Findings indicate that a Shumway method of decomposition of individual ratios is more explanatory of the existence of going concerns than a summary Altman Z score. Obfuscation of financial statement information appears to occur when going-concern footnotes are reported.
Altman (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23, 189-209.
3.
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (1988). The auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern (Statement on Accounting Standards No. 59.) New York, NY: Author.
4.
ArnedoL.LizarragaF.SánchezS. (2008). Going-concern uncertainties in pre-bankrupt audit reports: New evidence regarding discretionary accruals and wording ambiguity. International Journal of Auditing, 12, 25-44.
5.
AsareS. S. (1990). The auditor’s going concern decision: A review and implications for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 9, 39-64.
6.
BharathS.ShumwayT. (2008). Forecasting default with the Merton distance to default model. Review of Financial Studies, 21, 1339-1369.
7.
BellovaryJ.GiacominoD.AkersM. (2007). A review of going concern prediction studies: 1976 to present. Journal of Business & Economic Research, 5, 9-28.
8.
BooE. F.SimnetR. (2002). The information content of management’s prospective comments in financially distressed companies: A note. ABACUS, 38, 280-295.
CampbellJ.HilscherJ.SzilagyiJ. (2008). In search of distress risk. Journal of Finance, 63, 2899-2939.
11.
CollinsS. (2012). Creating a fog: Can plain English be used to mislead investors? (Paper 71, CGU Theses & Dissertations). Retrieved from http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgu_etd/71
12.
CormierD.MagnanM.MorardB. (1995). The auditor’s consideration of the going concern assumption: A diagnostic model. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, & Finance, 10, 201-222.
13.
CourtisJ. K. (1986). Poor communication is alive and well: A study of annual report readability. Canadian Journal of Communication, 12, 1-17.
FASB. (2013). Proposed accounting standards update. Presentation of financial statements (Topic 205) disclosure of uncertainties about an entity’s going concern presumption. Retrieved from http://www.fasb.org/home
16.
FASB. (2014). Update No. 2014-15. Presentation of Financial Statements (Topic 205)—Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. Retrieved from http://www.fasb.org/home
17.
FengM.LiC. (2014). Are auditors professionally skeptical? Evidence from auditors’ going-concern opinions and management earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 52, 1061-1085.
18.
FerenceS. C. (2015). All CPAs should be concerned about going concern. Journal of Accountancy219(2), 20-21.
19.
FosterB.WardT.WoodrofJ. (1998). An analysis of the usefulness of debt defaults and going concern opinions in bankruptcy risk assessment. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 13, 351-371.
20.
GisselJ.RobertsonJ.StefaniakC. M. (2010). Formation and consequences of going concern opinions: A review of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 29, 59-141.
21.
HayesS.HodgeS.HughesL. (2010). A study of the efficacy of Altman’s Z to predict bankruptcy of specialty retail firms doing business in contemporary times. Economics & Business Journal: Inquiries and Perspectives, 3, 130-134.
22.
IlluzziK. (2015). New challenges in a delicate process. Journal of Accountancy, 219, 28-29.
23.
KhuranaI.RamanK. (2004). Litigation risk and the financial reporting credibility of Big 4 versus Non-Big 4 audits: Evidence from Anglo-American countries. The Accounting Review, 79, 473-495.
24.
KleinmanG.AnandarajanA. (1999). The usefulness of off-balance sheet items as predictors of auditors’ going concern opinions: An empirical analysis. Managerial Auditing Journal, 14, 273-285.
25.
KohH. (1991). Model predictions and auditor assessments of going concern status. Accounting & Business Research, 21, 331-338.
26.
KohH.TanS. (1999). A neural net approach to going concern status. Accounting and Business Research, 29, 211-216.
27.
LiF. (2008). Annual report readability, current earnings, and persistence. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 45, 221-247.
28.
LiF. (2010). Textual analysis of corporate disclosures: A survey of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 29, 143-165.
29.
LoughranT.McDonaldB. (2014). Measuring readability in financial disclosures. Journal of Finance, 69, 1643-1671.
30.
MaingotM. B.ZeghelD. (2010). An analysis of the explanatory paragraphs of auditors’ going-concern reports and footnotes of bankrupt companies under SAS No. 59 IUP. Journal of Accounting Research & Audit Practices, 9, 84-104.
31.
MillsJ.YamamuraJ. (1998). The power of cash flow ratios. Journal of Accountancy186, 53-62.
32.
MumyG. (2005). Can a firm’s expected marginal tax rate exceed 100 percent?Public Finance Review, 33, 506-519.
33.
MyersL. A.SchmidtJ. J.WilkinsM. S. (2013). An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and Non-Big N auditors. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 43, 155-172.
SharmaD.SidhuJ. (2001). Professionalism vs commercialism: The association between non-audit services (NAS) and audit independence. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 28, 595-629.
38.
ShumwayT. (2001). Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: A Simple Hazard Model. The Journal of Business, 74, 101-124.
39.
WilkinsonK.CzyzewskiA. B. (2015). Can anyone read accounting footnotes well enough to understand them. Accounting and Finance Research, 4, 123-133.
