This study extends the research of Hopwood et al. (1994) and Mutchler et al. (1997) by empirically investigating the relationships between loan defaults, violation of loan covenants, going-concern opinions, and bankruptcy in bankruptcy prediction models. One objective of this study is to empirically test the ability of loan defaults/accommodations and loan covenant violations to assess the risk of bankruptcy. Another objective of this study is to investigate the impact of failing to control for these two distress events on results from tests of the usefulness of going-concern opinions in assessing bankruptcy risk. Results suggest that loan default/accommodation and loan covenant violation are both significant explanatory variables of bankruptcy at the time of the last annual report before the event. While a going-concern opinion variable appears to significantly explain bankruptcy, it is not significant when included in a model with loan default/accommodation and covenant violation variables. Consequently, our results suggest that researchers should include both loan default/accommodation and covenant violation as control variables when using bankruptcy to test the usefulness of going-concern opinions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AICPA. 1988. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 59: The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. New York: AICPA.
2.
AltmanE. I.1982. “Accounting Implications of Failure Prediction Models.”Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance (Fall): 4–1$.
3.
AltmanE. I.McGoughT. P.. 1974. “Evaluation of a Company as a Going-Concern.”Journal of Accountancy (December): 50–57.
4.
BeneishM. D.PressE.. 1993. “Costs of Technical Violation of Accounting-Based Debt Covenants.”The Accounting Review68 (April): 233–257.
5.
BeneishM. D.PressE.. 1995. “Interrelation Among Events of Default.”Contemporary Accounting Research12 (Fall): 57–83.
6.
CarcelloJ. V.HermansonD. R.HussH. F.. 1995. “Temporal Changes in Bankruptcy-Related Reporting.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory14 (Fall): 133–143.
7.
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 Theory16 (Spring): 114–123.
8.
ChenK. W.ChurchB. K.. 1992. “Default on Debt Obligations and the Issuance of Going-Concern Opinions.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory11 (Fall): 30–49.
9.
ChenK. W.WeiK. C. J.. 1993. “Creditors' Decisions to Waive Violations of Accounting-Based Debt Covenants.”The Accounting Review68 (April): 218–232.
10.
CitronD. B.TafflerR. J.. 1992. “The Audit Report Under Going-Concern Uncertainties: An Empirical Analysis.”Accounting and Business Research22 (Autumn): 337–345.
11.
EfronB.1982. “The Jackknife, the Bootstrap, and Other Resampling Plans.” CBMS-NSF Monograph 38. Philadelphia: Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics.
12.
EfronB.TibshiraniR.. 1986. “Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy.”Statistical Science1: 54–77.
13.
GirouxG. A.WigginsC. E.. 1984. “An Events Approach to Corporate Bankruptcy.”Journal of Bank Research15 (Autumn): 179–187.
14.
HopwoodW. S.McKeownJ. C.MutchlerJ. P.. 1989. “A Test of the Incremental Explanatory Power of Opinions Qualified for Consistency and Uncertainty.”The Accounting Review64 (January): 28–48.
15.
HopwoodW. S.McKeownJ. C.MutchlerJ. P.. 1994. “A Reexamination of Auditor Versus Model Accuracy within the Context of the Going-Concern Opinion Decision.”Contemporary Accounting Research10 (Spring): 409–431.
16.
HosmerD. W.LemeshowS.. 1989. Applied Logistic Regression. New York: John Wiley.
17.
KidaT.1980. “An Investigation into Auditors Continuity and Related Qualification Judgments.”Journal of Accounting Research (Autumn): 506–523.
18.
KohH. C.1991. “Model Predictions and Auditor Assessments of Going-Concern Status.”Accounting and Business Research21 (Autumn): 331–338.
19.
KohH. C.KilloughL. N.. 1990. “The Use of Multiple Discriminant Analysis in the Assessment of the Going-Concern Status of an Audit Client.”Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (Spring): 179–192.
LevitanA. S.KnoblettJ. A.. 1985. “Indicators of Exceptions to the Going-Concern Assumption.”Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice (Fall): 26–39.
22.
MaddalaG. S.1991. “A Perspective on the Use of Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables Models in Accounting Research.”The Accounting Review66 (October): 788–807.
23.
MutchlerJ. F.1985. “A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor's Going-Concern Opinion Decision.”Journal of Accounting Research23 (Spring): 302–315.
24.
MutchlerJ. F.HopwoodW.McKeownJ. C.. 1997. “The Influence of Contrary Information and Mitigating Factors on Audit Opinion Decisions on Bankrupt Companies.”Journal of Accounting Research35 (Autumn): 295–310.
25.
OhlsonJ. A.1980. “Financial Ratios and the Probabilistic Prediction of Bankruptcy.”Journal of Accounting Research18 (Spring): 109–131.
26.
RaghunandanK.RamaD. V.. 1995. “Audit Reports for Companies in Financial Distress: Before and after SAS No. 59.”Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory14 (Spring): 50–63.
WardT. J.1994. “An Empirical Study of the Incremental Predictive Ability of Beaver's Naive Operating Flow Measure Using Four-State Ordinal Models of Financial Distress.”Journal of Business Finance and Accounting (June): 547–561.
29.
WardT. J.1995. “Using Information from the Statement of Cash Flows to Predict Insolvency.”The Journal of Commercial Lending (March): 29–36.
30.
WardT. J.FosterB. P.. 1996. “An Empirical Analysis of Thomas's Financial Accounting Allocation Fallacy Theory in a Financial Distress Context.”Accounting and Business Research26, no. 2 (Spring): 137–152.
31.
WardT. J.FosterB. P.. 1997. “A Note on Selecting a Response Measure for Financial Distress.”Journal of Business Finance and Accounting24, no. 6 (July): 869–879.
32.
WillemainT. R.1994. “Bootstrap on a Shoestring: Resampling Using Spreadsheets.”The American Statistician48 (February): 40–42.
33.
WoodroofJ. B.KasperG. M.. 1996. “A Conceptual Development of a Users' Affective Response to an Information System: A Comparison of Four Operationalizations.”Advances in Accounting Information Systems4: 89–119.
