The International Standards on Auditing and the Accuracy of Auditors’ Going Concern Disclosures: Evidence for Private Firms in a Low Litigious Environment

References

• Albersmann, B. T., & Quick, R. (2020). The impact of audit quality indicators on the timeliness of goodwill impairments: Evidence from the German setting. Abacus, 56(1), 66–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/abac.12184
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexeyeva, I., & Sundgren, S. (2022). Do going concern disclosures in the management report and audit report signal bankruptcy risk? Evidence from privately held firms. International Journal of Auditing, 26(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amer, T., Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. (1994). Between-auditor differences in the interpretation of probability phrases. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13(1), 126–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amer, T., Hackenbrack, K., & Nelson, M. (1995). Context-dependence of auditors’ interpretations of the SFAS No. 5 probability expressions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 12(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.1995.tb00479.x
   Google Scholar
• Beams, J., & Yan, Y.-C. (2015). The effect of financial crisis on auditor conservatism: US evidence. Accounting Research Journal, 28(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-06-2013-0033
   Google Scholar
• Bédard, J., Deschênes, J., & van Peteghem, M. (2022). The Relative Contribution of Audit Partners on the Inputs and Outputs of the Audit Process (Working Paper).
   Google Scholar
• Berglund, N. R., Eshleman, J. D., & Guo, P. (2018). Auditor size and going concern reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 37(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51786
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blay, A. D., & Geiger, M. A. (2001). Market expectations for first-time going-concern recipients. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 16(3), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148558X0101600304
   Google Scholar
• Boolaky, P. K., & Soobaroyen, T. (2017). Adoption of international standards on auditing (ISA): Do institutional factors matter? International Journal of Auditing, 21(1), 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boolaky, P. K., Soobaroyen, T., & Quick, R. (2019). The Perceptions and Determinants of Auditing and Reporting Quality in the Asia-Pacific Region. Australian Accounting Review, 29(3), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12225
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branson, J. (2016). Wetsontwerp audithervorming: Aardverschuiving in auditland. Balans, 772, 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Branson, J., & Breesch, D. (2004). Referral as a determining factor for changing auditors in the Belgian auditing market: An empirical study. The International Journal of Accounting, 39(3), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2004.06.001
   Google Scholar
• Burns, J., & Fogarty, J. (2010). Approaches to auditing standards and their possible impact on auditor behavior. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 7(4), 310–319. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2010.21
   Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., & Li, C. (2013). Costs and benefits of requiring an engagement partner signature: Recent experience in the United Kingdom. The Accounting Review, 88(5), 1511–1546. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2003). Audit committee characteristics and auditor dismissals following “new” going-concern reports. The Accounting Review, 78(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.1.95
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., & Santore, R. (2015). Engagement partner identification: A theoretical analysis. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-50991
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carcello, J. V., Vanstraelen, A., & Willenborg, M. (2009). Rules rather than discretion in audit standards: Going-concern opinions in Belgium. The Accounting Review, 84(5), 1395–1428. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2009.84.5.1395
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, P., Kortum, S., & Moroney, R. (2012). Auditors’ going-concern-modified opinions after 2001: Measuring reporting accuracy. Accounting & Finance, 52(4), 1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2011.00436.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carey, P. J., Geiger, M. A., & O’connell, B. T. (2008). Costs associated with going-concern-modified audit opinions: An analysis of the Australian audit market. Abacus, 44(1), 61–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6281.2007.00249.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, E., Fargher, N. L., Geiger, M. A., Lennox, C. S., Raghunandan, K., & Willekens, M. (2013). Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 353–384. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50324
   Google Scholar
• Chen, J. Z., Elemes, A., & Lobo, G. J. (2023). David versus Goliath: The relation between auditor size and audit quality for UK private firms. European Accounting Review, 32(2), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2021.1986090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clatworthy, M. A., & Peel, M. J. (2007). The effect of corporate status on external audit fees: Evidence from the UK. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 34(1-2), 169–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5957.2006.00658.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2-3), 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dye, R. A. (1993). Auditing standards, legal liability, and auditor wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 101(5), 887–914. https://doi.org/10.1086/261908
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewert, R. (1999). Auditor liability and the precision of auditing standards. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 155(1), 181–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, J., LaFond, R., Olsson, P. M., & Schipper, K. (2004). Costs of equity and earnings attributes. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 967–1010. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, J. R. (2004). What do we know about audit quality? The British Accounting Review, 36(4), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2004.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Francis, J. R., Reichelt, K., & Wang, D. (2005). The pricing of national and city-specific reputations for industry expertise in the US audit market. The Accounting Review, 80(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.1.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, P. N. (2010). A single set of worldwide auditing standards: The road is long … . International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 7(4), 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1057/jdg.2010.20
   Google Scholar
