IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibf/acttax/v1y2009i1p63-74.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evidence on Auditors Use of Business Continuity Models as an Analytical Procedure

Author

Listed:
  • Nirosh Karuppu

Abstract

Auditors expressing unqualified audit opinions and asserting going concern for companies that subsequently fail is regarded as audit failure and results in considerable disapproval of the auditing profession. Prior research has suggested that corporate failure models, as an analytical procedure, improve the accuracy of auditors’ assessments of going concern. This study utilizes a survey to examine the practical efficacy of such models within the audit decision framework. It is found that corporate failure models facilitate the formation of more appropriate going concern opinions and increase judgment consensus.

Suggested Citation

  • Nirosh Karuppu, 2009. "Evidence on Auditors Use of Business Continuity Models as an Analytical Procedure," Accounting & Taxation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 1(1), pages 63-74.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibf:acttax:v:1:y:2009:i:1:p:63-74
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.theibfr2.com/RePEc/ibf/acttax/at-v1n1-2009/AT-V1N1-2009-5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David A. Hensher & Stewart Jones, 2007. "Forecasting Corporate Bankruptcy: Optimizing the Performance of the Mixed Logit Model," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 43(3), pages 241-264, September.
    2. Ella Mae Matsumura & K.R. Subramanyam & Robert R. Tucker, 1997. "Strategic Auditor Behavior and Going-Concern Decisions," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 727-758.
    3. Mutchler, JF & Hopwood, W & McKeown, JM, 1997. "The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 295-310.
    4. Carolyn A. Windsor, 2002. "Auditors' Predisposition to Provide Fair Judgments: Australian Evidence of Auditors' Level of Moral Reasoning," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 12(27), pages 51-58, July.
    5. Carcello, Joseph V. & Hermanson, Dana R. & Neal, Terry L., 2003. "Auditor reporting behavior when GAAS lack specificity: the case of SAS No. 59," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 63-81.
    6. Hian Koh & Sen Tan, 1999. "A neural network approach to the prediction of going concern status," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 211-216.
    7. 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.
    8. Louwers, TJ, 1998. "The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditor's loss function," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 143-156.
    9. Divesh S. Sharma & Jagdish Sidhu, 2001. "Professionalism vs Commercialism: The Association Between Non-Audit Services (NAS) and Audit Independence," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5-6), pages 595-630.
    10. Tucker, Robert R. & Matsumura, Ella Mae & Subramanyam, K. R., 2003. "Going-concern judgments: An experimental test of the self-fulfilling prophecy and forecast accuracy," Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 401-432.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elizabeth Carson & Neil Fargher & Yuyu Zhang, 2016. "Trends in Auditor Reporting in Australia: A Synthesis and Opportunities for Research," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 26(3), pages 226-242, September.
    2. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    3. Garcia-Blandon, Josep & Argiles-Bosch, Josep Maria & Castillo-Merino, David & Martinez-Blasco, Monica, 2017. "An Assessment of the Provisions of Regulation (EU) No 537/2014 on Non-audit Services and Audit Firm Tenure: Evidence from Spain," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 251-261.
    4. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    5. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    6. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. 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.
    8. Rúben Miguel Torcato Peixinho, 2011. "Are analysts misleading investors? The case of goingconcern opinions," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2011_22, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
    9. M. M. Swalih & M. S. Vinod, 2017. "Application Of Altman Z Score on BSE-Greenex Companies," Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Department of Business Administration and Corporate Security, International Humanitarian University, vol. 6(3), pages 205-215, September.
    10. Marilena Mironiuc & Ioan-Bogdan Robu & Mihaela-Alina Robu, 2011. """Going Concern"" And The Effects Of The Operational Cycle Management. An Empirical Study Concerning The Usage Of Financial Analysis For Obtaining Preliminary Proofs In The Task Of," Analele Stiintifice ale Universitatii "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" din Iasi - Stiinte Economice (1954-2015), Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 2011, pages 41-53, july.
    11. Tsipouridou, Maria & Spathis, Charalambos, 2014. "Audit opinion and earnings management: Evidence from Greece," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 38-54.
    12. Linda Myers & Jaime Schmidt & Michael Wilkins, 2014. "An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, July.
    13. Wenxia Ge & G. Whitmore, 2010. "Binary response and logistic regression in recent accounting research publications: a methodological note," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 81-93, January.
    14. Reynolds, J. Kenneth & Francis, Jere R., 2000. "Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 375-400, December.
    15. Kaplan, Steven E. & Williams, David D., 2012. "The changing relationship between audit firm size and going concern reporting," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 322-341.
    16. 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).
    17. Thomas E. McKee, 2003. "Rough sets bankruptcy prediction models versus auditor signalling rates," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(8), pages 569-586.
    18. Llano Monelos Pablo De & Piñeiro Sánchez Carlos & Rodríguez López Manuel, 2014. "DEA as a business failure prediction tool. Application to the case of galician SMEs," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 59(2), pages 65-96, abril-jun.
    19. Ilias G. Basioudis & Evangelos Papakonstantinou & Marshall A. Geiger, 2008. "Audit Fees, Non‐Audit Fees and Auditor Going‐Concern Reporting Decisions in the United Kingdom," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 44(3), pages 284-309, September.
    20. Piñeiro Sánchez Carlos & Llano Monelos Pablo De & Rodríguez López Manuel, 2013. "A parsimonious model to forecast financial distress, based on audit evidence," Contaduría y Administración, Accounting and Management, vol. 58(4), pages 151-173, octubre-d.
    21. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Going concern opinions; audit judgment; corporate failure models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M41 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Accounting
    • M42 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Accounting - - - Auditing

    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:ibf:acttax:v:1:y:2009:i:1:p:63-74. 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: Mercedes Jalbert (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.