Regulatory sanction risk and going-concern reporting practices: evidence for privately held firms

References

• Abbott, L.J., Gunny, K.A., and Zhang, T.C., 2013. When the PCAOB talks, who listens? Evidence from Stakeholder Reaction to GAAP-deficient PCAOB inspection reports of small auditors. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 32 (2), 1–31.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Accountancy Europe, 2018. Organisation of the Public Oversight of the Audit Profession in Europe: State of affairs after the implementation of the 2014 Audit Reform. Audit & Assurance, March 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Ai, C. and Norton, E.C., 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80 (1), 123–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnes, P, 2004. The auditors’ going concern decision and Type I and Type II errors: the Coase Theorem, transactions cost, bargaining power and attempts to mislead. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 23, 415–440.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, W.H., Cascino, S., Correia, M., and McNichols, M. F., 2019. Group affiliation and default prediction. Management Science, 65 (8), 3559–3584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blokdijk, H., Drieenhuizen, F., Simunic, D.A., and Stein, M., 2006. An analysis of cross-sectional differences in Big and non-Big public accounting firms’ audit programs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 25 (1), 27–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breen, R., Karlson, K.B., and Holm, A., 2018. Interpreting and understanding logits, probits, and other nonlinear probability models. Annual Review of Sociology, 44, 39–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callaway Dee, C., Lulseged, A., and Zhang, T., 2011. Client stock market Reaction to PCAOB sanctions against a Big 4 auditor. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28 (1), 263–291.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, E., Fargher, N., and Zhang, Y., 2019. Explaining auditors’ propensity to issue going-concern opinions in Australia after the global financial crisis. Accounting & Finance, 59 (4), 2415–2453.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, W., Douthett Jr., E.B., and Lisic, L.L., 2012. Client importance and audit partner independence. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 31 (3), 320–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, J.H., Kim, J.B., Liu, X., and Simunic, D.A., 2008. Audit pricing, legal liability regimes, and Big 4 premiums: theory and cross-country evidence. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25 (1), 55–99.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Citron, D. and Taffler, R., 2001. Ethical behaviour in the UK audit profession: The Case of the self-fulfilling prophecy under Going-Concern Uncertainties. Journal of Business Ethics, 29 (4), 352–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleves, M.A., 2002. From the help desk: comparing areas under receiver operating characteristic curves from two or more probit or logit models. The Stata Journal, 2 (3), 301–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coveney, J., 2015. FIRTHLOGIT: Stata Module to Calculate Bias Reduction in Logistic Regression. Chestnut Hill, Mass: Statistical Software Components S456948, Boston College Department of Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Cram, D.P., Karan, V., and Stuart, I., 2009. Three threats to validity of choice-based and matched-sample studies in accounting research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26 (2), 477–516.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daugherty, B., Dickins, D., and Tervo, W.A., 2011. Negative PCAOB inspections of triennially inspected auditors and involuntary and voluntary client losses. International Journal of Auditing, 15 (3), 231–246.
   Google Scholar
• Defond, M.L., Francis, J.R., and Hallman, N.J., 2018. Awareness of SEC enforcement and auditor reporting decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 35 (1), 277–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeFond, M. and Zhang, J., 2014. A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58 (2–3), 275–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission, 2006/43/EC. Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC.
   Google Scholar
• FAR, 1999. FARs Revisionsbok 1999. Tredje upplagan, Föreningen Auktoriserade Revisorer, Helsingborg.
   Google Scholar
• Firth, M., Lai Lan Mo, P., and Wong, R.M.K., 2014. Auditors’ reporting conservatism after regulatory sanctions: evidence from China. Journal of International Accounting Research, 13 (2), 1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, B.P., Ward, T.J., and Woodroof, J., 1998. An analysis of the usefulness of debt defaults and going concern opinions in bankruptcy risk assessment. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 13 (3), 351–371.
   Google Scholar
• Förordning, 1997:666. med instruktion för Revisorsnämnden. Riksdagen. Svensk författarsamling.
   Google Scholar
• Förordning, 2007:1077. med instruktion för Revisorsinspektionen. Riksdagen. Svensk författarsamling.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, J.R., 2011. A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30 (2), 125–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis, J.R. and Yu, M.D., 2009. Big 4 office size and audit quality. The Accounting Review, 84 (5), 1521–1552.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaeremynck, A. and Willekens, M., 2003. The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment. Accounting and Business Research, 33 (1), 65–79.
   Google Scholar
• Geiger, M.A. and Raghunandan, K., 2002. Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 21 (1), 67–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiger, M.A., Raghunandan, K., and Riccardi, W., 2014. The global financial crisis: U.S. bankruptcies and going-concern opinions. Accounting Horizons, 28 (1), 59–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glover, S.M. and Prawitt, D.F., 2013. Enhancing Auditor Professional Skepticism. Monograph produced by the Standards Working Group of the Global Public Policy Committee. Available from: https://www.iaasb.org/ [Accessed 17 December 2019].
   Google Scholar
• Hardies, K., Breesch, D., and Branson, J., 2016. Do (fe)Male auditors impair audit quality? evidence from going-concern opinions. European Accounting Review, 25 (1), 7–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hope, O.K. and Langli, J.C., 2010. Auditor independence in a private firm and low litigation risk setting. The Accounting Review, 85 (2), 573–605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopwood, W., McKeown, J.C., and Mutchler, J.F., 1994. A reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision. Contemporary Accounting Research, 10 (2), 409–431.
