Auditors’ propensity to issue Going Concern Audit Reports (GCARs) is one of the proxies often used for audit quality. Although this propensity is a distinguishing characteristic of auditors, it does not indicate quality according to both theory and practice. In theory, higher quality auditors make fewer audit errors; they are more likely to issue GCARs to clients that deserve them and less likely to issue GCARs to clients that do not. Therefore, the propensity itself does not indicate quality. In practice, Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) inspection reports reveal that the GCAR is rarely mentioned as a deficiency, and in the few cases in which it is discussed, the deficiency is attributed to evidence gathering and estimations, rather than to the GCAR decision itself. The theory and practice motivate our study. This article investigates the empirical ability of the GCAR propensity to proxy for audit quality and finds that different samples and different models yield different determinations of auditor quality. Our findings caution against the use of the propensity to issue GCARs as a proxy for audit quality.
American Institute of Certified Public Accounts. (2017). The auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern (Statement on Auditing Standards No. 132).
2.
AnantharamanD.PittmanJ. A.WansN. (2016). State liability regimes within the United States and auditor reporting. Accounting Review, 91(6), 1545–1575.
3.
AobdiaD. (2019). Do practitioner assessments agree with academic proxies for audit quality? Evidence from PCAOB and internal inspections. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 67(1), 144–174.
4.
AzizM. A.DarH. A. (2006). Predicting corporate bankruptcy: Where do we stand?Corporate Governance, 6(1), 18–33.
5.
BasioudisI. G.PapakonstantinouE.GeigerM. A. (2008). Audit fees, non-audit fees and auditor going-concern reporting decisions in the United Kingdom. Abacus, 44(3), 284–309.
6.
BeckerC.DeFondM.JiambalvoJ. J.SunramanyamK. R. (1998). The effect of auditor quality on earnings management. Contemporary Accounting Research, 15(1), 1–24.
7.
BeneishD.PressE. (1993). Costs of technical default. The Accounting Review, 68, 233–257.
8.
BerglundN. R. (2020). Do client bankruptcies preceded by clean audit opinions damage auditor reputation?Contemporary Accounting Research, 37(3), 1914–1951.
9.
BeyerA.SridharS. S. (2006). Effects of multiple clients on the reliability of audit reports. Journal of Accounting Research, 44(1), 29–51.
10.
BlayA. D.GeigerM. A. (2001). Market expectations for first-time going-concern recipients. Journal of Accounting, Auditing, & Finance, 16, 209–226.
11.
BlayA. D.GeigerM. A. (2013). Auditor fees and auditor independence: Evidence from going concern reporting decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 579–606.
12.
BlayA. D.MoonJ. R.PatersonJ. S. (2016). There’s no place like home: The influence of home-state going-concern reporting rates on going-concern opinion propensity and accuracy. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 35(2), 23–51.
13.
BrownS. V.KnechelW. R. (2016). Auditor-client compatibility and audit firm selection. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(3), 725–775.
14.
CarcelloJ. V.HermansonD. R.HussH. F. (1997). The effect of SAS No. 59: How treatment of the transition period influences results. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 16(1), 114–123.
15.
CarcelloJ. V.PalmroseZ. (1994). Auditor litigation and modified reporting on bankrupt clients. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 1–30.
16.
CarcelloJ. V.VanstraelenA.WillenborgM. (2009). Rules rather than discretion in audit standards: Going-concern opinions in Belgium. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1395–1428.
17.
CareyP.SimnettR. (2006). Audit partner tenure and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 81(3), 653–676.
18.
CarsonE.FargherN. L.GeigerM. A.LennoxC. S.RaghunandanK.WillekensM. (2013). Auditor reporting on going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 32(1), 353–384.
ChenC.MartinX.WangX. (2013). Insider trading, litigation concerns, and auditor going-concern opinions. The Accounting Review, 88(2), 365–393.
21.
DeFondM.ZhangJ. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326.
22.
DeFondM. L.FrancisJ. R.HallmanN. J. (2018). Awareness of SEC Enforcement and Auditor Reporting Decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 35(1), 277–313.
23.
DeFondM. L.LennoxC. S. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 52, 21–40.
