IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/coacre/v9y1993i2p612-634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies

Author

Listed:
  • K. RAGHUNANDAN

Abstract

. Adequate disclosure of risks and uncertainties is an issue of interest to the accounting profession and regulators both in Canada and in the United States. Previously, auditors were required to modify their audit reports in the presence of material uncertainties. However, following suggestions that such disclosure is redundant and not useful, the CICA removed this requirement in 1980. Auditors in the United States are still required to disclose material uncertainties in the audit report. The criterion of predictive ability is used in this research to evaluate the potential usefulness of this report modification requirement. Specifically, the study examines the ability of report modifications to predict the materially adverse resolutions of pending litigation. The subsequent resolution patterns for a sample of litigation loss contingencies (with an audit report modification) and a control sample of litigation loss contingencies (without an audit report modification) were compared. The results indicate that a larger proportion of contingencies with an audit report modification were resolved materially against the client. Also noteworthy, audit report modifications had incremental predictive ability over other types of disclosures such as footnotes to the financial statements and prior media disclosure of the contingency. Résumé. La présentation adéquate des risques et des incertitudes est une question d'intérêt pour la profession comptable et les responsables de la réglementation, tant au Canada qu'aux États†Unis. Les vérificateurs étaient auparavant tenus de modifier leur rapport en cas d'incertitudes importantes. Toutefois, à la suite de suggestions selon lesquelles cette information était redondante et sans véritable utilité, l'I.C.C.A. a supprimé cette exigence en 1980. Aux États†Unis, les vérificateurs sont encore tenus de prvérificateurssenter les incertitudes importantes dans leurs rapports. L'auteur utilise le critère de la capacité de prédiction pour évaluer l'utilité potentielle de cette demande de modification du rapport des vérificateurs. Il examine plus précisément dans quelle mesure les modifications apportées au rapport permettent de pédire si les litiges en instance auront un dénouement défavorable dont les conséquences seront importantes. Les modèles de dénouement ultérieur d'un échantillon de pertes éentuelles attribuantes à des litiges, avec modification du rapport des vérificateurs, et d'un échantillon de contrôle de pertes éventuelles attribuables à des litiges, sans modification du rapport des vérificateurs, ont été comparés. Les résultats de cette comparaison indiquent qu'une plus grande proportion de pertes éventuelles attribuables à des litiges avec modification du rapport des vérificateurs se sont soldées par un résultat défavorable important pour le client. Autre fait digne de mention: les modifications apportées au rapport des vérificateurs présentaient une capacité de prédiction marginale par rapport aux autres types d'information tels que les notes afférentes aux états financiers et la diffusion préalable par les médias des pertes éventuelles.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Raghunandan, 1993. "Predictive Ability of Audit Qualifications for Loss Contingencies," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 612-634, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:coacre:v:9:y:1993:i:2:p:612-634
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00900.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00900.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1993.tb00900.x?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. Simunic, Da, 1980. "The Pricing Of Audit Services - Theory And Evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 161-190.
    2. Banks, Dw & Kinney, Wr, 1982. "Loss Contingency Reports And Stock-Prices - An Empirical-Study," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(1), pages 240-254.
    3. Frost, Ca, 1991. "Loss Contingency Reports And Stock-Prices - A Replication And Extension Of Banks And Kinney," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 157-169.
    4. Mutchler, Jf, 1985. "A Multivariate-Analysis Of The Auditors Going-Concern Opinion Decision," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 668-682.
    5. Zmijewski, Me, 1984. "Methodological Issues Related To The Estimation Of Financial Distress Prediction Models," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22, pages 59-82.
    6. Wilkerson, Je, 1987. "Selecting Experimental And Comparison Samples For Use In Studies Of Auditor Reporting Decisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 161-167.
    7. Chewning, G & Pany, K & Wheeler, S, 1989. "Auditor Reporting Decisions Involving Accounting Principle Changes - Some Evidence On Materiality Thresholds," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 78-96.
    8. Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
    9. Abdelkhalik, Ar & Graul, Pr & Newton, Jd, 1986. "Reporting Uncertainty And Assessment Of Risk - Replication And Extension In A Canadian Setting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 372-382.
    10. Elliott, Ja, 1982. "Subject To Audit Opinions And Abnormal Security Returns - Outcomes And Ambiguities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 617-638.
    11. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    12. Kenneth E. Harrison & Lawrence A. Tomassini, 1989. "Judging the probability of a contingent loss: An empirical study," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), pages 642-648, March.
    13. Palepu, Krishna G., 1986. "Predicting takeover targets : A methodological and empirical analysis," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 3-35, March.
    14. William R. Kinney, 1988. "Attestation research opportunities: 1987," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(2), pages 416-425, March.
    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. 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.
    2. Karim Jamal, 2008. "Mandatory Audit of Financial Reporting: A Failed Strategy for Dealing with Fraud," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 97-110, May.
    3. Francis, Jere R., 2004. "What do we know about audit quality?," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 345-368.
    4. Buchman, Thomas A. & Collins, Denton, 1998. "Uncertainty about Litigation Losses and Auditors' Modified Audit Reports," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 57-63, October.

