Search results

The purpose of this study is to explore the economic impact of financial restatements by major customers on the audit opinion of their suppliers, showing that non-financial information disclosure potentially helps auditors make better assessments.

Using a sample of China’s listed firms from 2007 to 2021, the authors aim to find the relationship between customers’ financial restatements and their suppliers’ audit opinions. Heckman selection model, placebo tests and other robustness checks are used as well.

The findings reveal that customers’ financial restatements have a significant effect on the likelihood of suppliers receiving modified audit opinions. This relationship is pronounced when suppliers face a higher level of financial constraints, exhibit poorer accounting conservatism or receive more negative media coverage. Additionally, this effect occurs through increased business risk and information risk, which heightens auditors’ perceived audit risk. Moreover, the study highlights the influence of switching costs, auditor expertise and restatement severity on this relationship.

Risks originating from customers can spread along the supply chain, emphasizing the necessity for auditors to give heightened attention to both the audited firms and their customer information. Moreover, regulators should carefully consider the important impact of customer information disclosures to maximize the protection of the interests of external information users.

This study not only confirms the crucial role of customer information disclosures in annual reports for stakeholders and auditors but also contributes to the existing literature on customer–supplier relationships.

Non-profit organizations constitute an important share of the U.S. economy, and recent audit failures and GAO findings highlight the importance of auditor reporting decisions in this sector. In this study, we examine going-concern modified audit opinions for non-profit organizations. Using audit opinion data for 3,567 non-profits exhibiting some signs of financial stress, we find that non-profits are more likely to receive a goingconcern modified opinion if they are smaller, are in worse financial condition, expend less on program-related activities, and have more internal control related audit findings. Our analysis of the subsequent resolution of the going-concern uncertainties suggest that only 27 percent of the non-profits receiving an initial going-concern modified audit opinion filed for dissolution in the subsequent four fiscal years. Our findings fill a gap in an important area that has received little research attention, and provide a useful benchmark for non-profits and their auditors.

It is argued that the going concern opinion is issued if auditors have a doubt about financial condition of a company. Provision of the going concern audit opinion may worsen the company in terms of gaining public trust and may even indicate bankruptcy. This study aims to determine the factors that affect the auditor's going concern opinion.

This research used secondary data obtained from annual reports and independent audit reports published by the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The population of this research included manufacturing firms registered in the Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2015 to 2019. The sample after the purposive sampling technique being applied consisted of 33 companies. The data were analyzed using logistic regression performed in the statistical analysis software, SPSS 24.0.

The results indicated that leverage positively affected the going concern audit opinion, then the audit quality, profitability and liquidity negatively affected the going concern audit opinion, whereas firm size and audit lag did not affect the going concern audit opinion.

This study is in contrast to several existing studies on the determinants of the auditor's going concern opinion and provides knowledge on developing more factors affecting the auditor's going concern opinion.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the incremental information content of audit opinion while considering opinion determinants, such as auditor and auditee size, or a firm’s financial state.

A market valuation model is employed using US firm data collected over 30 years. The model relates stock returns to earnings and incorporates as additional variables auditors’ opinion types, opinion determinants and their interactions with audit expression.

The findings suggest that audit opinion has a significant market impact. The estimated positive or negative information content of the audit opinion types is associated with certain opinion determinants, such as auditor and auditee size and a firm’s financial state.

Additional firm-year observations regarding certain opinion qualifications could benefit future research.

This study offers useful insights by demonstrating the importance of auditing profession to the users of financial statements. It examines investors’ perception of each audit opinion type and the conditions under which this expression has the most serious effects. The results demonstrate the role of audit opinion and its cause-effect relationship with various economic events, allowing regulators not only to track the efficiency of various audit policy changes but also act preventively and amend the regulatory framework.

This paper empirically supports the significance of the auditing process and audit opinions by examining investor perceptions. It employs a value relevance model, in contrast to market-based research that adopts an event study methodology.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of company characteristics such as the level of financial distress, client size and type of auditor on the propensity to issue modified audit opinions and to assess comparative differences in audit opinions during two significant economic crises in Turkey.

Logistic regression model is used to test the incremental contribution of each company characteristic on issuing the type of audit opinion for crisis periods. Additionally, to understand the reasons for differences in audit opinions between two types of crisis periods, the authors adopt Francis and Krishnan’s (2002) approach in which an auditor’s propensity to issue modified opinion may be jointly based on changes in client characteristics and auditor reporting strategies in that period.

The results indicate that there is a positive relationship between financial distress and the likelihood of receiving modified opinions in both crisis periods. Additionally, client size affects audit opinions negatively in both periods significantly. Auditors show higher propensity to issue a modified opinion during the domestic than the global financial crisis period, which could be explained by the changes in client characteristics more than their reporting strategy.

This study provides supportive evidence that the company characteristics including the financial distress can be very useful predictors for the auditors’ decisions while issuing their opinions.

The findings of different auditor behaviors during crises periods and possible reasons are the main contributions of this study for international and domestic regulators, investors, audit firms, academics and standard setters in emerging economies.

Type of audit opinion is important for all stakeholders. Firm-specific characteristics have a direct impact on the type of audit opinion. The purpose of this study is to examine the association between accounting comparability (as a micro level characteristic), financial reporting quality (as a macro level characteristic) and audit opinions.

This study uses a multivariate regression analysis to tests it hypotheses to a sample of firms listed in Tehran Stock Exchange during 2015–2019. To measure accounting comparability, the authors use De Franco et al. (2011) model, and Hutton et al. (2009) model to measure financial reporting quality. The authors use type of audit opinion, and auditor's remarks (explanatory notes) as the measure for audit opinions.

The authors find a negative association between accounting comparability, and the proxies for audit opinion. The authors also find that a negative association between financial reporting quality and audit opinions. These results suggest that higher accounting comparability, and higher financial reporting quality (proxied by earnings quality) increases auditor tendency to issue unmodified audit opinion.

To the authors' best knowledge, this is the first study that empirically examines the association between accounting comparability, financial reporting quality and audit opinion. This study provides empirical support for the theoretical views on the association between financial reporting quality and audit opinion. The results could be of interest of both auditors and managers, especially in emerging capital markets, who seek to improve financial reporting quality.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the influence of financial variables and especially profitability, loss in current year, loss in previous year, leverage and liquidity in predicting audit report qualifications (qualified audit opinion) and audit report modifications (qualified opinion or unqualified but with an explanatory paragraph).

The authors used hand-collected data from financial statements and from auditors’ general reports of 76 non-financial publicly traded companies over a period of 11 years (2005-2015). A total of 545 audit reports were analyzed.

The results of panel logistic regression reported a positive relationship between liquidity, loss in the current year, loss in the previous year and a qualified audit report. A positive relationship was found between leverage and audit report modification. Also, the findings show that the Tunisian revolution did not affect the qualification or the modification of the audit report but qualifications decreased significantly during the period of the financial crisis.

The research has practical implications and can help auditors in identifying factors motivating audit report qualification or audit report modification, mainly in periods of instability.

This study contributes to auditing research, since the authors know very little about the determinants of audit opinion in emerging and African markets. It constitutes an addition to previous knowledge about audit opinion in the context of Tunisia during two important periods: the financial crisis and revolution. This research is one of the rare studies analyzing qualifications and audit report modifications by considering both qualifications and explanatory paragraphs.

This paper aims to investigate the impact of qualified audit opinions on the returns of stocks listed at Amman Stock Exchange (ASE) after the introduction of the recent amendments by the International Auditing and Assurance Standard Board (IAASB) on audits reporting and conclusions. It further investigates if results differ between first time qualified and sequenced qualifications, and between plain qualified opinion and qualifications with going concern.

Audit opinions’ announcements and stock returns data are collected from companies’ annual reports for the fiscal years 2016 to 2019 while stock returns are computed from stock closing prices published at ASE website. The authors apply the event study approach and use the market model to calculate normal returns. Cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) and average abnormal returns (AARs) are computed for all qualified audit opinions’ announcements.

The empirical evidence suggests that investors at ASE do not react to qualified audit opinions announcements. That is, the authors find an insignificant impact of qualified audit opinion announcements on stock returns using both CAR and AAR estimates. The results are robust to first time and sequenced qualifications, and for qualifications with going concern. Results are also robust to the use of risk adjusted market model.

The insignificant impact of qualified audit opinions on stock returns have two potential conflicting research implications. First, the new amendments introduced to auditors’ report made them more informative and reduce the negative signals contained in the qualified opinions. That is, investors are now aware of the real causes of qualifications and not overreacting to the qualified opinion. Second, the documented insignificant impact confirms that ASE is not a semi-strong form efficient.

The apparent excessive use of qualifications should ring the bell on whether auditors misuse their power or companies are really in trouble. Hence, the Jordanian regulatory bodies need to warn auditors against the excessive use of qualifications on the one hand, and to raise the awareness of investors on the implications of auditors’ opinions on the other hand.

This study is innovative in twofold. First, it explores the impact of qualified audit opinions on stock returns after the introduction of new amendments by IAASB at ASE. In addition, it uses event study approach and distinguishes between first time qualified and sequenced qualifications, and between plain qualified opinion and qualifications with going concern. The results are consistent with efficient market theory and behavioral finance explanations.

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between going-concern (GC) opinions issued by the Big 4 audit firms and adverse credit ratings from the two largest credit rating agencies (CRAs) – Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Moody’s. This question is relevant because there have been suggestions that auditors and CRAs should become more similar to each other, and because the two largest CRAs have different ownership structures that could affect their ratings.

Univariate and multivariate analyses are performed using a sample of firms that filed for bankruptcy between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2013 that also had an audit opinion signed during the 12 months prior to bankruptcy, along with a credit rating issued by either or both S&P and Moody’s. Both influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time.

Both audit reports and credit ratings influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time.

Auditors are more likely to issue GC opinions when there is a downgrade to the credit rating, and CRAs are more likely to downgrade their ratings when there is a GC opinion. The study highlights that CRAs with different ownership structures provide different credit rating outcomes.