24.
DeFondM. L.RaghunandanK.SubramanyamK. R. (2002). Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4), 1247–1274.
25.
DonovanJ.FrankelR.LeeJ.MartinX.SeoH. (2014). Issues raised by studying DeFond and Zhang: What should audit researchers do?Journal of Accounting & Economics, 58(2–3), 327–338.
26.
DopuchN.HolthausenR. W.LeftwichR. W. (1987). Predicting audit qualifications with financial and market variables. The Accounting Review, 62(3), 431–454.
27.
ElderR.ZhangY.ZhouJ.ZhouN. (2009). Internal control weaknesses and client risk management. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 24(4), 543–579.
28.
GeigerM. A.RamaD. V. (2006). Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons, 20(1), 1–17.
29.
GuanY.SuL.WuD.YangZ. (2016). Do school ties between auditors and client executives influence audit outcomes?Journal of Accounting & Economics, 61(2–3), 506–525.
30.
HossainS.YazawaK.MonroeG. S. (2017). The relationship between audit team composition, audit fees, and quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 6(3), 115–135.
31.
International Auditing and Assurance Standard Board. (2015). ISA 570, Going Concern (Revised).
32.
KaplanS. E.WilliamsD. D. (2013). Do Going Concern Audit Reports protect auditors from litigation? A simultaneous equations approach. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 199–232.
33.
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(2), 473–495.
34.
KinneyW. R. Jr. (2015). Discussion of “Does the identity of engagement partner matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions.”Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(4), 1479–1488.
35.
KnechelW. R.VanstraelanA. (2007). The relationship between audit tenure and audit quality implied by going concern opinion. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(1), 113–133.
36.
KrishnanG. V.WangC. (2015). The relation between managerial ability and audit fees and going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(3), 139–160.
37.
LaiK.-W. (2009). Audit opinion and disclosure of audit fees. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 24(1), 91–114.
38.
LawrenceA.Minutti-MezaM.ZhangP. (2011). Can Big 4 versus non-Big 4 differences in audit quality proxies be attributed to client characteristics?The Accounting Review, 86(1), 259–286.
39.
LimC.-Y.TanH.-T. (2008). Non-audit service fees and audit quality: The impact of auditor specialization. Journal of Accounting Research, 46(1), 199–246.
40.
LisicL. L.MyersL. A.SeidelT. A.ZhouJ. (2019). Does audit committee accounting expertise help to promote audit quality? Evidence from auditor reporting of internal control weaknesses. Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(4), 2521–2553.
41.
LuT.SapraH. (2009). Auditor conservatism and investment efficiency. The Accounting Review, 84(6), 1933–1958.
42.
MayewW. J.SethuramanM.VenkatachalamM. (2015). MD&A disclosure and the firm’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Accounting Review, 90(4), 1621–1651.
43.
MenonK.SchwartzK. B. (1987). An empirical investigation of audit qualification decisions in the presence of going concern uncertainties. Contemporary Accounting Research, 3, 302–315.
44.
Minutti-MezaM. (2013). Does auditor industry specialization improve audit quality?Journal of Accounting Research, 51(4), 779–817.
45.
MutchlerJ. F.HopwoodW.McKeownJ. (1997). The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 295–310.
46.
PalmroseZ. V. (1988). An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63, 55–73.
47.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2015). Consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern (Auditing Standards (AS) No. 2415).
48.
RaghunandanK.RamaD. (1995). Audit opinions for companies in financial distress: Before and after SAS No. 59. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14, 50–63.
49.
ReynoldsJ.FrancisJ. (2000). Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting & Economics, 30(3), 375–400.
50.
RobinsonD. (2008). Auditor independence and auditor-provided tax service: Evidence from going-concern audit opinions prior to bankruptcy filings. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 27(2), 31–54.
51.
SolomonI.ShieldsM.WhittingtonO. (1999). What do industry-specialist auditors know?Journal of Accounting Research, 37(2), 191–208.
52.
TepalagulN.LinL. (2015). Auditor independence and audit quality: A literature review. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 30(1), 101–121.
53.
ZmijewskiM. E. (1984). Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 59–82.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