• Gao, P., & Zhang, G. (2019). Auditing standards, professional judgment, and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 94(6), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Blandon, J., Argilés-Bosch, J. M., & Ravenda, D. (2019). Is there a gender effect on the quality of audit services? Journal of Business Research, 96, 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiger, M. A., Gold, A., & Wallage, P. (2021). Auditor going concern reporting: A review of global research and future research opportunities. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, M. A., Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. (1998). Going-concern audit report recipients before and after SAS No. 59. The National Public Accountant, 43(8), 24.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2006). Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons, 20(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch.2006.20.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Haapamäki, E., & Sihvonen, J. (2019). Research on international standards on auditing: Literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, 35, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2019.05.007
   Google Scholar
• Hardies, K., Vandenhaute, M.-L., & Breesch, D. (2018). An analysis of Auditors’ going-concern reporting accuracy in private firms. Accounting Horizons, 32(4), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52297
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, K., Omer, T. C., & Wong, P. A. (2015). Going, going, still here? Determinants and reactions to consecutive going concern opinions (Working Paper). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2672008
   Google Scholar
• Hope, O. K., & Langli, J. C. (2010). Auditor independence in a private firm and low litigation risk setting. The Accounting Review, 85(2), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2010.85.2.573
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, O.-K., Langli, J. C., & Thomas, W. B. (2012). Agency conflicts and auditing in private firms. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 37(7), 500–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2012.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hossain, S., Chapple, L., & Monroe, G. S. (2018). Does auditor gender affect issuing going-concern decisions for financially distressed clients? Accounting & Finance, 58(4), 1027–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphrey, C., Loft, A., & Samsonova-Taddei, A. (2014). Not just a standard story: The rise of international standards on auditing. In D. Hay, W. R. Knechel, & M. Willekens (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Auditing (pp. 161–178). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Informatiecentrum voor het Bedrijfsrevisoraat (ICCI). (2007). Het commissarisverslag opgesteld overeenkomstig de artikelen 144 en 148 van het Wetboek van vennootschappen. Die Keure.
   Google Scholar
• International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2017). An overview of the IAASB‘S role and standard-setting process. Retrieved June 28, 2023, from https://www.iaasb.org/_flysystem/azure-private/uploads/IAASB/International-Auditing-and-Assurance-Standards-Board-Fact-Sheet.pdf
   Google Scholar
• International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). (2023). Adoption Status International Standards on Auditing. Retrieved June 12, 2023, from https://www.ifac.org/what-we-do/global-impact-map/adoption-status
   Google Scholar
• Johnstone, K. M., & Bedard, J. C. (2003). Risk management in client acceptance decisions. The Accounting Review, 78(4), 1003–1025. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2003.78.4.1003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallunki, J., Kallunki, J. P., Niemi, L., Nilsson, H., & Aobdia, D. (2019). IQ and audit quality: Do smarter auditors deliver better audits? Contemporary Accounting Research, 36(3), 1373–1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12485
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, W. R. (2013). Do auditing standards matter? Current Issues in Auditing, 7(2), A1–A16. https://doi.org/10.2308/ciia-50499
   Google Scholar
• Knechel, W. R., & Vanstraelen, A. (2007). The relationship between auditor tenure and audit quality implied by going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 26(1), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2007.26.1.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, W. R., Vanstraelen, A., & Zerni, M. (2015). Does the identity of engagement partners matter? An analysis of audit partner reporting decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32(4), 1443–1478. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, A. G. (2009). Evaluation of the possible adoption of International Standards on Auditing (ISAs) in the EU. (Report Markt/2007/15/F). Internal Market Directorate General of the European Commission. Retrieved June 28, 2023, from https://www.iasplus.com/en/binary/europe/0906isastudyreport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lennox, C. (2000). Going-concern opinions in failing companies: Auditor dependence and opinion shopping (Working Paper). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=240468
   Google Scholar
• Lennox, C. (2005). Audit quality and executive officers’ affiliations with CPA firms. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 39(2), 201–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2003.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lennox, C. S. (1999). Audit quality and auditor size: An evaluation of reputation and deep pockets hypotheses. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 26(7-8), 779–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00275
   Google Scholar
• Maijoor, S., & Vanstraelen, A. (2012). “Research Opportunities in Auditing in the EU,” Revisited. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 31(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-10209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumura, E. M., Subramanyam, K., & Tucker, R. R. (1997). Strategic auditor behavior and going-concern decisions. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 24(6), 727–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5957.00131
   Google Scholar
• Mutchler, J. F. (1985). A multivariate analysis of the auditor's going-concern opinion decision. Journal of Accounting Research, 23(2), 668–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2490832
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutchler, J. F., & Williams, D. D. (1990). The relationship between audit technology, client risk profiles, and the going-concern opinion decision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 9(3), 39–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Needles Jr, B. E., Ramamoorti, S., & Shelton, S. W. (2002). The role of international auditing in the improvement of international financial reporting. Advances in International Accounting, 15, 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-3660(02)15023-9
   Google Scholar
• Nogler, G. E. (1995). The resolution of auditor going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 14(2), 54–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ooghe, H., Joos, P., & De Bourdeaudhuij, C. (1995). Financial distress models in Belgium: The results of a decade of empirical research. International Journal of Auditing, 30, 245–274.
