Search results

The research aims to address the Going Concern Audit Opinion published by the auditor with an ISA 570 basis. The application of ISA 570 will help to facilitate the auditor in publishing the Going Concern Audit Opinion. The Going Concern Audit Opinion is the opinion which is released by the auditor to assure whether the company is enabled to maintain its viability. The difference between SA 341 and ISA 570 will to contribute effective impact to the management for elucidating the management plan undertaken to overcome any difficulty they may encounter. The ISA 570 will represent that the auditor intensely guides the management in plan or strategy development for upgrading the finance and non-finance performance. The research approach is the Non-Positivistic approach from an Interpretive Perspective. The researcher obtains the source and type of data from key persons consisting of all auditors working in Public Accountant Firms (PAF) in Surabaya. The data collecting technique uses observation, interview and documentation. The result of the research shows the ISA 570 application gives the facility for the auditors in publishing a Going Concern Audit Opinion. In the audit execution, the auditor will accentuate the strategic plan for resolving the problems with which the company deals.

This article discusses the limitations of existing going‐concern discriminant models and explores the use of weighted probit analysis to construct a classification model for the auditor to use in making going/non‐going concern decisions. The model is constructed using probit analysis with the weighted exogenous sample maximum likelihood (WESML) procedure on a matched sample of 80 going and non‐going concerns. Using the Lachenbruch′s U method of computing holdout accuracy rates, the probit model classifies going/non‐going concerns with an accurate rate of 82.50 per cent for non‐going concerns, 100.00 per cent for going concerns, and 91.50 per cent overall. These accuracy rates are higher than those of the sample auditors, which are 40.00, 97.50, and 68.75 per cent, respectively. The model is expected to be useful as a going‐concern prediction model, a persuasive analytical tool, and a defensive device.

The going concern audit opinion is an audit opinion issued by an auditor to evaluate the company’s ability in maintaining the business continuity. The purpose of this paper is to discover the effects of audit client tenure, audit lag, opinion shopping, liquidity ratio and leverage on the going concern audit opinion.

The study used secondary data obtained from financial reports and independent audit reports published by Indonesian Stock Exchange (ISE) as well as Indonesian Capital Market Directory. Besides, the population of the study included manufacturing companies registered in ISE from 2009 to 2013. Further, the present study applied purposive sampling technique which resulted in 16 companies used as the sample of the study. Then the hypothesis was examined by applying logistic regression.

Results of the hypothesis examination indicated that the variables of opinion shopping and leverage affected the going concern audit opinion, whereas the variables of audit client tenure, audit lag and liquidity ratio did not affect the going concern audit opinion.

Results of the hypothesis examination indicated that the variables of opinion shopping and leverage affected the going concern audit opinion, whereas the variables of audit client tenure, audit lag and liquidity ratio did not affect the going concern audit opinion.

Myopic going concern practice refers to the current audit going concern opinion that a firm is rewarded a favorable going concern opinion as long as it has the capability to satisfy its debt obligation in the following year. We show, via a structural agency problem we develop in the paper, that such a practice has a potential economic cost to the firm. We study Lucent Technologies Inc. in detail for its loss in economic value and also measure the magnitude of this impact with 500 companies. We find that Lucent should have lost its going concern status in 2002 as it had to sell off its assets to meet debt obligations and nearly 18% of the 500 firms suffer some degree of economic loss due to the agency problem.

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.

The auditing and accounting profession must provide appropriate disclosure of the going concern status of an entity, especially when that status is threatened. Auditors have an obligation to consider the wider legal environment of an entity, including all relevant case law, when they perform any such audit. Despite this obligation, the auditing profession appears to violate important legal principles. The auditor’s approach to the going concern status of an entity is contained in the South African Auditing Standard, SAAS 570 “Going Concern”. The South African legal framework’s approach to this issue emerges from the Supreme Court case Philotex (Pty) Ltd v Snyman. This article explores the fundamental disagreement between the auditor’s approach to the going concern problem and that adopted in terms of the wider South African legal framework.

