An Experimental Investigation of Alternative Going‐Concern Reporting Formats: A Canadian Experience*

This study questions whether the current or proposed Canadian standard of disclosing a going‐concern contingency is viewed as equivalent to the standard adopted in the United States by financial statement users. We examined loan officers' perceptions across three different formats ‐ namely, an integrated note with a clean auditor's report (the current Canadian standard), a stand‐alone note with referencing on the face of the balance sheet and income statement (the proposed and now rescinded standard), and a modified auditor's report with an explanatory paragraph in addition to a stand‐alone going concern note (the standard adopted in the United States and other countries). Bank loan officers were selected as the appropriate financial statement users for this study. The results of the test of the hypothesis suggest that once the going‐concern note is fully disclosed in the notes, the style of presentation within the notes (a stand‐alone note versus an integrated note) does not significantly influence the reactions and perceptions of risk if the auditor's report is unmodified (i.e., if no reference is made to a going‐concern contingency). However, when the auditor's report is modified with an explanatory paragraph detailing the uncertainty and referencing the going‐concern note in the footnotes, the format appeared to convey a stronger signal of financial distress to loan officers. These results appear to differ from prior research, which holds that once the information is released in the financial statements, the format has no additional effect. The finding of this study is that the proposed and withdrawn Canadian standard was not perceived differently by the bankers from the present Canadian standard, but the standard adopted in the United States and most other countries was. This makes a strong argument for moving all the way to that standard as opposed to the “halfway” approach of the now rescinded CICA exposure draft. Thus, the public interest in Canada may not be served by adopting a halfway approach.