IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/rqfnac/v43y2014i1p155-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors

Author

Listed:
  • Linda Myers
  • Jaime Schmidt
  • Michael Wilkins

Abstract

Corporate accounting failures and regulatory proceedings that led to the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 increased the scrutiny of auditors. We investigate whether these events resulted in a change in auditor behavior with respect to going concern reporting. Generally speaking, we find that non-Big N auditors became more conservative while Big N auditors became more accurate. Specifically, non-Big N auditors issued more going concern opinions to both failing and non-failing clients post-2001, reducing their Type II misclassifications at the expense of increased Type I misclassifications. However, Big N auditors decreased their Type I misclassifications with no corresponding increase in Type II misclassifications. Thus, our findings suggest that increased auditor scrutiny resulted in performance improvements in the area of going concern reporting primarily for larger auditors. For smaller auditors, improved going concern accuracy for subsequently bankrupt clients came at the cost of more going concern opinions being issued to subsequently non-failing clients. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:43:y:2014:i:1:p:155-172
    DOI: 10.1007/s11156-013-0368-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11156-013-0368-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11156-013-0368-6?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. Pittman, Jeffrey A. & Fortin, Steve, 2004. "Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 113-136, February.
    2. Mohammad Hudaib & T.E. Cooke, 2005. "The Impact of Managing Director Changes and Financial Distress on Audit Qualification and Auditor Switching," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(9-10), pages 1703-1739.
    3. Ella Mae Matsumura & K.R. Subramanyam & Robert R. Tucker, 1997. "Strategic Auditor Behavior and Going-Concern Decisions," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 727-758.
    4. Jeong-Bon Kim & Byron Song & Judy Tsui, 2013. "Auditor size, tenure, and bank loan pricing," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 75-99, January.
    5. Jere R. Francis & Jagan Krishnan, 1999. "Accounting Accruals and Auditor Reporting Conservatism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 135-165, March.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Jones, Frederick L. & Raghunandan, K., 1998. "Client risk and recent changes in the market for audit services," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 169-181.
    9. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
    10. Boone, Jeff P. & Khurana, Inder K. & Raman, K.K., 2010. "Do the Big 4 and the Second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality?," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 330-352, July.
    11. 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.
    12. Allen D. Blay, 2005. "Independence Threats, Litigation Risk, and the Auditor's Decision Process," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 759-789, December.
    13. Carcello, Jv & Palmrose, Zv, 1994. "Auditor Litigation And Modified Reporting On Bankrupt Clients," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32, pages 1-30.
    14. Mohammad Hudaib & T.E. Cooke, 2005. "The Impact of Managing Director Changes and Financial Distress on Audit Qualification and Auditor Switching," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(9‐10), pages 1703-1739, November.
    15. Geiger, Marshall A. & Raghunandan, K. & Rama, Dasaratha V., 2006. "Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports and audit firm size," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 332-353.
    16. Tucker, Robert R. & Matsumura, Ella Mae & Subramanyam, K. R., 2003. "Going-concern judgments: An experimental test of the self-fulfilling prophecy and forecast accuracy," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 401-432.
    17. Firth, Michael & Smith, Andrew, 1995. "Auditor Quality, Corporate Risk, and the Valuation of New Issues," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 241-251, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Blacconiere, Walter G. & DeFond, Mark L., 1997. "An investigation of independent audit opinions and subsequent independent auditor litigation of publicly-traded failed savings and loans," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 415-454.
    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. Sharad Asthana, 2017. "Diversification by the audit offices in the US and its impact on audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1003-1030, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Daniel Aobdia & Luminita Enache & Anup Srivastava, 2021. "Changes in Big N auditors’ client selection and retention strategies over time," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 715-754, February.
    6. 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.
    7. Dody Hapsoro & Tulus Suryanto, 2017. "Consequences of Going Concern Opinion for Financial Reports of Business Firms and Capital Markets with Auditor Reputation as a Moderation Variable - An Experimental Study," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2A), pages 197-223.
    8. Natalia Matanova & Tanja Steigner & Bingsheng Yi & Qiancheng Zheng, 2019. "Going concern opinions and IPO pricing accuracy," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 195-238, July.
    9. Pinghsun Huang & Yi-Chieh Wen & Yan Zhang, 2020. "Does the monitoring effect of Big 4 audit firms really prevail? Evidence from managerial expropriation of cash assets," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 739-768, August.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Dody Hapsoro, 2017. "Consequences of Going Concern Opinion for Firms and Capital Market with Accounting Firm Size as Moderation Variable," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3A), pages 209-230.
    13. Teplova, Tamara V. & Sokolova, Tatiana V., 2019. "Surprises of corporate governance and Russian firms debt," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 39-56.
    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. Gorshunov, Mikhail A. & Armenakis, Achilles A. & Harris, Stanley G. & Walker, H. Jack, 2021. "Quad-qualified audit committee director: Implications for monitoring and reducing financial corruption," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Limei Che & Ole-Kristian Hope & John Christian Langli, 2020. "How Big-4 Firms Improve Audit Quality," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(10), pages 4552-4572, October.
    17. Sharad Asthana & Inder Khurana & K. K. Raman, 2019. "Fee competition among Big 4 auditors and audit quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 403-438, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    3. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Dang, Man & Puwanenthiren, Premkanth & Truong, Cameron & Henry, Darren & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2022. "Audit quality and seasoned equity offerings methods," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Maria Tsipouridou & Charalambos Spathis, 2014. "Audit opinion and earnings management: Evidence from Greece," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 38-54, March.
    8. Leif Atle Beisland & Roy Mersland & R. Oystein Strøm, 2012. "Audit Quality and Corporate Governance: Evidence from the Microfinance Industry," Working Papers CEB 12-034, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    9. Lin, Z. Jun & Liu, Ming, 2009. "The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: Evidence from China," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 44-59.
    10. 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.
    11. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles, Josep Ma, 2015. "Audit firm tenure and independence: A comprehensive investigation of audit qualifications in Spain," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 82-93.
    12. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Kevan Jensen & Jin-Mo Kim & Han Yi, 2015. "The geography of US auditors: information quality and monitoring costs by local versus non-local auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 513-549, April.
    18. Xingqiang Du, 2019. "Does CEO-Auditor Dialect Sharing Impair Pre-IPO Audit Quality? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(3), pages 699-735, May.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Going concern; Bankruptcy; Type I and Type II misclassifications; Audit quality; Auditor size; Auditor conservatism; M42; M48;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing
    • M48 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    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:kap:rqfnac:v:43:y:2014:i:1:p:155-172. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    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.