IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The intraindustry effects of going concern audit reports


  • Luís M.S. Coelho

    () (School of Economics University of the Algarve and CEFAGE)

  • Ruben M.T. Peixinho

    () (School of Economics University of the Algarve and CEFAGE)

  • Siri Terjensen

    (Kelley School of Business University of Indiana)


This paper investigates the effect of a going concern opinion (GCO) on the equity value of the announcing firm’s competitors. On average, GCOs increase the value of a value-weighted portfolio of rivals by 0.37% at the event date. This positive effect is significantly larger when the announcing firm is relatively more profitable, the industry is more concentrated, and when rivals and event firms have distinct assets in place and growth opportunities. Additional tests reveal that such competitive effect is not a mere short-term phenomenon as investors can earn up to 1.54% on a risk-adjusted basis over the first postGCO month. This finding is especially interesting as we show that for the industry rivals the one-year and six-month preGCO riskadjusted equity returns are, on average, strongly negative. Our results highlight the impact of mandatory accounting information on market prices at both the firm and industry levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Luís M.S. Coelho & Ruben M.T. Peixinho & Siri Terjensen, 2011. "The intraindustry effects of going concern audit reports," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2011_23, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
  • Handle: RePEc:cfe:wpcefa:2011_23

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Mitchell, Mark L & Stafford, Erik, 2000. "Managerial Decisions and Long-Term Stock Price Performance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(3), pages 287-329, July.
    2. Fama, Eugene F., 1998. "Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 283-306, September.
    3. Bernard, Victor L. & Thomas, Jacob K., 1990. "Evidence that stock prices do not fully reflect the implications of current earnings for future earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 305-340, December.
    4. Bolton, Patrick & Scharfstein, David S, 1990. "A Theory of Predation Based on Agency Problems in Financial Contracting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 93-106, March.
    5. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    6. repec:bla:joares:v:22:y:1984:i::p:59-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. David L. Ikenberry & Sundaresh Ramnath, 2002. "Underreaction to Self-Selected News Events: The Case of Stock Splits," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 15(2), pages 489-526, March.
    8. Boehmer, Ekkehart & Masumeci, Jim & Poulsen, Annette B., 1991. "Event-study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 253-272, December.
    9. R. Elliott & Michael Highfield & Mark Schaub, 2006. "Contagion or Competition: Going Concern Audit Opinions for Real Estate Firms," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 435-448, June.
    10. Barber, Brad M. & Lyon, John D., 1997. "Detecting long-run abnormal stock returns: The empirical power and specification of test statistics," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 341-372, March.
    11. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
    12. repec:bla:joares:v:6:y:1968:i:2:p:159-178 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Chan, Wesley S., 2003. "Stock price reaction to news and no-news: drift and reversal after headlines," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 223-260, November.
    14. Aharony, Joseph & Swary, Itzhak, 1983. "Contagion Effects of Bank Failures: Evidence from Capital Markets," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 305-322, July.
    15. Jorion, Philippe & Zhang, Gaiyan, 2007. "Good and bad credit contagion: Evidence from credit default swaps," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 860-883, June.
    16. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1980. "Measuring security price performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 205-258, September.
    17. Michaely, Roni & Thaler, Richard H & Womack, Kent L, 1995. " Price Reactions to Dividend Initiations and Omissions: Overreaction or Drift?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(2), pages 573-608, June.
    18. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    19. Philippe Jorion & Gaiyan Zhang, 2010. "Information Transfer Effects of Bond Rating Downgrades," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 45(3), pages 683-706, August.
    20. Dawkins, Mark C. & Bhattacharya, Nilabhra & Bamber, Linda Smith, 2007. "Systematic Share Price Fluctuations after Bankruptcy Filings and the Investors Who Drive Them," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(02), pages 399-419, June.
    21. Gaiyan Zhang, 2010. "Emerging from Chapter 11 Bankruptcy: Is It Good News or Bad News for Industry Competitors?," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 1719-1742, December.
    22. Loughran, Tim & Ritter, Jay R., 2000. "Uniformly least powerful tests of market efficiency," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 361-389, March.
    23. Gay, Gerald D & Timme, Stephen G & Yung, Kenneth, 1991. "Bank Failure and Contagion Effects: Evidence from Hong Kong," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 14(2), pages 155-165, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Audit reports; Going concern; Competitive effect; Contagion effect.;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:cfe:wpcefa:2011_23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Angela Pacheco). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.