Advertisement

An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors

  • Linda A. Myers
  • Jaime Schmidt
  • Michael Wilkins
Original Research

Abstract

Corporate accounting failures and regulatory proceedings that led to the enactment of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 increased the scrutiny of auditors. We investigate whether these events resulted in a change in auditor behavior with respect to going concern reporting. Generally speaking, we find that non-Big N auditors became more conservative while Big N auditors became more accurate. Specifically, non-Big N auditors issued more going concern opinions to both failing and non-failing clients post-2001, reducing their Type II misclassifications at the expense of increased Type I misclassifications. However, Big N auditors decreased their Type I misclassifications with no corresponding increase in Type II misclassifications. Thus, our findings suggest that increased auditor scrutiny resulted in performance improvements in the area of going concern reporting primarily for larger auditors. For smaller auditors, improved going concern accuracy for subsequently bankrupt clients came at the cost of more going concern opinions being issued to subsequently non-failing clients.

Keywords

Going concern Bankruptcy Type I and Type II misclassifications Audit quality Auditor size Auditor conservatism 

JEL Classification

M42 M48 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Chris Hines, Janet McDonald, and Genevieve Scalan for helpful research assistance, and Tom Omer and workshop participants at Texas A&M University for helpful comments and suggestions. Linda Myers and Michael Wilkins gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Garrison/Wilson Chair at the University of Arkansas and from the Jesse H. Jones Chair at Trinity University, respectively.

