IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v68y2022i2p1556-1572.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Third-Party Consequences of Changes in Managerial Fiduciary Duties: The Case of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Liang Tan

    (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)

  • Santhosh Ramalingegowda

    (University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602)

  • Yong Yu

    (University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712)

Abstract

This study examines the effect of managerial fiduciary duties on the likelihood of firms receiving going concern (GC) opinions from their auditors. We exploit an influential 1991 legal ruling that expanded fiduciary duties of corporate directors and officers in favor of creditors for near-insolvent Delaware firms. Our difference-in-differences test reveals an increase in GC opinions following the ruling for near-insolvent Delaware firms. Further tests indicate an increase in type I audit opinion errors and no change in audit risk after the ruling. Additional analysis shows that, after the ruling, near-insolvent Delaware firms are less likely to dismiss their auditors following the receipt of a GC report. Overall, our findings are consistent with managers and directors with increased fiduciary duties toward creditors exerting less pressure on auditors and allowing them to reveal more GC opinions. Our results highlight important third-party consequences of changes in managerial fiduciary duties.

Suggested Citation

  • Liang Tan & Santhosh Ramalingegowda & Yong Yu, 2022. "Third-Party Consequences of Changes in Managerial Fiduciary Duties: The Case of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1556-1572, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:2:p:1556-1572
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2020.3891
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3891
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3891?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. Bo Becker & Per Strömberg, 2012. "Fiduciary Duties and Equity-debtholder Conflicts," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 25(6), pages 1931-1969.
    2. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2003. "Enjoying the Quiet Life? Corporate Governance and Managerial Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(5), pages 1043-1075, October.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:eme:maj000:02686900910941159 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Holder-Webb, LM & Wilkins, MS, 2000. "The incremental information content of SAS No. 59 going-concern opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 209-219.
    7. Jonathan Stanley & F. Todd De Zoort & Gary Taylor, 2009. "The association between insider trading surrounding going concern audit opinions and future bankruptcy," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 24(3), pages 290-312, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Merton, Robert C, 1974. "On the Pricing of Corporate Debt: The Risk Structure of Interest Rates," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 29(2), pages 449-470, May.
    10. Linda Myers & Jaime Schmidt & Michael Wilkins, 2014. "An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, July.
    11. Daniel Bens & Sterling Huang & Liang Tan & Wan Wongsunwai, 2020. "Contracting and Reporting Conservatism around a Change in Fiduciary Duties," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2472-2500, December.
    12. 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.
    13. Jagadison K. Aier & Long Chen & Mikhail Pevzner, 2014. "Debtholders’ Demand for Conservatism: Evidence from Changes in Directors’ Fiduciary Duties," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 993-1027, December.
    14. Maria Vassalou & Yuhang Xing, 2004. "Default Risk in Equity Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 59(2), pages 831-868, April.
    15. Jonathan Stanley & F. Todd De Zoort & Gary Taylor, 2009. "The association between insider trading surrounding going concern audit opinions and future bankruptcy," Managerial Auditing Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 24(3), pages 290-312, March.
    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. Lennox, Clive, 2000. "Do companies successfully engage in opinion-shopping? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 321-337, June.
    18. Ghosh, Aloke(Al) & Tang, Charles Y., 2015. "Assessing financial reporting quality of family firms: The auditors׳ perspective," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 95-116.
    19. 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.
    20. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elizabeth Gutierrez & Jake Krupa & Miguel Minutti-Meza & Maria Vulcheva, 2020. "Do going concern opinions provide incremental information to predict corporate defaults?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1344-1381, December.
    2. Daniel Bens & Sterling Huang & Liang Tan & Wan Wongsunwai, 2020. "Contracting and Reporting Conservatism around a Change in Fiduciary Duties," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 2472-2500, December.
    3. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. Linda A. Myers & Jonathan E. Shipman & Quinn T. Swanquist & Robert L. Whited, 2018. "Measuring the market response to going concern modifications: the importance of disclosure timing," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1512-1542, December.
    9. Wei Ting & Sin‐Hui Yen & Chien‐Liang Chiu, 2008. "The Influence of Qualified Foreign Institutional Investors on the Association between Default Risk and Audit Opinions: Evidence from the Chinese Stock Market," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(5), pages 400-415, September.
    10. 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.
    11. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Xingqiang Du & Liang Xiao & Yingjie Du, 2023. "Does CEO–Auditor Dialect Connectedness Trigger Audit Opinion Shopping? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(2), pages 391-426, May.
    13. Carlo Caserio & Delio Panaro & Sara Trucco, 2014. "A statistical analysis of reliability of audit opinions as bankruptcy predictors," Discussion Papers 2014/174, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    14. 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.
    15. Feng Guo & Chenxi Lin & Adi Masli & Michael S. Wilkins, 2021. "Auditor Responses to Shareholder Activism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 63-95, March.
    16. Jeffrey L. Callen & Xiaohua Fang, 2020. "Local Gambling Norms and Audit Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 151-173, June.
    17. Simon Fung & Viet Tuan Pham & K. K. Raman, 2022. "Client corruption culture and audit quality: the conditioning effect of the competitive position of the incumbent auditor," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 1133-1171, October.
    18. Xiaolu Xu & Leo L. Yang & Joseph H. Zhang, 2022. "How do auditors respond to client firms’ technological peer pressure? Evidence from going‐concern opinions," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(9-10), pages 1553-1580, October.
    19. Ni, Xiaoran & Xu, Hongmei, 2023. "Are short selling threats beneficial to creditors? Insights from corporate default risk," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Ittonen, Kim & Tronnes, Per C. & Wong, Leon, 2017. "Substantial doubt and the entropy of auditors’ going concern modifications," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 134-147.
    21. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:68:y:2022:i:2:p:1556-1572. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.