   Google Scholar
• Hosmer, D.A. and Lemeshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• International Forum of Independent Audit Regulators (IFIAR), 2019. Survey of Inspection Findings 2018. Released on May 16, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, S.E. and Williams, D.D., 2013. Do going concern audit reports protect auditors from litigation? A simultaneous equations approach. The Accounting Review, 88 (1), 199–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khurana, K.I. and Raman, K.K., 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, G., and Zeng, L., 2001. Explaining rare events in international relations. International Organization, 55 (3), 693–715.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, W.R., Krishnan, G.V., Pevzner, M.B., Shefchik, L., and Velury, U, 2013. Audit quality: insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32 (Supplement 1), 385–421.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, W.R., Niemi, L., and Sundgren, S., 2008. Determinants of auditor choice: evidence from a small client market. International Journal of Auditing, 12 (1), 65–88.
   Google Scholar
• Knechel, W.R. and Payne, J.L., 2001. Additional evidence on audit report Lag. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20 (1), 137–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knechel, R. and Vanstraelen, A., 2007. The relationship between auditor tenure and audit quality implied by going concern opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 26 (1), 113–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohler, U. and Kreuter, F., 2012. Data Analysis using Stata. (3rd ed.). College Station, Texas: Stata press.
   Google Scholar
• Kvaal, E. and Nobes, C., 2012. IFRS Policy changes and the continuation of national patterns of IFRS practice. European Accounting Review, 21 (2), 343–371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lander, M.W., Koene, A.C., and Linssen, S.N., 2013. Committed to professionalism: Organizational responses of mid-tier accounting firms to conflicting institutional logics. Accounting, Organization and Society, 38 (2), 130–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawrence, A., Minutti-Meza, M., and Zhang, P., 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lennox, C., 2000. Do companies successfully engage in opinion shopping? Evidence from the UK. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 29 (3), 321–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz, H. and James, M., 2007. International audit firms as strategic networks: the evolution of global professional service firms. In: G. Cliquet, G. Hendriksen, M. Tuunanen and J. Windspreger, eds. Economics and Management of Networks: Franchising, Strategic Alliances, Cooperatives (pp. 367–392). New York: Physica-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Li, C., 2009. Does client importance affect auditor independence at the office level? Empirical evidence from going-concern opinions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 26 (1), 201–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louwers, T.J., 1998. The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditor’s loss function. Journal of Accounting Research, 36 (1), 143–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, T., 2006. Does opinion shopping Impair auditor independence and audit quality? Journal of Accounting Research, 44 (3), 561–583.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, J., Mutchler, J.F., and Hopwood, W., 1991. Towards an explanation of auditor failure to modify the audit opinions of bankrupt companies. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 10 (1), 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Mennicken, A., 2008. Connecting worlds: The translation of international auditing standards into post-soviet audit practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 33 (4–5), 384–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutchler, J.F., 1984. Auditors’ perceptions of the going-concern opinion decision. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 3 (2), 17–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutchler, J.F., Hopwood, W., and McKeown, J.C., 1997. The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies. Journal of Accounting Research, 35 (3), 295–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nobes, C., and Parker, R., 2010. Comparative International Accounting (11th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, E. C., Wang, H., and Ai, C., 2004. Computing interaction effects and standard errors in logit and probit models. The Stata Journal, 4 (2), 154–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmrose, Z., 1988. An analysis of auditor litigation and audit service quality. The Accounting Review, 63, 55–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pryor, C., and Terza, J.V., 2001. Are going-concern audit opinions a self-fulfilling prophecy? Advances in Quantitative Analysis of Finance and Accounting, 10, 89–116.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, C., 2009. Constructing the governable small practitioner: The changing nature of professional bodies and the management of professional accountants’ identities in the UK. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34 (3–4), 381–408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read, W.J., 2015. Going concern reporting decisions on bankrupt companies: additional evidence. Current Issues in Auditing, 9 (1), A13–A27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regeringens skrivelse, 2017/18. Riksrevisionens rapport om avskaffande av revisionsplikten för små aktiebolag. Skr. 2017/18: 201. Available from: https://www.regeringen.se/496cc0/contentassets/cdc6b82b1e2c42feb9f5a805215c4bae/skr-201718-201.pdf. [Accessed 9 March 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J.K., and Francis, J.R., 2000. Does size matter? The influence of large clients on office-level auditor reporting decisions. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30 (3), 375–400.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, W., 1994. Regression standard errors in clustered samples. Stata Technical Bulletin, 13 (3), 19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Samsonova-Taddei, A., 2013. Social relations and the differential local impact of global standards: The Case of International Standards on auditing. Abacus, 49 (4), 506–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shumway, T., 2001. Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: a simple hazard model. Journal of Business, 74 (1), 101–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundgren, S. and Svanström, T., 2013. Audit office size, audit quality, and audit pricing: evidence from private firms. Accounting and Business Research, 43 (1), 31–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundgren, S. and Svanström, T., 2014. Auditor-in-Charge characteristics and going concern reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 31 (2), 531–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundgren, S. and 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweeney, J.T. and Summers, S.L., 2002. The effect of the busy season workload on public accountants’ Job burnout. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 14 (1), 223–245.
   Google Scholar
• Tagesson, T. and Öhman, P., 2015. To be or not to be – auditors’ ability to signal going concern problems. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 11 (2), 175–192.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, R. and Matsumura, E., 1998. Going-Concern judgments: An Economic perspective. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 10, 179–218.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, Y., Carson, E., Fargher, N., and Jiang, L., 2013. Responses by Australian auditors to the global financial crisis. Accounting and Finance, 53 (1), 301–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zmijewski, M., 1984. Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction. Journal of Accounting Research, 22 (Supplement), 59–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar