Non-GAAP earnings reporting following going-concern opinions

We examine non-GAAP earnings reporting following a going-concern audit opinion (GCO). Using a propensity score-matched sample, matching first-time going-concern issuing companies with firms in financial distress that did not receive a going-concern report, we find that the likelihood and frequency of non-GAAP earnings reporting are lower following GCOs. In additional analyses, we find the negative association between the announcement of GCOs and the likelihood and frequency of non-GAAP earnings reporting stronger when GCOs are issued by industry-specialist auditors and when GCOs are unexpected, but do not find litigation risk or managers' ability to affect the association. These results are consistent with a decrease in investor demand for non-GAAP earnings disclosures following GCOs.     

Is an Auditor's Propensity to Issue Going Concern Opinions a Valid Measure of Audit Quality?

A number of previous studies use auditor propensity to issue a going concern opinion (GCO) as a proxy of audit quality when examining a sample of financially distressed firms. This study examines whether audit quality (measured by discretionary accruals) influences the probability of financially distressed firms receiving GCOs using a non‐specific sample of 2937 firm‐year observations from Australia over the period 2011–2015. The study first investigates the association between financially distressed firms and the issuance of GCOs. This association is then re‐tested after separating the total sample into low and high audit quality subsamples. The results indicate that financially distressed firms are more likely to receive GCOs, confirming the application of ASA 570 Going Concern. However, financially distressed firms that receive GCOs from their auditors are limited to firms that have higher‐quality audits.     

Abnormal disclosure tone and going concern modified audit reports

The evaluation of going-concern uncertainties and the issuance of going-concern modified audit opinions (GCOs) continue to be of significant interest to the public and the accounting profession. We examine the association between the abnormal tone of disclosures in 10-K filings and GCOs using data from the years 2000 to 2014. We find that abnormal positive disclosure tone is associated with a higher likelihood of a GCO. We also find that the abnormal tone of disclosures is associated with lower type II and type I errors for GCOs (i.e., bankrupt companies without a prior GCO and GCOs without subsequent failure, respectively).     

The impact of political pressure on novice decision makers: are auditors qualified to make going concern judgements?

Over the past decade, the public accountancy profession has been the subject of broad criticism for its failure to adequately prepare third parties for the impending failure of client organizations. Many potential causes of auditors’ failure to issue opinions reflecting client organization’s ability to remain a going concern have been put forth, including primarily poor judgement and/or client pressures to issue a clean opinion. In this paper, we argue that the uncertainty in the decision-making process may be compounded by a relatively low level of knowledge, making the auditor’s end decision more susceptible to socio-political pressure. The paper is divided into five sections. The introductory section of the paper focuses on the widespread criticism of the accountancy profession for its inability to issue going concern opinions for questionable clients who fail shortly after the audit report is issued. In the second section of the paper, we provide an overview of extant studies that have examined how auditors accumulate and process data used to make going concern judgements in a politically sensitive environment. In the third section, we contrast this environment and the approach used by auditors in making going concern judgements with the environment and approach used by insolvency practitioners in dealing with companies in financial distress. A multi-year study in building and using a computerized model of insolvency decision processes is used as the basis for understanding the approach used by insolvency practitioners. Even though the nature of the problems faced in going concern judgements and insolvency practice are very similar, striking differences in the environment, evidence and decision processes used by the two groups of accounting experts are noted. The fourth section reports the results of a field study conducted with insolvency novices and specialists in an effort to elicit the differences in their respective decision processes. The interaction with insolvency specialists from 10 different discussion sessions reveals that senior insolvency practitioners perceive that the decision strategies of auditors is very similar to junior (novice) insolvency practitioners and that the going concern decision, as currently made, fails to include the specialized knowledge of expert decision makers. The fifth and concluding sections discuss implications of these results on auditors’ susceptibility to socio-political pressures and explores the difficulties in addressing the problems identified.     

How do auditors perceive CEO's risk‐taking incentives?

Prior literature documents that executive compensation influences managerial risk preferences through executives’ portfolio sensitivities to changes in stock prices (delta) and stock‐return volatility (vega). Large deltas discourage managerial risk‐taking, while large vegas encourage risk‐taking. Theory suggests that auditors charge higher audit fees when standard audit procedures do not allow auditors to reduce audit risk including the risk arising from higher business risk. We posit and find evidence of a negative (positive) relation between CEO portfolio deltas (vegas) and audit fees. We also find a negative relation between CEO portfolio deltas and the issuance of going‐concern audit opinions (GCO).     

The development of an expert system for managerial evaluation of internal controls

Both practitioners and researchers have devoted signi?cant effort to the study of decision aids, especially expert systems, to assist auditors in internal control evaluations. In addition to being used as a decision aid, researchers have long contended that expert systems could be used to train non‐expert users. Even though the professional accounting literature makes it clear that responsibility for maintaining an effective internal control system rests with management rather than auditors, the focus to date has been on expert systems aimed at assisting/training auditors, not an organization's management. In contrast, this study focuses on management as users of an expert system for internal control evaluation. We describe the development process, explain how the resulting system was evaluated, and discuss results of that evaluation. These results suggest that such a system gives a new way to help managers increase effectiveness and ef?ciency of a critical organizational process: the evaluation of internal controls. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Accountability and auditors’ materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism,variability, and effort

This study investigates the effects of differential accountability pressure strength on auditors’ materiality judgments. We evaluate whether incremental levels of accountability (i.e., review, justification, feedback) increase judgment conservatism, decreases judgment variability, and increases effort. One hundred sixty auditors participated in a between-subjects experiment that included a planning materiality task and a proposed audit adjustment materiality task. As predicted, auditors under higher levels of accountability pressure (i.e., justification, feedback) provided more conservative materiality judgments and had less judgment variability than auditors under lower levels of pressure (i.e., review, anonymity). The results also indicate that accountability strength was positively related to the amount of time spent on the task, explanation length, and consideration of qualitative materiality factors. Finally, the results show that use of a planning materiality decision aid influenced the accountability effects for the planning materiality judgment. These judgments were more conservative and less variable when the planning materiality decision aid was available. We consider implications for research, practice, and policy in the context of the study’s limitations.     

Do going concern opinions provide incremental information to predict corporate defaults?

Review of Accounting Studies - Investors, regulators, and academics question the usefulness of going concern opinions (GCOs). We assess whether GCOs provide incremental information, relative to...     

Decision‐making capabilities of a hybrid system applied to the auditor's going‐concern assessment

The purpose of this study is to evaluate a hybrid system as a decision support model to assist with the auditor's going‐concern assessment. The going‐concern assessment is often an unstructured decision that involves the use of both qualitative and quantitative information. An expert system that predicts the going‐concern decision has been developed in consultation with partners at three of the Big Five accounting firms. This system is combined with a statistical model that predicts bankruptcy, as a component of the auditor's decision, to form a hybrid system. The hybrid system, because it combines the use of quantitative and qualitative information, has the potential for better prediction accuracy than either the expert system or statistical model predicting separately. In addition, testing of the system provides some insight into the characteristics of firms that experience problems, but do not necessarily receive a going‐concern modification. Further investigation into those firms that have problems could reveal factors that may be incorporated into decision support systems for auditors, in order to improve accuracy and reliability of these decision tools. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Consideration of the social context of auditors’ reliance on expert system output during evaluation of loan loss reserves

Auditors are accountable for judgments made within the social context of the accounting firm. Tetlock (1985) states that decision makers often use the acceptability heuristic to cope with accountability. According to this heuristic, individuals make decisions which they are reasonably confident will be acceptable by others to whom they are accountable. When auditors form judgments with the aid of expert system output, they must determine the appropriate level of reliance on the expert system output. Since the expert system output is based on the input of experts, auditors may decide the output is ‘acceptable‘ and overrely on the output. In addition, because of the conservative nature of the accounting firm, expert system output which is negative may be viewed as more acceptable than positive output leading to greater overreliance. The results indicate that auditors do overrely on expert system output and rely to a greater degree on output which is negative versus output which is positive. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Climate-change lore and its implications for climate science: Post-science deliberations?

Using of the results of survey questionnaires distributed to climate scientists who focus on the German Baltic coast, regional political decision makers on the German Baltic coast and weather observations from the same region, this paper assesses the existence of developing climate-change lore and the implications for the role of climate science in the science–policy interface. The Oxford Dictionary (1993) provides one definition of lore as ‘A doctrine, a precept; a creed, a religion.’ This is the definition adopted for this paper. The paper concludes that the discrepancies among weather observations, scientific assessments and decision makers’ perceptions suggest that climate-change lore exists, or is coming into existence. The paper then discusses the implications for the science–policy interface and suggests that given current trajectories, science could come to play a secondary role to climate-change lore in regional political decision making concerning climate change. To the truth-to-power model of the science–policy interface and the tenets of post-normal science, three additional possibly evolving science–policy configurations (as pertaining to the climate change issue) are offered.     

Determinants of going concern opinions and audit fees for development stage enterprises

Startup entities have been the focus of much political and academic interest recently. Development stage enterprises (DSEs), as defined by SFAS 7, are startup entities for which some publicly available information exists. New accounting standards have removed the DSE designation and related extra reporting requirements, and placed more responsibility on owners and managers to assess the ability of entities to continue as a going concern. We examined information from financial statements and audit reports of companies previously reporting as DSEs to investigate what increases the likelihood of receiving a going concern modification in auditors' opinions (GCO) and what affects audit fees. Our overall analyses indicate that the asset size of DSEs, negative working capital, and prior-year going concern modifications consistently influence going concern modifications to auditors' opinions. Managers should clearly consider these conditions when making their assessment of their companies' future going concern status. Our results indicate that the size of the audit firm did not influence the going concern modification decision, but Big4 auditors charge significantly higher fees than other auditors. Thus, managers/owners of DSEs should weigh the benefits of having a Big4 firm audit on their financial statements against the higher fees charged by those firms.     

Are Auditors Professionally Skeptical? Evidence from Auditors’ Going‐Concern Opinions and Management Earnings Forecasts

We examine whether auditors exercise professional skepticism about management earnings forecasts when making going‐concern decisions. Using publicly issued management earnings forecasts as a proxy for earnings forecasts provided by managers to auditors, we find that management earnings forecasts are negatively associated with both auditors’ going‐concern opinions and subsequent bankruptcy. The weight auditors put on management forecasts in the going‐concern decision is not significantly different from the weight implied in the bankruptcy prediction model. Moreover, compared with the bankruptcy model, auditors assign a lower weight to management forecasts they perceive as being less credible, including those (1) issued by managers who issued optimistic forecasts in the previous two years, and (2) predicting high earnings increases or high earnings. Taken together, our evidence is consistent with auditors being professionally skeptical about management earnings forecasts when making going‐concern decisions.     

Employee firing costs and auditors’ going-concern opinions: Evidence from wrongful discharge laws

This paper examines the impact of employee firing costs on auditors’ going-concern (GC) reporting decisions by exploiting the wrongful discharge laws (WDLs) adopted by U.S. states. We find that auditors are more likely to issue GC opinions to financially-distressed clients headquartered in states that have adopted the laws, in particular the good faith exception, than to clients in states that have not. This finding is robust to controlling for the state-level economics, the strictness of legal liability rules, audit office fixed effects, as well as alternative definitions of financial distress and estimation methods. The impact is concentrated in labor-intensive clients and clients in industries with a higher proportion of nonunionized or permanent employees. We further find that the increased propensity to issue GC opinions is attenuated when the auditor is economically dependent on the client, and is driven by auditors who possess labor-specific expertise. Overall, these findings are consistent with higher firing costs increasing auditors’ propensity to issue GC opinions.     

Do corporate payouts signal going-concern risk for auditors? Evidence from audit reports for companies in financial distress

We examine the association between payout policy changes and going-concern decisions for financially distressed clients. Extant auditing standards indicate that payout reductions, which offer a prospect of short-term cash relief, can potentially mitigate going-concern uncertainty, whereas economic theory suggests payout decreases (increases) convey mixed but mostly negative (positive) signals about a company’s future financial status. We find that, compared with a bankruptcy prediction model over short (not to exceed 1 year) and long (2–3 years) horizons, auditors seem to significantly underreact to payout decreases (i.e., negative signals) but react appropriately to payout increases (i.e., positive signals) in their going-concern decisions. Moreover, auditors are three times more likely to make Type II misclassification errors in payout-decreasing firms than in payout-increasing and no-change firms. We also find that auditors take longer to determine the appropriate opinion for clients with payout changes, especially for those who cut their payouts. Overall, our findings suggest that auditors respond differently to positive and negative signals about companies’ future prospects, reflecting the mixed nature of payout decreases relative to payout increases and the professional standards’ emphasis on the prospect of short-term cash relief from payout reductions.     

