.
    13. Sati P. Bandyopadhyay & Jennifer L. Kao, 2004. "Market Structure and Audit Fees: A Local Analysis," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 529-562, September.
    14. Beng Wee Goh & Jayanthi Krishnan & Dan Li, 2013. "Auditor Reporting under Section 404: The Association between the Internal Control and Going Concern Audit Opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3), pages 970-995, 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. 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.

    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. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    2. Dusica STEVCEVSKA SRBINOSKA, 2022. "Audit modifications in emerging markets: The Macedonian Stock Exchange," Romanian Journal of Economics, Institute of National Economy, vol. 55(2(64)), pages 43-69, December.
    3. Jian Cao & Thomas R. Kubick & Adi N. S. Masli, 2017. "Do corporate payouts signal going-concern risk for auditors? Evidence from audit reports for companies in financial distress," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 599-631, October.
    4. Mei Feng & Chan Li, 2014. "Are Auditors Professionally Skeptical? Evidence from Auditors’ Going‐Concern Opinions and Management Earnings Forecasts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1061-1085, December.
    5. Tsipouridou, Maria & Spathis, Charalambos, 2014. "Audit opinion and earnings management: Evidence from Greece," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 38-54.
    6. Thomas C. Omer & Nathan Y. Sharp & Dechun Wang, 2018. "The Impact of Religion on the Going Concern Reporting Decisions of Local Audit Offices," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(4), pages 811-831, June.
    7. Lai, Kam-Wah, 2013. "Audit Reporting of Big 4 Versus Non-Big 4 Auditors: The Case of Ex-Andersen Clients," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 495-524.
    8. Keval Amin & John Daniel Eshleman & Peng Guo, 2021. "Investor Sentiment, Misstatements, and Auditor Behavior," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 483-517, March.
    9. Ku He & Xiaofei Pan & Gary Tian, 2017. "Legal Liability, Government Intervention, and Auditor Behavior: Evidence from Structural Reform of Audit Firms in China," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(1), pages 61-95, January.
    10. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    11. 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.
    12. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    13. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. Chen, Yangyang & Ge, Rui & Zolotoy, Leon, 2017. "Do corporate pension plans affect audit pricing?," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 322-337.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Anna Bergman Brown & Nicole M. Heron & Hagit Levy & Emanuel Zur, 2023. "StoneRidge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta: A Test of Auditor Litigation Risk," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(3), pages 517-538, October.
    20. Sanoran, Kanyarat (Lek), 2018. "Auditors’ going concern reporting accuracy during and after the global financial crisis," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 164-178.
    21. Alhababsah, Salem & Alhaj-Ismail, Alaa, 2023. "Does shared tenure between audit committee chair and engagement partner affect audit outcomes? Evidence from the UK," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2).

    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:eee:advacc:v:33:y:2016:i:c:p:68-84. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/advances-in-accounting/ .

    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.