IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reaccs/v23y2018i4d10.1007_s11142-018-9459-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring the market response to going concern modifications: the importance of disclosure timing

Author

Listed:
  • Linda A. Myers

    (University of Tennessee)

  • Jonathan E. Shipman

    (University of Arkansas)

  • Quinn T. Swanquist

    (University of Alabama)

  • Robert L. Whited

    (North Carolina State University)

Abstract

Auditor going concern modifications (GCMs) are intended to provide market participants with information related to financial distress, and prior research suggests that the disclosure of a GCM elicits a substantial negative market reaction from investors. In this study, we investigate the market reaction to GCMs in a contemporary disclosure regime and consider whether the observed market reaction is confounded by other material disclosures. We find that the majority of GCMs are issued concurrently with earnings announcements (EAs) and that EAs in the year of new GCMs elicit large negative cumulative abnormal returns (CARs). We also find that CARs surrounding GCMs are significantly more negative when GCMs are disclosed with EAs versus following EAs. We then evaluate whether GCMs convey distress that is incremental to EA disclosures by measuring i) the market reaction to GCMs disclosed following EAs, and ii) whether EA CARs are substantially more negative for companies disclosing GCMs with EAs as opposed to after EAs. In both cases, we find that the incremental market response to GCMs is statistically weak and much smaller in economic magnitude than is suggested by prior research. Finally, we find that management disclosures in EAs, rather than the presence of a GCM, appear to convey information that investors use to anticipate bankruptcy. Taken together, these findings suggest that GCMs are confounded by other significant disclosures and that the informational benefits of GCM reporting are significantly smaller than previously thought.

Suggested Citation

  • Linda A. Myers & Jonathan E. Shipman & Quinn T. Swanquist & Robert L. Whited, 2018. "Measuring the market response to going concern modifications: the importance of disclosure timing," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1512-1542, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reaccs:v:23:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11142-018-9459-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11142-018-9459-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11142-018-9459-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11142-018-9459-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Freeman, Rn & Tse, Sy, 1992. "A Nonlinear Model Of Security Price Responses To Unexpected Earnings," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 185-209.
    2. Kothari, S. P., 2001. "Capital markets research in accounting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-3), pages 105-231, September.
    3. Holder-Webb, LM & Wilkins, MS, 2000. "The incremental information content of SAS No. 59 going-concern opinions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 209-219.
    4. Clive S. Lennox & Asad Kausar, 2017. "Estimation risk and auditor conservatism," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 185-216, March.
    5. Zhang, Huai & Zheng, Liu, 2011. "The valuation impact of reconciling pro forma earnings to GAAP earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 186-202.
    6. Heflin, Frank & Hsu, Charles, 2008. "The impact of the SEC's regulation of non-GAAP disclosures," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2-3), pages 349-365, December.
    7. Linda Myers & Jaime Schmidt & Michael Wilkins, 2014. "An investigation of recent changes in going concern reporting decisions among Big N and non-Big N auditors," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 155-172, July.
    8. Zhang, Huai & Zheng, Liu, 2011. "The valuation impact of reconciling pro forma earnings to GAAP earnings," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1-2), pages 186-202, February.
    9. Landsman, Wayne R. & Maydew, Edward L. & Thornock, Jacob R., 2012. "The information content of annual earnings announcements and mandatory adoption of IFRS," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 34-54.
    10. Frankel, Richard & Li, Xu, 2004. "Characteristics of a firm's information environment and the information asymmetry between insiders and outsiders," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 229-259, June.
    11. Chen, Peter F. & He, Shaohua & Ma, Zhiming & Stice, Derrald, 2016. "The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 121-144.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Louis, Henock & Robinson, Dahlia, 2005. "Do managers credibly use accruals to signal private information? Evidence from the pricing of discretionary accruals around stock splits," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 361-380, June.
    15. Allen D. Blay & Marshall A. Geiger, 2013. "Auditor Fees and Auditor Independence: Evidence from Going Concern Reporting Decisions," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 579-606, June.
    16. DeFond, Mark & Zhang, Jieying, 2014. "A review of archival auditing research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 275-326.
    17. Linda Smith Bamber & Orie E. Barron & Douglas E. Stevens, 2011. "Trading Volume Around Earnings Announcements and Other Financial Reports: Theory, Research Design, Empirical Evidence, and Directions for Future Research," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 431-471, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Feng Guo & Chenxi Lin & Adi Masli & Michael S. Wilkins, 2021. "Auditor Responses to Shareholder Activism," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 63-95, March.
    2. Kathleen Bakarich & Jiaxin Liu & Joseph Weintrop, 2021. "At what life-cycle stage does the auditors’ going concern report add value?," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1129-1157, April.
    3. Dan Dacian Cuzdriorean, 2018. "Auditing Research: A Review Of Recent Research Advances," Eurasian Journal of Economics and Finance, Eurasian Publications, vol. 6(4), pages 14-26.
    4. Nora Muñoz-Izquierdo & María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano & María-Jesús Segovia-Vargas & David Pascual-Ezama, 2019. "Is the External Audit Report Useful for Bankruptcy Prediction? Evidence Using Artificial Intelligence," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.
    5. Elizabeth Gutierrez & Jake Krupa & Miguel Minutti-Meza & Maria Vulcheva, 2020. "Do going concern opinions provide incremental information to predict corporate defaults?," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1344-1381, December.
    6. Ting Zhang & So Yean Kwack & Yi Si & Gaoliang Tian, 2023. "Non‐GAAP earnings reporting following going‐concern opinions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3217-3252, September.
    7. Keval Amin & John Daniel Eshleman & Peng Guo, 2021. "Investor Sentiment, Misstatements, and Auditor Behavior," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(1), pages 483-517, March.
    8. Marcus M. Doxey & James G. Lawson & Thomas J. Lopez & Quinn T. Swanquist, 2021. "Do Investors Care Who Did the Audit? Evidence from Form AP," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(5), pages 1741-1782, December.
    9. Sandro Brunelli & Francesco Venuti & Thomas Niederkofler & Camilla Falivena, 2024. "Financial distress, auditors’ going concern modification (GCM) and investors’ reaction in a concentrated ownership environment: new evidence from the Italian stock market," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(2), pages 313-339, June.