   Google Scholar
• Palmrose, Z. (2000). Empirical research in auditor litigation: Considerations and data, studies in accounting research No. 33. American Accounting Association, Sarasota, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Reichelt, K. J., & Wang, D. (2010). National and office-specific measures of auditor industry expertise and effects on audit quality. Journal of Accounting research, 48(3), 647–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2009.00363.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simunic, D. A. (2003). The Adoption of International auditing Standards in Canada. Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (Report).
   Google Scholar
• Simunic, D. A., Ye, M., & Zhang, P. (2015). Audit quality, auditing standards, and legal regimes: Implications for international auditing standards. Journal of International Accounting Research, 14(2), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.2308/jiar-51305
   Google Scholar
• Simunic, D. A., Ye, M., & Zhang, P. (2017). The joint effects of multiple legal system characteristics on auditing standards and auditor behavior. Contemporary Accounting Research, 34(1), 7–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sin, F. Y., Moroney, R., & Strydom, M. (2015). Principles-based versus rules-based auditing standards: The effect of the transition from AS2 to AS5. International Journal of Auditing, 19(3), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijau.12045
   Google Scholar
• Sirois, L.-P., Bédard, J., & Bera, P. (2018). The informational value of key audit matters in the auditor's report: Evidence from an eye-tracking study. Accounting Horizons, 32(2), 141–162. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-52047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skinner, D. J., & Srinivasan, S. (2012). Audit quality and auditor reputation: Evidence from Japan. The Accounting Review, 87(5), 1737–1765. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundgren, S., & Svanström, T. (2017). Is the public oversight of auditors effective? The impact of sanctions on loss of clients, salary and audit reporting. European Accounting Review, 26(4), 787–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180.2016.1203345
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundgren, S., & Svanström, T. (2022). Regulatory sanction risk and going-concern reporting practices: Evidence for privately held firms. Accounting and Business Research, 52(4), 377–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2021.1931799
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, R. R., Matsumura, E. M., & Subramanyam, K. (2003). Going-concern judgments: An experimental test of the self-fulfilling prophecy and forecast accuracy. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(5), 401–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2003.08.002
   Google Scholar
• Vanstraelen, A., & Schelleman, C. (2017). Auditing private companies: What do we know? Accounting and Business Research, 47(5), 565–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2017.1314104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Tendeloo, B., & Vanstraelen, A. (2008). Earnings management and audit quality in Europe: Evidence from the private client segment market. European Accounting Review, 17(3), 447–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638180802016684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, J., Willenborg, M., & Zhang, J. (2008). Does auditor reputation matter? The case of KPMG Germany and ComROAD AG. Journal of Accounting research, 46(4), 941–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-679X.2008.00298.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Willekens, M., & Simunic, D. A. (2007). Precision in auditing standards: Effects on auditor and director liability and the supply and demand for audit services. Accounting and Business Research, 37(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2007.9730073
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye, M., & Simunic, D. A. (2013). The economics of setting auditing standards. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(3), 1191–1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2012.01191.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerni, M. (2012a). Audit partner specialization and audit fees: Some evidence from Sweden. Contemporary Accounting Research, 29(1), 312–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1911-3846.2011.01098.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerni, M. (2012b). Do client firms manage the perception of auditor independence? Evidence from the Swedish non-audit service market. Managerial Auditing Journal, 27(9), 821–845. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901211263067
   Google Scholar