IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ise/isegwp/wp162012.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Going concern opinions are not bad news: Evidence from industry rivals

Author

Listed:
  • Luís M. S. Coelho
  • Rúben M. T. Peixinho
  • Siri Terjensen

Abstract

This paper examines whether going concern audit opinions (GCO) affect the stock price performance of the announcing firms and their industry rivals. Our original evidence clearly suggests that such accounting event is asymmetrically perceived by the market depending on whether the firm is qualified by the auditor or not. In particular, firms receiving a GCO earn negative abnormal returns at the audit report’s disclosure date and over the following year whereas their industry rivals exhibit positive abnormal returns at the GCO date and in the subsequent one-month period. This is in contrast with the preevent abnormal returns, which, on average, are negative and significant for all firms operating within the industry. Overall, we highlight the relevance of audit opinions and mandatory accounting information for the timing of transactions in financial markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Luís M. S. Coelho & Rúben M. T. Peixinho & Siri Terjensen, 2012. "Going concern opinions are not bad news: Evidence from industry rivals," Working Papers Department of Economics 2012/16, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
  • Handle: RePEc:ise:isegwp:wp162012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pascal.iseg.utl.pt/~depeco/wp/wp162012.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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. Scholes, Myron & Williams, Joseph, 1977. "Estimating betas from nonsynchronous data," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 309-327, December.
    3. Fama, Eugene F., 1998. "Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 283-306, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
    7. repec:bla:joares:v:22:y:1984:i::p:59-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Asad Kausar & Richard J. Taffler & Christine Tan, 2009. "The Going-Concern Market Anomaly," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 213-239, March.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:bla:joares:v:6:y:1968:i:2:p:159-178 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Taffler, Richard J. & Lu, Jeffrey & Kausar, Asad, 2004. "In denial? Stock market underreaction to going-concern audit report disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 263-296, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Brown, Stephen J. & Warner, Jerold B., 1980. "Measuring security price performance," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 205-258, September.
    19. John D. Lyon & Brad M. Barber & Chih-Ling Tsai, 1999. "Improved Methods for Tests of Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(1), pages 165-201, February.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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

    Keywords

    Audit reports; going concern; competitive effect;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ise:isegwp:wp162012. 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: (Vitor Escaria). General contact details of provider: https://aquila1.iseg.ulisboa.pt/aquila/departamentos/EC .

    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.