IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v31y2014i2p531-550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Auditor†in†Charge Characteristics and Going†concern Reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Sundgren
  • Tobias Svanström

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2014. "Auditor†in†Charge Characteristics and Going†concern Reporting," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(2), pages 531-550, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:31:y:2014:i:2:p:531-550
    DOI: 10.1111/1911-3846.12035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12035
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1911-3846.12035?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Singh, Harjinder & Sultana, Nigar & Islam, Ariful & Singh, Abhijeet, 2022. "Busy auditors, financial reporting timeliness and quality," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(3).
    2. Kim, Hyonok & Fukukawa, Hironori & Routledge, James, 2020. "A comparison of management and auditor going concern risk disclosure: Evidence from regulatory change in Japan," Working Paper Series 234, Management Innovation Research Center, School of Business Administration, Hitotsubashi University Business School.
    3. Karen M. Y. Lai & Andriyawan Sasmita & Ferdinand A. Gul & Yee Boon Foo & Marion Hutchinson, 2018. "Busy Auditors, Ethical Behavior, and Discretionary Accruals Quality in Malaysia," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 1187-1198, July.
    4. MohammadRezaei, Fakhroddin & Mohd-Saleh, Norman & Ahmed, Kamran, 2018. "Audit Firm Ranking, Audit Quality and Audit Fees: Examining Conflicting Price Discrimination Views," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 295-313.
    5. Tong, Lijing & Wu, Bin & Zhang, Min, 2022. "Do auditors’ early-life socioeconomic opportunities improve audit quality? Evidence from China," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(2).
    6. Jie Hao & Viet Pham & Meng Guo, 2022. "The Gender Effects of Audit Partners on Audit Outcomes: Evidence of Rule 3211 Adoption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 177(2), pages 275-304, May.
    7. Stefan Sundgren & Tobias Svanström, 2017. "Is the Public Oversight of Auditors Effective? The Impact of Sanctions on Loss of Clients, Salary and Audit Reporting," European Accounting Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 787-818, October.
    8. Xiong, Hao & Hou, Fei & Li, Hanwen & Wang, Huabing, 2020. "Does rice farming shape audit quality: Evidence from signing auditors level analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 403-420.
    9. Mohammad Abedalrahman Alhmood & Hasnah Shaari & Redhwan Al-dhamari, 2022. "Audit Partner Characteristics and Real Earnings Management Practices in Jordan," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 185-200.
    10. Ann Vanstraelen & Caren Schelleman, 2017. "Auditing private companies: what do we know?," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 565-584, July.
    11. Christensen, Brant E. & Newton, Nathan J. & Wilkins, Michael S., 2021. "How do team workloads and team staffing affect the audit? Archival evidence from U.S. audits," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    12. Fakhroddin MohammadRezaei & Omid Faraji & Zahra Heidary, 2021. "Audit partner quality, audit opinions and restatements: evidence from Iran," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(2), pages 106-119, June.
    13. Geiger, Marshall A. & Basioudis, Ilias G. & DeLange, Paul, 2022. "The effect of non-audit fees and industry specialization on the prevalence and accuracy of auditor’s going-concern reporting decisions," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    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:wly:coacre:v:31:y:2014:i:2:p:531-550. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1911-3846 .

    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.