Effects of GCOs in Italy: Some Empirical Evidence

Part of the SpringerBriefs in Accounting book series (BRIEFSACCOUNTING)


The literature related with financial reporting events (such as earnings forecast, annual reports releases, financial plan, takeover, merger announcements etc.) is controversial. The main issue arises to confirm whether and to what extent those events affect stock market returns. As regards audit reports release and their impact on the stock market, many studies attempted overtime to capture the magnitude of these phenomena. This chapter aims at exploring the same phenomenon. I use the Event Study methodology (ES) to test whether GCOs impact on stock returns of firms listed at the Italian stock exchange, from 2008 to 2014, alongside the financial crisis. Findings are partially in line with previous studies shedding a light on the negative impact of GCOs on stock market returns, signalling a certain degree of value relevance. The main novelty is that Italian investors reacted (on average) negatively even when GCOs are attached to clean opinions. According to Carson et al (Audit A J Pract Theory 32(1):353–384, 2013) categorization, this research falls in full among studies aimed at detecting consequences of GCOs for shareholders. Moreover, the location matter of the study seems particularly useful because only another study (Ianniello and Galloppo in Manag Audit J 30(6/7):610–632, 2015) has detected the impact of GCOs on stock market returns in Italy.


  1. Al-Thuneibat AA, Khamees BA, Al-Fayoumi NA (2008) The effect of qualified auditors’ opinions on share prices: evidence from Jordan. Manag Audit J 23:84–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ameen EC, Chan K, Guffey DM (1994) Information content of qualified audit opinions for over-the-counter firms. J Bus Financ Account 21(7):997–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskin EF (1972) The communicative effectiveness of consistency exceptions. Account Rev 47:38–51Google Scholar
  4. Boehmer E, Musumeci J, Poulsen A (1991) Event-study methodology under conditions of event-induced variance. J Financ Econ 30(2):253–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown SJ, Warner JB (1980) Measuring security price performance. J Financ Econ 8:205–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown SJ, Warner JB (1985) Using daily stock returns—the case of event studies. J Financ Econ 14:3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell JY, Lo AW, MacKinlay AC (1997) Econometrics of financial markets. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Carson E, Fargher NL, Geiger MA, Lennox CS, Raghunandan K, Willekens M (2013) Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: a research synthesis. Audit J Pract Theory 32(1):353–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castellano R, D’Ecclesia RL (2013) CDS volatility: the key signal of credit quality. Ann Oper Res 205(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castellano R, Scaccia L (2012) CDS and rating announcements: changing signaling during the crisis? Rev Manag Sci 6(3):239–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen KCW, Church KB (1996) Going concern opinions and the market’s reaction to bankruptcy filings. Account Rev 71(1):117–128Google Scholar
  12. Chow CW, Rice SJ (1982) Qualified audit opinions and share prices-an investigation. Audit J Pract Theory 1(2):35–53Google Scholar
  13. Craswell AT (1985) Studies of the information content of qualified audit reports. J Bus Financ Account 12(1):93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis R (1982) An empirical evaluation of auditors “subject-to” opinions. Audit A J Pract Theory 2(1):13–32Google Scholar
  15. Dodd P, Dopuch N, Holthausen R, Leftwich R (1984) Qualified audit opinions and stock prices. Information content, announcement dates, and concurrent disclosures. J Account Econ 6:3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dopuch N, Hothausen R, Leftwich R (1986) Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosure of subject to qualified audit opinions. J Account Econ 8:93–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Elliott JA (1982) “Subject to” Audit opinions and abnormal security returns–outcomes and ambiguities. J Account Res 20:617–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fama EF (1991) Efficient capital markets: II. J. Finance 46(5):1575–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Firth M (1978) Qualified audit reports: their impact on investment decisions. Account Rev 53(3):642–650Google Scholar
  20. Holt G, Moizer P (1990) The meaning of audit reports. Account Bus Res 20(78):111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ianniello G, Galloppo G (2015) Stock market reaction to auditor opinions—Italian evidence. Manag Audit J 30(6/7):610–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ittonen K (2012) Market reactions to qualified audit reports: research approaches. Account Res J 25(1):8–24Google Scholar
  23. Kolari JW, Pynnönen S (2010) Event study testing with cross-sectional correlation of abnormal returns. Rev Financ Stud 23(11):3996–4025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mentz M, Schiereck D (2008) Cross-border mergers and the cross-border effect: the case of the automotive supply industry. Rev Manag Sci 2(3):199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikkelson WH, Partch MM (1988) Withdrawn security offerings. J Financ Quant Anal 23(2):119–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ogneva M, Subramanyam KR (2007) Does the stock market underreact to going concern opinions? evidence from the U.S. and Australia. J Account Econ 43(2–3):439–452Google Scholar
  27. Pucheta-Martínez MC, Martínez AV, Benau MAG (2004) Reactions of the Spanish capital market to qualified audit reports. Eur Account Rev 13(4):689–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soltani B (2000) Some empirical evidence to support the relationship between audit reports and stock prices—the French case. Int J Audit 4(3):269–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Taffler RJ, Lu J, Kausar A (2004) In denial? Stock market underreaction to going-concern audit report disclosures. J Account Econ 38:263–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tahinakis P, Samarinas M (2016) The incremental information content of audit opinion. J Appl Account Res 17(2):139–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management and LawUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations