An effective going concern prediction model for the sustainability of enterprises and capital market development

References

• Altman, E. 1968. “Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy.” The Journal of Finance 23 (4): 589–609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altman, E. 1982. “Accounting Implications of Failure Prediction Models.” Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance 6 (1): 4–19.
   Google Scholar
• Altman, E., and T. P. McGough. 1974. “Evaluation of a Company as a Going Concern.” Journal of Accountancy 6: 50–57.
   Google Scholar
• Amari, S. I. 1995. “Information Geometry of the EM and EM Algorithms for Neural Networks.” Neural Networks 8: 1379–1408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• (AICPA) American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. 1978. “Commission on Anditors’ Responsibilities.” Reporting Conclusions and Recommendations. New York: Cohen Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Anandarajan, M., and A. Anandarajan. 1999. “A Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques with A Qualitative Response Model for Auditor’s Going Concern Reporting.” Expert Systems with Applications 16 (4): 385–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arminger, G., D. Enache, and T. Bonne. 1997. “Analyzing Credit Risk Data: A Comparison of Logistic Discrimination Classification Tree Analysis and Feed Forward Networks.” Computational Statistics 12 (2): 293–310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auditing Standard Committee. 1999a. Statements on Auditing Standards (Sass) No. 33. R.O.C. Taiwan: Accounting Research and Development Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Auditing Standard Committee. 1999b. “Statements on Auditing Standards (SASs) No. 16.”Accounting Research and Development Foundation. R.O.C. Taiwan.
   Google Scholar
• Auditing Standard Committee. 2015. “Statements on Auditing Standards (SASs) No. 57.” Accounting Research and Development Foundation. R.O.C. Taiwan.
   Google Scholar
• Beaver, W. H. 1966. “Financial Ratios as Predictors of Failure.” Journal of Accounting Research 4: 71–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brabazon, A., and B. Keenan. 2004. “A Hybrid Genetic Model for the Prediction of Corporate Failure.” Computational Management Science 1 (3): 293–310.
   Google Scholar
• Breiman, L., J. H. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Bruynseels, L., W. R. Knechel, and M. Willekens. 2011. “Auditor Differentiation, Mitigating Management Actions, and Audit-Reporting Accuracy for Distressed Firms.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 30 (1): 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carson, E., N. L. Fargher, M. A. Geiger, C. S. Lennox, K. Raghunandan, and M. Willekens. 2013. “Audit Reporting for Going-Concern Uncertainty: A Research Synthesis.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 32: 353–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, K. C. W., and B. K. Church. 1992. “Default on Debt Obligation and the Issuance of Going-Concern Report.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory  11 (2): 30–49.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S. 2016. “Detection of Fraudulent Financial Statements Using the Hybrid Data Mining Approach.” SpringerPlus 5. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-1707-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen, S., Y. J. Goo, and Z. D. Shen. 2014. “A Hybrid Approach of Stepwise Regression, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Decision Tree for Forecasting Fraudulent Financial Statements.” The Scientific World Journal. doi:10.1155/2014/968712.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, S., and J. Lee. 2015. “Going Concern Prediction Using Data Mining.” ICIC Express Letters, Part B: Applications 6 (12): 3311–3317.
   Google Scholar
• Etheridge, H. L., R. S. Sriram, and H. Y. K. Hsu. 2000. “A Comparison of Selected Artificial Neural Networks that Help Auditors Evaluate Client Financial Viability.” Decision Sciences 31 (2): 531–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaganis, C., F. Pasiouras, and M. Doumpos. 2007. “Probabilistic Neural Networks for the Identification of Qualified Audit Opinions.” Expert Systems with Applications 32: 114–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geiger, M. A., and K. Raghunandan. 2001. “Bankruptcies, Audit Reports, and the Reform Act.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 20 (1): 187–195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goo, Y. J., D. J. Chi, and Z. D. Shen. 2016. “Improving the Prediction of Going Concern of Taiwanese Listed Companies Using a Hybrid of LASSO with Data Mining Techniques.” SpringerPlus 5. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-2186-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jensen, M. C., and W. H. Meckling. 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, S. E., and D. D. Williams. 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
• Kirkos, E., C. Spathis, A. Nanopoulos, and Y. Manolopoulos. 2007. “Predicting Qualified Auditors’ Opinions: A Data Mining Approach.” Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting 4: 183–197.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, H. C. 1991. “Model Predictions and Auditor Assessments of Going Concern Status.” Accounting and Business Research 21 (84): 331–338.
   Google Scholar
• Koh, H. C., and L. N. Killough. 1990. “The Use of Multiple Discriminate Analyses in the Assessment of the Going-Concern Status of an Audit Client.” Journal of Business, Finance and Accounting 17: 178–192.
   Google Scholar
• Lenard, M. J., P. Alam, and G. R. Madey. 1995. “The Application of Neural Networks and a Qualitative Response Model to the Auditor’s Going Concern Uncertainty Decision.” Decision Sciences 26 (2): 209–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levitan, A. S., and J. A. Knoblett. 1985. “Indicators of Exceptions to the Going Concern. Assumption.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 5 (1): 26–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens, D., L. Bruyneseels, B. Baesens, M. Willekens, and J. Vanthienen. 2008. “Predicting Going Concern Opinion with Data Mining.” Decision Support Systems 45 (4): 765–777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, J. C., J. F. Mutchler, and W. S. Hopwood. 1991. “Towards an Explanation of Auditor Failure to Modify the Audit Opinions of Bankrupt Companies.” Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 10: 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mokhatab, R. F., S. M. Manzari, and S. Bostanian. 2011. “Financial Health Prediction Models Using Artificial Neural Networks, Genetic Algorithm and Multivariate Discriminant Analysis: Iranian Evidence.” Expert Systems with Applications 38 (8): 10210–10217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinlan, J. R. 1986. “Introduction of Decision Trees.” Machine Learning 1 (1): 81–106.
   Google Scholar
• Quinlan, J. R. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Refenes, A. N., A. Zapranis, and G. Francis. 1994. “Stock Performance Modeling Using Neural Networks: A Comparative Study with Regression Models.” Neural Networks 7 (2): 375–388.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, J. K., and J. R. Francis. 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
• Robin, A. J., and H. Zhang. 2015. “Do Industry-Specialist Auditors Influence Stock Price Crash Risk?” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory 34 (3): 47–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salehi, M., and F. Z. Fard. 2013. “Data Mining Approach to Prediction of Going Concern Using Classification and Regression Tree (CART).” Global Journal of Management and Business Research Accounting and Auditing 13 (3): 25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, M., and W. Lu. 2018. “The Bloomberg Robin Hood Index Shows How Many Days the Richest Person of Each Country Can Hypothetically Keep the Government Running.” Bloomberg Businessweek (Web Version). New York: Bloomberg News.
   Google Scholar
• Yeh, C. C., D. J. Chi, and Y. R. Lin. 2014. “Going-Concern Prediction Using Hybrid Random Forests and Rough Set Approach.” Information Sciences 254: 98–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar