IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/euract/v29y2020i2p263-305.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Auditors Say ‘No,’ Does the Market Listen?

Author

Listed:
  • Shimin Chen
  • Bingbing Hu
  • Donghui Wu
  • Ziye Zhao

Abstract

Previous research on whether the market responds to auditors’ opinions has provided mixed results. We revisit this issue in China, where individual investors who are more likely to neglect value-relevant information dominate the stock market. In addition to going concern opinions (GCOs), China permits modified audit opinions (MAOs) on violations of accounting standards or disclosure rules (GAAP/DISC MAOs), providing an opportunity not available in the literature to enrich the study of audit-opinion pricing. We find that, ceteris paribus, MAO recipients underperform in the future and have a higher incidence of adverse outcomes such as misreporting and stock delisting, and the market reacts negatively to MAOs during the short window around MAO disclosure. Importantly, MAO disclosure is not followed by negative long-term stock returns, suggesting stock price adjustments to MAOs are speedy and unbiased. These findings hold for both GCOs and GAAP/DISC MAOs. Together, our findings support the informativeness of audit opinions and cast doubt on the argument that investors inefficiently price audit opinions due to information-processing bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Shimin Chen & Bingbing Hu & Donghui Wu & Ziye Zhao, 2020. "When Auditors Say ‘No,’ Does the Market Listen?," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 263-305, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:euract:v:29:y:2020:i:2:p:263-305
    DOI: 10.1080/09638180.2019.1597746
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/09638180.2019.1597746
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09638180.2019.1597746?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Estibaliz Goicoechea & Fernando Gómez-Bezares & José Vicente Ugarte, 2021. "Improving Audit Reports: A Consensus between Auditors and Users," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, April.

    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:euract:v:29:y:2020:i:2:p:263-305. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/REAR20 .

    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.