IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pep/journl/v7y2002i1p37-50.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Closely Held Firms As Going Concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Michael S. Long

    (Rutgers University)

  • Stephan E. Sefcik

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

This current GAAP determination of a going concern is shortsighted for two important reasons. The most important deals with creditors and other stakeholders involved with the business. Do they enter into contracts with the business or with the individual owner/manager? Currently, they contract with both since, in reality, they make no determination whether a separate firm (entity) exists. The second deals with valuing a business. If the business is not really a separate going concern, it would typically be valued as the sum of its individual assets instead of the present value of its future cash flows. Many times when buying a business, the acquirer is really just buying the assets to start his own business. This is particularly true in most service businesses. The purpose of this paper is to advocate reintroducing a qualification to the going concern audit opinion when an entity separate from its owner/manager does not exist. Criteria for determination are also proposed. Arguably, this will make audited accounting statements more meaningful for closely-held firms. More important, this should produce information useful for potential creditors and outside owners. Traditionally, banks have extended loans to small, closely-held firms with only compiled statements; there was no need to provide audited statements. However, the process of lending is changing from a direct, face-to-face process between borrower and lender to an indirect one where credit scoring systems are used. Audited statements can provide better, higher quality information to lenders extending credit.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael S. Long & Stephan E. Sefcik, 2002. "Closely Held Firms As Going Concerns," Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, vol. 7(1), pages 37-50, Spring.
    • Handle: RePEc:pep:journl:v:7:y:2002:i:1:p:37-50
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jefsite.org/RePEc/pep/journl/jef-2002-07-1-e-long.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mitchell A. Petersen & Raghuram G. Rajan, 2000. "Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending," NBER Working Papers 7685, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Mitchell A. Petersen & Raghuram G. Rajan, 2002. "Does Distance Still Matter? The Information Revolution in Small Business Lending," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(6), pages 2533-2570, December.
    3. Choi, Sung K. & Jeter, Debra C., 1992. "The effects of qualified audit opinions on earnings response coefficients," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2-3), pages 229-247, August.
    4. Dopuch, Nicholas & Holthausen, Robert W. & Leftwich, Richard W., 1986. "Abnormal stock returns associated with media disclosures of `subject to' qualified audit opinions," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 93-117, June.
    5. Duane B. Kennedy & Wayne H. Shaw, 1991. "Evaluating financial distress resolution using prior audit opinions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 97-114, September.
    6. Elliott, Ja, 1982. "Subject To Audit Opinions And Abnormal Security Returns - Outcomes And Ambiguities," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 617-638.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Frank D. Hodge & Roger D. Martin & Jamie H. Pratt, 2006. "Audit Qualifications of Income†Decreasing Accounting Choices," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 369-394, June.
    2. Butler, Marty & Leone, Andrew J. & Willenborg, Michael, 2004. "An empirical analysis of auditor reporting and its association with abnormal accruals," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 139-165, June.
    3. Willenborg, Michael & McKeown, J.C.James C., 2000. "Going-concern initial public offerings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 279-313, December.
    4. Fernandez, Ana I. & Gonzalez, Francisco, 2005. "How accounting and auditing systems can counteract risk-shifting of safety-nets in banking: Some international evidence," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 466-500, October.
    5. Bhimani, Alnoor & Gulamhussen, Mohamed Azzim & Lopes, Samuel, 2009. "The effectiveness of the auditor's going-concern evaluation as an external governance mechanism: Evidence from loan defaults," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 239-255, September.
    6. Dong, Bei & Robinson, Dahlia & Robinson, Michael, 2015. "The market's response to earnings surprises after first-time going-concern modifications," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 21-32.
    7. DeYoung, Robert & Glennon, Dennis & Nigro, Peter, 2008. "Borrower-lender distance, credit scoring, and loan performance: Evidence from informational-opaque small business borrowers," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 113-143, January.
    8. Tianjiao Zhao & Xiang Xiao & Qinghui Dai, 2021. "Transportation Infrastructure Construction and High-Quality Development of Enterprises: Evidence from the Quasi-Natural Experiment of High-Speed Railway Opening in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Knyazeva, Anzhela & Knyazeva, Diana, 2012. "Does being your bank’s neighbor matter?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 1194-1209.
    10. Michiel Bijlsma & Wouter Elsenburg & Michiel van Leuvensteijn, 2010. "Four Futures for Finance; A scenario study," CPB Document 211.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    11. Costello, Anna M. & Down, Andrea K. & Mehta, Mihir N., 2020. "Machine + man: A field experiment on the role of discretion in augmenting AI-based lending models," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2).
    12. Simon Cornée, 2014. "Soft Information and Default Prediction in Cooperative and Social Banks," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 3(1), pages 89-103, June.
    13. Song Zhang & Liang Han & Konstantinos Kallias & Antonios Kallias, 2021. "The value of in-person banking: evidence from U.S. small businesses," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1393-1435, November.
    14. Chongyu Wang & Tingyu Zhou, 2021. "Trade-offs between Asset Location and Proximity to Home: Evidence from REIT Property Sell-offs," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 82-121, July.
    15. Philip E. Strahan, 2006. "Bank diversification, economic diversification?," FRBSF Economic Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, issue may12.
    16. Allen Berger & Robert DeYoung, 2001. "The Effects of Geographic Expansion on Bank Efficiency," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 19(2), pages 163-184, April.
    17. Kislat, Carmen & Menkhoff, Lukas & Neuberger, Doris, 2013. "The use of collateral in formal and informal lending," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79765, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. P. Charnoz & C. Lelarge & C. Trevien, 2016. "Communication Costs and the Internal Organization of Multi-Plant Businesses: Evidence from the Impact of the French High-Speed Rail," Documents de Travail de l'Insee - INSEE Working Papers g2016-02, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques.
    19. Berger, Allen N. & Dai, Qinglei & Ongena, Steven & Smith, David C., 2003. "To what extent will the banking industry be globalized? A study of bank nationality and reach in 20 European nations," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 383-415, March.
    20. Gangopadhyay, Partha & Jain, Siddharth & Bakry, Walid, 2022. "In search of a rational foundation for the massive IT boom in the Australian banking industry: Can the IT boom really drive relationship banking?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Closely Held Firm; Small Firm; Family Firm; Small Business;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M13 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - New Firms; Startups
    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pep:journl:v:7:y:2002:i:1:p:37-50. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Craig Everett (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bapepus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.