Consequences of adopting an expanded auditor’s report in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has recently required an expanded auditor’s report for large public companies. We investigate whether this requirement is associated with an increase in the decision usefulness of the auditor’s report and whether it has indirect consequences on audit fees and quality. Our analyses cover four years surrounding the changes, including companies that transitioned to the new regime and companies that continued issuing the previous report’s format. We do not find evidence that the regulatory change significantly affected investors’ reaction to the release of auditors’ reports, audit fees, or audit quality. Furthermore, we do not find that variation in the expanded reports’ content has affected these outcomes. Although companies with long reports pay comparatively higher fees, the mere increase in disclosure does not affect audit fees or quality. Collectively, our evidence is consistent with the expanded auditor’s report providing little incremental information to investors.     

The ‘SKADE LITorSET’ Expert System for Corporate ‘Litigate or Settle’ Decisions

The ‘SKADE LITotSET’ system is a blackboard-based expert system that makes ‘litigate or settle’ decisions in the product liability area. It has three knowledge sources: Legal, Manager and Insurance Adjuster. The combined expertise from each of these is required to solve the ‘litigate or settle’ problem. The control component co-ordinates the interaction between the various knowledge sources on the blackboard. Based on the latest changes to the data on the blackboard, it selects and executes the next knowledge source. The model reproduces the decision makers' opportunistic reasoning processes by the interaction between the various knowledge sources through the blackboard. The results of analyses of a hypothetical case through a series of experiments with the ‘SKADE LITorSET’ system indicate that the blackboard is an appropriate model for development of expert systems in the ‘litigate or settle’ decision domain. The initial success with the blackboard approach suggests that further work needs to be done to see whether more complex models can be built to incorporate a broader range of determinants of settlement decisions.     

External auditors' evaluation of the internal audit function: An empirical investigation

Evaluation of the strength of the client's internal audit function by the external auditor (EA) has taken on increased significance due to stronger regulation around the evaluation of internal controls after SOX (2002). However, research examining how this evaluation occurs in practice is mixed and inconclusive. In this study, we examine empirically whether the Desai et al. (2010) theoretical model is reflective of how auditors make judgments about the strength of their client's internal audit function in practice. Specifically, we present external auditors with evidence about internal auditor work performance, competence and objectivity in a manner consistent with the structure of evidence evaluation implied by the Desai et al. (2010) model. We then compare the auditors' actual strength judgments to the strength levels predicted by the model and evaluate similarities and differences. Results indicate that no one factor dominates the strength judgment in all cases. In addition, EAs do not weigh negative evidence as heavily as does the model. When the evidence about the three factors is conflicting, external auditors have difficulty incorporating them in a consistent way into the calculation of their overall strength judgment. Finally, we find results consistent with prior research indicating auditors tend to be more sensitive to negative than positive evidence. Also, it is harder to move auditors' beliefs away from a negative position with positive evidence than to move those beliefs away from a positive position with negative evidence. Results suggest that additional training and use of a decision aid structured according to the Desai et al. (2010) model would be especially useful when evidence about internal auditors' work performance, competence and objectivity is conflicting.     

IN-QUOTES: a knowledge-based system for supporting decision making in weakly structured domains

In complex and weakly structured domains, decision makers often employ multiple techniques, including quantitative modeling and reasoning from past experiences, to address the problem at hand. As such, there has been a call for more research on developing systems that merge problem-solving approaches, such as reasoning from past experiences, with other paradigms to provide support for both the unstructured and structured aspects of the decision-making process. Development of these systems is dependent on acquiring and modeling the knowledge and expertise inherent in the process and then representing and implementing it in an appropriate form. However, in weakly structured domains, knowledge acquisition may be better described as knowledge ‘co-creation’ in which the expert and system builder work together to understand the process and lend as much structure to it as possible. In this paper, we propose that the integration of principles drawn from the paradigms of case-base reasoning, expert systems, and object-oriented programming facilitates this process by providing a powerful approach to acquire and model knowledge in a weakly structured domain. We demonstrate this approach through the development of a system designed to assist a decision maker in the performance of a difficult, somewhat unstructured design and planning task. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.