IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/majpps/v25y2010i8p756-791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-risk level examination of going concern modifications

Author

Listed:
  • Antony Young
  • Yi Wang

Abstract

Purpose - The literature has revealed auditors' going concern risk disclosures are examined in research as a homogenous risk class. This is despite the various going concern modifications auditors are entitled to give pertaining to this issue. A five-level risk class is established in this paper derived from Australian Auditing Standard pronouncements to examine the appropriateness of auditors' going concern reporting relating specifically to the likelihood of firm failure. Design/methodology/approach - Time is necessary to reveal the appropriateness of going concern reporting therefore a longitudinal research methodology was adopted. The research focuses on all Australian listed companies within the building industry in 1989 and follows all of the reporting of going concern by auditors and directors through until 2007. The building industry was selected because of its volatility, which increased the possibility of going concern reporting allowing a more in-depth focus in the research. All auditors' going concern modifications were examined along with all indications of going concern problems identified by directors. To properly investigate the appropriateness of auditors' reporting, all sampled audit reports were examined using Altman's Findings - The level of under reporting of going concern risk by auditors (75 per cent) implies they are more affected by the agency relationship found in literature than directors who are found to have an incidence of underreporting of 57 per cent. Research limitations/implications - Literature classifies auditors along with directors as part of the agency problem. Altman's Originality/value - The paper for the first time examines going concern reporting at a multi-risk level rather than the binomial level used in research previously. The approach is developed in this paper using auditing pronouncements. These risk levels are linked with an independent measure being the Altman

Suggested Citation

  • Antony Young & Yi Wang, 2010. "Multi-risk level examination of going concern modifications," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 25(8), pages 756-791, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:eme:majpps:v:25:y:2010:i:8:p:756-791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02686901011069542?utm_campaign=RePEc&WT.mc_id=RePEc
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    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. Jinn-Yang Uang & David B. Citron & Sudi Sudarsanam & Richard J. Taffler, 2006. "Management Going-concern Disclosures: Impact of Corporate Governance and Auditor Reputation," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 12(5), pages 789-816.
    2. Edward I. Altman, 1968. "Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis And The Prediction Of Corporate Bankruptcy," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 23(4), pages 589-609, September.
    3. Barnes, Paul, 2004. "The auditor's going concern decision and Types I and II errors: The Coase Theorem, transaction costs, bargaining power and attempts to mislead," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 415-440.
    4. Thomas E. McKee, 2003. "Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 569-586.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Auditing; Standards; Going concern value; Australia;

    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:eme:majpps:v:25:y:2010:i:8:p:756-791. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginia Chapman). General contact details of provider: http://www.emeraldinsight.com .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.