    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. 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.
    2. Dong, Bei & Robinson, Dahlia & Robinson, Michael, 2015. "The market's response to earnings surprises after first-time going-concern modifications," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 21-32.
    3. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    4. Martinez-Blasco, Monica & Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Vivas-Crisol, Laura, 2016. "El informe de auditoría con salvedades: ¿una mayor independencia y competencia del auditor aumenta su contenido informativo?," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 89-101.
    5. Tarek Amer & Karl Hackenbrack & Mark Nelson, 1995. "Context†Dependence of Auditors' Interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 Probability Expressions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 25-39, September.
    6. Gómez Aguilar, Nieves & Biedma López, Estíbaliz & Ruiz Barbadillo, Emiliano, 2018. "El efecto de la rotación de socio en la calidad de la auditoría," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 7-18.
    7. Krishnagopal Menon & Kenneth B. Schwartz, 1987. "An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), pages 302-315, March.
    8. WILLIAM HOPWOOD & JAMES C. McKEOWN & JANE F. MUTCHLER, 1994. "A Reexamination of Auditor versus Model Accuracy within the Context of the Going†Concern Opinion Decision," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 409-431, March.
    9. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    10. Harlan Platt & Marjorie Platt, 2002. "Predicting corporate financial distress: Reflections on choice-based sample bias," Journal of Economics and Finance, Springer;Academy of Economics and Finance, vol. 26(2), pages 184-199, June.
    11. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Dafydd Mali & Hyoung‐joo Lim, 2021. "Do Relatively More Efficient Firms Demand Additional Audit Effort (Hours)?," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 31(2), pages 108-127, June.
    14. Alexander Hölzl & Sebastian Lobe, 2016. "Predicting above-median and below-median growth rates," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 105-133, January.
    15. Kathleen Herbohn & Vanitha Ragunathan & Robert Garsden, 2007. "The horse has bolted: revisiting the market reaction to going concern modifications of audit reports," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(3), pages 473-493, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Foster, Benjamin P. & Shastri, Trim, 2016. "Determinants of going concern opinions and audit fees for development stage enterprises," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 68-84.
    18. Chrysovalantis Gaganis & Fotios Pasiouras & Charalambos Spathis & Constantin Zopounidis, 2007. "A comparison of nearest neighbours, discriminant and logit models for auditing decisions," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(1‐2), pages 23-40, January.
    19. García-Gallego, Ana & Mures-Quintana, María-Jesús, 2013. "La muestra de empresas en los modelos de predicción del fracaso: influencia en los resultados de clasificación || The Sample of Firms in Business Failure Prediction Models: Influence on Classification," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 15(1), pages 133-150, June.
    20. Paul A. Copley & Edward B. Douthett, 2002. "The Association between Auditor Choice, Ownership Retained, and Earnings Disclosure by Firms Making Initial Public Offerings," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 49-76, March.
    21. Guanping Zhou, 2019. "Financial distress prevention in China: Does gender of board of directors matter?," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8.

    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:9:y:1993:i:2:p:612-634. 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: 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.