Recent research questions whether bankruptcy is the best proxy for assessing going concern since filing for bankruptcy is not synonymous with the invalidity of the going concern assumption. Furthermore, in contrast to debtor‐oriented countries such as the USA, liquidation is the most likely outcome of corporate insolvency in creditor‐oriented countries such as the UK, Germany, Australia and New Zealand. This suggests that bankruptcy prediction models have limited use for assessing going concern in creditor‐oriented countries. This study examines the efficacy of a corporate liquidation model and a benchmark bankruptcy prediction model for assessing company liquidation. It finds that the former is more accurate in predicting company liquidations in comparison with the latter. Most importantly, Type 1 errors for the liquidation prediction model are significantly lower than for the bankruptcy prediction model, which indicates its greater efficacy as an analytical tool for assessing going concern. The results also suggest that bankruptcy prediction models might not be appropriate for assessing going concern in countries where the insolvency code is creditor‐oriented.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the original and the revised versions of the existing prediction models are the best tools for assessing the going concern assumption of a firm in the creditor-oriented regime.

The analysis begins from estimating the classification accuracy of the original versions of the bankruptcy, going concern and liquidation prediction models. At the second step, the revised versions of the aforesaid existing prediction models are developed. At the third step, the accounting-based going concern prediction model is proposed by using multiple discriminant analysis for the creditor-oriented regime. The sample contains the financial ratios of manufacturing firms for the period 1997–2014.

The finding indicates that the five discriminatory variables, which belong to “income statement” and “statement of financial position,” of the proposed model are not only useful for evaluating the going concern assumption of a firm, but also give aid for evaluating the financial fraud risk of a firm as compared to the original and revised versions of the prediction models that are developed for the debtor-oriented regime.

The external validity of the proposed prediction model can be tested on the large data sets of the countries where the liquidation provisions are a part of their local corporate law.

The proposed accounting prediction model will be helpful for the internal and external auditors in order to determine the going concern assumption at planning, performing and evaluation stages.

The proposed accounting-based going concern prediction model is based on liquidated firms.

“Going‐concern” opinions are judgemental and therefore fraught with numerous problems. The inability to establish the “correctness” or otherwise of the “going‐concern” opinion decision has also been puzzling practitioners throughout the years. Exploratory interviews revealed that a “going‐concern” opinion decision involves not only auditors but also bankers and insolvency practitioners particularly under conditions of financial distress. The purpose of this paper is to determine the factors influencing “going‐concern” opinion decisions of auditors, bankers and insolvency practitioners (IPs) for financially distressed client‐firms. Using data collected via a postal questionnaire, a logistic regression model is developed with an overall correct classification of 81.11 per cent. The model uses indicators of “going‐concern” uncertainties and events/action triggers that invalidate the “going‐concern” status of a financially distressed firm. Further research examining the impact of other (behavioural) factors is required but also highlighting any differences between these three professional user groups of company accounts.

The purpose of this paper is to ascertain the practical efficacy of statistical corporate failure models in improving auditors' going concern assessment. It also aims to examine auditors' perceptions of corporate failure models as an analytical procedure in this context.

The paper utilises a survey questionnaire with a case study component to evaluate the practical value of corporate failure models for assessing going concern, and to examine auditors' perceptions of such models as an analytical procedure for assessing going concern.

The results indicate that corporate failure models facilitate the formation of more appropriate going concern opinions and increase judgment consensus. Auditors perceive such models as useful in obtaining relevant evidential matter and in mitigating some of the subjectivity involved in assessing going concern. However, the results also indicate that corporate failure models are perceived to be more effective in the planning stages than at the final stages of the audit. Furthermore, auditors are seeking more explicit guidance in auditing standards on the use of corporate failure models for assessing going concern.

The study extends previous research by examining the practical efficacy of corporate failure models for assisting auditors to assess going concern in light of human information processing limitations. Further, it examines auditors' perceptions of corporate failure models as an analytical procedure, and the guidance that auditors seek on the use of such models in auditing standards.