IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v32y2002i3p171-186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor economic incentives and going-concern opinions in a limited litigious Continental European business environment: empirical evidence from Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Ann Vanstraelen

Abstract

Theory predicts that auditor reporting behaviour may be influenced by the perceived consequences of disclosing going-concern uncertainty in the audit report (DeAngelo 1981, Watts and Zimmerman 1986). Krishnan and Krishnan (1996) and Louwers (1998) have addressed this issue empirically in a US context. The results of Krishnan and Krishnan (1996) suggested that one of the important factors in the auditor's opinion decision is the risk of litigation. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between auditor economic incentives and the propensity to issue going-concern opinions in a limited litigious business environment, Belgium. In spite of the low risk of litigation and the fact that most Belgian companies are privately held, various regulations have been put into effect to safeguard audit quality in Belgium. However, the results suggest that the auditor's going-concern opinion decision in Belgium is associated with factors relating to the perceived consequences of disclosing a going-concern opinion. Specifically, the results suggest that auditors in Belgium are significantly less likely to issue going-concern opinions to clients that pay higher audit fees, and when the audit firm has lost a relatively high proportion of its clients in the preceding year. The auditor's going-concern opinion does not appear to be significantly influenced by the length of the auditor-client relationship, year of the auditor engagement period, and auditor type. The results of this study are to some extent different from the study by Louwers (1998), in which none of the incentive variables related to the auditor's loss function was significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann Vanstraelen, 2002. "Auditor economic incentives and going-concern opinions in a limited litigious Continental European business environment: empirical evidence from Belgium," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 171-186.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:32:y:2002:i:3:p:171-186
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2002.9728966
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2002.9728966
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2002.9728966?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. Gietzmann, M. B. & Quick, R., 1998. "Capping auditor liability: The German experience," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 81-103, January.
    2. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor size and audit quality," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 183-199, December.
    3. DeAngelo, Linda Elizabeth, 1981. "Auditor independence, `low balling', and disclosure regulation," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 113-127, August.
    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. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José Gonzalo, 2009. "Different Pathways that Suggest Whether Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions are Ethically Based," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 347-361, May.
    2. Dody Hapsoro & Tiara Rani Santoso, 2018. "Does Audit Quality Mediate the Effect of Auditor Tenure, Abnormal Audit Fee and Auditor's Reputation on Giving Going Concern Opinion?," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 8(1), pages 143-152.
    3. Katsuhiko Muramiya & Tomomi Takada, 2010. "Auditor Conservatism, Abnormal Accruals, and Going Concern Opinions," Discussion Papers 2010-64, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José A. Gonzalo, 2019. "Trusting/Distrusting Auditors’ Opinions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Owusu-Ansah, Stephen & Leventis, Stergios & Caramanis, Constantinos, 2010. "The pricing of statutory audit services in Greece," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 139-152.
    9. Charlie Weir & David Laing, 2003. "Ownership structure, board composition and the market for corporate control in the UK: an empirical analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(16), pages 1747-1759.
    10. Andrés Guiral & Waymond Rodgers & Emiliano Ruiz & José Gonzalo, 2010. "Ethical Dilemmas in Auditing: Dishonesty or Unintentional Bias?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 91(1), pages 151-166, February.
    11. Emiliano Ruiz Barbadillo & Nieves Gómez Aguilar & Nieves Carrera Pena, 2006. "Evidencia empírica sobre el efecto de la duración del contrato en la calidad de la auditoría: análisis de las medidas de retención y rotación obligatoria de auditores," Investigaciones Economicas, Fundación SEPI, vol. 30(2), pages 283-316, May.
    12. García Blandón, Josep & Argilés Bosch, Josep Maria, 2013. "Audit firm tenure and qualified opinions: New evidence from Spain," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 118-125.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/1073 is not listed 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. Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2018. "Do audit firm rotation, auditor retention, and joint audits matter? – An experimental investigation of bank directors' and institutional investors' perceptions," Journal of Accounting Literature, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 1-21.
    2. Reiner Quick & Niklas Schenk & Florian Schmidt & Thilo Towara, 2018. "The impact of corporate governance on auditor choice: evidence from Germany," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 22(2), pages 251-283, June.
    3. Adam Esplin & Karim Jamal & Shyam Sunder, 2018. "Demand for and Assessment of Audit Quality in Private Companies," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 54(3), pages 319-352, September.
    4. Benoît Pigé, 2000. "Audit quality and Corporate governance : an analysis of French audit regulations [Qualité de l'audit et gouvernement d'entreprise : le rôle et les limites de la concurrence sur le marché de l'audit," Post-Print halshs-03425760, HAL.
    5. van Lent, L.A.G.M., 1999. "Incomplete contracting theory in empirical accounting research," Other publications TiSEM 088f797d-9fa4-4081-98f4-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Knechel, W. Robert & Thomas, Edward & Driskill, Matthew, 2020. "Understanding financial auditing from a service perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    7. Anastasia Kraft & Kerstin Lopatta, 2016. "Auditor fees, discretionary book-tax differences, and tax avoidance," International Journal of Economics and Accounting, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2), pages 127-155.
    8. Xianjie He & Jeffrey Pittman & Oliver Rui, 2016. "Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 138(4), pages 703-722, November.
    9. Tobias Svanstr�m, 2013. "Non-audit Services and Audit Quality: Evidence from Private Firms," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 337-366, June.
    10. Vivien Beattie & Alan Goodacre & Ken Pratt & Joanna Stevenson, 2001. "The determinants of audit fees—evidence from the voluntary sector," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 243-274.
    11. Su, Xijia & Wu, Xi, 2017. "Public Disclosure of Audit Fees and Bargaining Power between the Client and Auditor: Evidence from China," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 64-76.
    12. El Ghoul, Sadok & Guedhami, Omrane & Pittman, Jeffrey, 2016. "Cross-country evidence on the importance of Big Four auditors to equity pricing: The mediating role of legal institutions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 60-81.
    13. Joseph Weber & Michael Willenborg & Jieying Zhang, 2008. "Does Auditor Reputation Matter? The Case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 941-972, September.
    14. Fochmann, Martin & Haak, Marcel, 2015. "Strategic decision behavior and audit quality of big and small audit firms in a tendering process," arqus Discussion Papers in Quantitative Tax Research 197, arqus - Arbeitskreis Quantitative Steuerlehre.
    15. Patrick Velte & Carl-Christian Freidank, 2015. "The link between in- and external rotation of the auditor and the quality of financial accounting and external audit," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 225-246, October.
    16. Heuser, Simon & Quick, Reiner & Schmidt, Florian, 2015. "Die Anbieterkonzentration auf dem deutschen Prüfungsmarkt – Eine empirische Untersuchung der Jahre 2010-2013," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 69(1), pages 81-109.
    17. Patrick Velte, 2012. "External rotation of the auditor," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 81-91, September.
    18. Daniels, Bobbie W. & Booker, Quinton, 2011. "The effects of audit firm rotation on perceived auditor independence and audit quality," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 78-82.
    19. Arthur, Neal & Tang, Qingliang & Lin, Zhiwei (Stanley), 2015. "Corporate accruals quality during the 2008–2010 Global Financial Crisis," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 1-15.
    20. Mingcherng Deng & Tong Lu & Dan A. Simunic & Minlei Ye, 2014. "Do Joint Audits Improve or Impair Audit Quality?," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1029-1060, December.

    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:taf:acctbr:v:32:y:2002:i:3:p:171-186. 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 Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABR20 .

    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.