    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. Liang Tan & Santhosh Ramalingegowda & Yong Yu, 2022. "Third-Party Consequences of Changes in Managerial Fiduciary Duties: The Case of Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 1556-1572, February.
    2. Bradshaw, Mark T. & Christensen, Theodore E. & Gee, Kurt H. & Whipple, Benjamin C., 2018. "Analysts’ GAAP earnings forecasts and their implications for accounting research," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 46-66.
    3. Ting Zhang & So Yean Kwack & Yi Si & Gaoliang Tian, 2023. "Non‐GAAP earnings reporting following going‐concern opinions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3217-3252, September.
    4. Kajüter, Peter & Klassmann, Florian & Nienhaus, Martin, 2016. "Do Reviews by External Auditors Improve the Information Content of Interim Financial Statements?," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 23-50.
    5. Webber, Sarah J. & Nichols, Nancy B. & Street, Donna L. & Cereola, Sandra J., 2013. "Non-GAAP adjustments to net income appearing in the earnings releases of the S&P 100: An analysis of frequency of occurrence, materiality and rationale," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 236-251.
    6. Felix Thielemann & Tami Dinh & Helen Kang, 2019. "Non-GAAP Reporting and Debt Market Outcomes: Evidence from Regulation G," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 71(2), pages 169-203, May.
    7. Sandro Brunelli & Chiara Carlino & Rosella Castellano & Alessandro Giosi, 2021. "Going concern modifications and related disclosures in the Italian stock market: do regulatory improvements help investors in capturing financial distress?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(2), pages 433-473, June.
    8. Shahid Khan & Mark Anderson & Hussein Warsame & Michael Wright, 2015. "Do IFRS‐Based Earnings Announcements Have More Information Content than Canadian GAAP‐Based Earnings Announcements?," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(3), pages 276-302, September.
    9. Aubert, François & Grudnitski, Gary, 2014. "The role of reconciliation quality in limiting mispricing of non-GAAP earnings announcements by EURO STOXX firms," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 154-167.
    10. Nathan R. Berglund, 2020. "Do Client Bankruptcies Preceded by Clean Audit Opinions Damage Auditor Reputation?," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 1914-1951, September.
    11. Li, Valerie & Luo, Yan, 2023. "Costs and benefits of auditors' disclosure of critical audit matters: Initial evidence from the United States," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Visani, Franco & Di Lascio, F. Marta L. & Gardini, Silvia, 2020. "The impact of institutional and cultural factors on the use of non-GAAP financial measures. International evidence from the oil and gas industry," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    13. Black, D.E. & Christensen, T.E., 2018. "Policy implications of research on non-GAAP reporting," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-7.
    14. Nora Muñoz-Izquierdo & María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano & María-Jesús Segovia-Vargas & David Pascual-Ezama, 2019. "Is the External Audit Report Useful for Bankruptcy Prediction? Evidence Using Artificial Intelligence," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.
    15. Elizabeth A. Rainsbury, 2017. "The Impact of the FMA Guidelines on Non†GAAP Earnings Disclosures," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 27(4), pages 480-493, December.
    16. Thielemann, Felix & Dinh, Tami, 2019. "Non-GAAP earnings disclosures around regulation G – The case of “implicit non-GAAP reporting”," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Wijayana, Singgih & Gray, Sidney J., 2018. "Capital market consequences of cultural influences on earnings: The case of cross-listed firms in the U.S. stock market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 134-147.
    18. Sandro Brunelli & Francesco Venuti & Thomas Niederkofler & Camilla Falivena, 2024. "Financial distress, auditors’ going concern modification (GCM) and investors’ reaction in a concentrated ownership environment: new evidence from the Italian stock market," International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(2), pages 313-339, June.
    19. Brandon Gipper & Christian Leuz & Mark Maffett, 2015. "Public Audit Oversight and Reporting Credibility: Evidence from the PCAOB Inspection Regime," NBER Working Papers 21530, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Hsu, Charles & Wang, Rencheng & Whipple, Benjamin C., 2022. "Non-GAAP earnings and stock price crash risk," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).

    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:spr:reaccs:v:23:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s11142-018-9459-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.