References

  1. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) (1988) Statement on auditing standard no. 59: the auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. AICPAGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashton RH, Graul PR, Newton JD (2005) Audit delay and the timeliness of corporate earnings. Contemp Acc Res 5(2):657–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnes P (2004) The auditor’s going concern decision and Types I and II errors: the Coase Theorem, transaction costs, bargaining power and attempts to mislead. J Acc Public Policy 23(6):415–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beatty R (1989) Auditor reputation and the pricing of initial public offerings. Acc Rev 64(4):693–710Google Scholar
  5. Beck PJ, Wu MGH (2006) Learning by doing and audit quality. Contemp Acc Res 23(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker CL, Defond ML, Jiambalvo J, Subramanyam KR (1998) The effect of audit quality on earnings management. Contemp Acc Res 15(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blacconiere WG, Defond ML (1997) An investigation of independent audit opinions and subsequent independent auditor litigation of publicly-traded failed savings and loans. J Acc Public Policy 16(4):415–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blay AD (2005) Independence threats, litigation risk, and the auditor’s decision process. Contemp Acc Res 22(4):759–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blokdijk H, Drieenhuizen F, Simunic DA, Stein MT (2006) An analysis of cross-sectional differences in big and non-big public accounting firms’ audit programs. Audit J Pract Theor 25(1):27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boone J, Khurana I, Raman K (2010) Do the Big 4 and the second-tier firms provide audits of similar quality? J Acc Public Policy 29(4):330–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carcello J, Palmrose ZV (1994) Auditor litigation and modified reporting on bankrupt clients. J Acc Res 32(Supplement):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carcello J, Hermanson D, Huss F (1995) Temporal changes in bankruptcy-related reporting. Audit J Pract Theor 14(2):133–143Google Scholar
  13. Cassell CA, Giroux G, Myers LA, Omer TC (2011a) The emergence of second-tier auditors: evidence from investor perceptions of financial reporting credibility. Working paper, University of Arkansas and Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassell CA, Giroux G, Myers LA, Omer TC (2011b). The relation between the strength of corporate governance and auditor-client realignments. Working paper, University of Arkansas and Texas A&M UniversityGoogle Scholar
  15. Chow C, Rice S (1982) Qualified audit opinions and auditor switching. Acc Rev 57(2):326–335Google Scholar
  16. DeFond ML, Raghunandan K, Subramanyam KR (2002) Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. J Acc Res 40(4):1247–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Farber D (2005) Restoring trust after fraud: does corporate governance matter? Acc Rev 80(2):539–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Firth M, Smith A (1995) Auditor quality, corporate risk, and the valuation of new issues. Rev Quant Financ Acc 5(3):241–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster B, Ward T, Woodruff J (1998) An analysis of the usefulness of debt defaults and going concern opinions in bankruptcy risk assessment. J Acc Audit Financ 13(3):351–371Google Scholar
  20. Francis JR, Krishnan J (1999) Accounting accruals and auditor reporting conservatism. Contemp Acc Res 16(1):135–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geiger M, Raghunandan K (2001) Bankruptcies, audit reports, and the Reform Act. Audit J Pract Theor 20(1):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geiger M, Raghunandan K (2002) Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Audit J Pract Theor 21(1):67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geiger M, Rama D (2006) Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy. Acc Horiz 20(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geiger M, Raghunandan K, Rama D (2005) Recent changes in the association between bankruptcies and prior audit opinions. Audit J Pract Theor 24(1):21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Geiger M, Raghunandan K, Rama D (2006) Auditor decision-making in different litigation environments: the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, audit reports and audit firm size. J Acc Public Policy 25(3):332–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hamilton L (1992) Regression with graphics: a second course in applied statistics. Duxbury Press, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  27. Hammersley J, Myers LA, Shakespeare C (2008) Market reactions to the disclosure of internal control weaknesses and to the characteristics of those weaknesses under Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Rev Acc Stud 13(1):141–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hogan C, Martin R (2009) Risk shifts in the market for audits: an examination of changes in risk for “second tier” audit firms. Audit J Pract Theor 28(2):93–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hopwood W, McKeown J, Mutchler J (1989) A test of the incremental explanatory power of opinions qualified for consistency and uncertainty. Acc Rev 64(1):28–48Google Scholar
  30. Hopwood W, McKeown J, Mutchler J (1994) Reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going concern opinion decision. Contemp Acc Res 10(2):409–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hubaid M, Cooke TE (2005) The impact of managing director changes and financial distress on audit qualifications and auditor switching. J Bus Financ Acc 32(9/10):1703–1739Google Scholar
  32. Jones FL, Raghunandan K (1998) Client risk and recent changes in the market for audit services. J Acc Public Policy 17(2):169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Khurana IK, Raman KK (2004) Litigation risk and the financial reporting credibility of Big 4 versus Non-Big4 audits: evidence from Anglo-American countries. Acc Rev 79(2):473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim J, Song BY, Tsui JSL (2013) Auditor size, tenure, and bank loan pricing. Rev Quant Financ Acc 40(1):75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krishnamurthy S, Zhou J, Zhou N (2006) Auditor reputation, auditor independence, and the stock market impact of Andersen’s indictment on its client firms. Contemp Acc Res 23(2):465–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krishnan J, Shauer PC (2000) The differentiation of quality among auditors: evidence from the not-for-profit sector. Audit J Pract Theor 19(2):9–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krishnan J, Krishnan J, Stephens R (1996) The simultaneous relation between auditor switching and audit opinion: an empirical analysis. Acc Bus Res 26(3):224–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lennox C (1999) Are larger auditors more accurate than smaller auditors? Acc Bus Res 29(3):217–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matsumura EM, Subramanyam KR, Tucker RR (1997) Strategic auditor behavior and going-concern decisions. J Bus Financ Acc 24(6):727–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McKeown J, Mutchler J, Hopwood W (1991) Toward an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinion of bankrupt companies. Audit J Pract Theor 11(Supplement):1–13Google Scholar
  41. Myers JN, Myers LA, Omer TC (2003) Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: a case for mandatory auditor rotation? Acc Rev 78(3):779–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Palmrose ZV (1988) An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. Acc Rev 63(1):55–73Google Scholar
  43. Petersen MA (2009) Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. Rev Acc Stud 22(1):435–480Google Scholar
  44. Pittman JA, Fortin S (2004) Auditor choice and the cost of debt capital for newly public firms. J Acc Econ 37(1):113–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) (1995) Public Law no. 104–67. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  46. Reynolds J, Francis J (2000) Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. J Acc Econ 30(3):375–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sun L (2007) A re-evaluation of auditors’ opinions versus statistical models in bankruptcy prediction. Rev Quant Financ Acc 28(1):55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teoh SH, Wong TJ (1993) Perceived auditor quality and the earnings response coefficient. Acc Rev 68(2):346–366Google Scholar
  49. Tucker R, Matsumura E, Subramanyam K (2003) Going-concern judgments: an experimental test of the self-fulfilling prophecy and forecast accuracy. J Acc Public Policy 22(5):401–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vanstraelen A (2003) Going-concern opinions, auditor switching, and the self-fulfilling prophecy effect examined in the regulatory context of Belgium. J Acc Audit Financ 18(2):231–256Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda A. Myers
    • 1
  • Jaime Schmidt
    • 2
  • Michael Wilkins
    • 3
  1. 1.Sam M. Walton College of BusinessUniversity of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  2. 2.McCombs School of BusinessUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  3. 3.Department of Business AdministrationTrinity UniversitySan AntonioUSA

Personalised recommendations