IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/jumsac/295029.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Going-Concern-Modifizierung des Bestätigungsvermerks – Eine kritische Analyse der Einflussfaktoren und Konsequenzen
[Going-Concern-Opinion – A Critical Analysis of Determinants and Consequences]

Author

Listed:
  • Behne, Niklas

Abstract

Die Einschätzung und Berichterstattung des Abschlussprüfers über wesentliche Unsicherheiten in Verbindung mit der Fortführung der Unternehmenstätigkeit stellt für die Stakeholder eines Unternehmens eine wichtige Informationsquelle dar. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden daher die Determinanten, die zu einer sog. Going-Concern-Opinion (GCO) führen, sowie die möglichen Konsequenzen einer GCO für das Unternehmen und den Abschlussprüfer anhand wissenschaftlicher Forschungsergebnisse analysiert und eingeordnet. Die Ergebnisse zeigen eine größere Wahrscheinlichkeit einer GCO bei Unternehmen in einer finanziell schwächeren Situation, mit einem unabhängigeren Audit Committee bzw. einer wirksamen internen Kontrolle. Für Unternehmen hat die GCO eine negative Marktreaktion sowie schlechtere Konditionen bei der Kreditvergabe zur Folge. Die GCO führt zu einer größeren Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Abschlussprüferwechsels sowie geringeren Prüfungshonoraren beim Abschlussprüfer. Bei einer fälschlicherweise unterlassenen GCO sieht sich der Abschlussprüfer mit der Gefahr von Rechtsstreitigkeiten und einem Reputationsverlust konfrontiert. Dieser systematische Überblick kann als Basis für künftige Regulierungsbestrebungen genutzt werden und die Praxis über die möglichen Folgen einer GCO aufklären.

Suggested Citation

  • Behne, Niklas, 2023. "Going-Concern-Modifizierung des Bestätigungsvermerks – Eine kritische Analyse der Einflussfaktoren und Konsequenzen [Going-Concern-Opinion – A Critical Analysis of Determinants and Consequences]," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 8(1), pages 96-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:jumsac:295029
    DOI: 10.5282/jums/v8i1pp96-122
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/295029/1/5191-3492.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5282/jums/v8i1pp96-122?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mutchler, JF & Hopwood, W & McKeown, JM, 1997. "The influence of contrary information and mitigating factors on audit opinion decisions on bankrupt companies," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 295-310.
    2. Bruynseels, L.M.L. & Cardinaels, E., 2014. "The audit committee : Management watchdog or personal friend of the CEO?," Other publications TiSEM 4efbab67-3b44-4eab-9f17-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    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. 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.
    2. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    3. 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.
    4. Waymond Rodgers & Andrés Guiral & José Gonzalo, 2009. "Different Pathways that Suggest Whether Auditors’ Going Concern Opinions are Ethically Based," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 347-361, May.
    5. Wang, Qi & Zhang, Lin & Ma, Qianqun & Wu, Chong, 2024. "The impact of financial risk on boilerplate of key audit matters: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    6. Ahsan Habib & Mabel D' Costa & Hedy Jiaying Huang & Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Li Sun, 2020. "Determinants and consequences of financial distress: review of the empirical literature," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(S1), pages 1023-1075, April.
    7. Mo, Phyllis L.L. & Rui, Oliver M. & Wu, Xi, 2015. "Auditors' going Concern Reporting in the pre- and post-bankruptcy Law Eras: Chinese Affiliates of Big 4 Versus Local Auditors," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 1-30.
    8. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Rúben Miguel Torcato Peixinho, 2011. "Are analysts misleading investors? The case of goingconcern opinions," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2011_22, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
    10. Mary Jane Lenard & Pervaiz Alam & David Booth & Gregory Madey, 2001. "Decision‐making capabilities of a hybrid system applied to the auditor's going‐concern assessment," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(1), pages 1-23, March.
    11. 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.
    12. Foster, Benjamin P. & Shastri, Trim, 2016. "Determinants of going concern opinions and audit fees for development stage enterprises," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 68-84.
    13. Sarah E. Bonner & Artur Hugon & Beverly R. Walther, 2007. "Investor Reaction to Celebrity Analysts: The Case of Earnings Forecast Revisions," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(3), pages 481-513, June.
    14. Chen, Chen & Dou, Ying & Kuang, Yu Flora & Naiker, Vic, 2023. "Do professional ties enhance board seat prospects of independent directors with tainted reputations?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    15. Yu‐Feng Hsu & Wei‐Po Lee, 2020. "Evaluation of the going‐concern status for companies: An ensemble framework‐based model," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 687-706, July.
    16. Uddin, Ajim & Tao, Xinyuan & Yu, Dantong, 2023. "Attention based dynamic graph neural network for asset pricing," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    17. Charlie Weir & Peter Jones & Mike Wright, 2015. "Public to private transactions, private equity and financial health in the UK: an empirical analysis of the impact of going private," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 19(1), pages 91-112, February.
    18. Ann Gaeremynck & Marleen Willekens, 2003. "The endogenous relationship between audit-report type and business termination: evidence on private firms in a non-litigious environment," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 65-79.
    19. Raden Roro Widya Ningtyas Soeprajitno & Sri Ningsih & Iman Harymawan & Bablu Kumar Dhar & Suham Cahyono, 2023. "The School-ties Between Top Management Executive and Audit Partner: Exploring From Earnings Management in Indonesia," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, December.
    20. M. M. Swalih & M. S. Vinod, 2017. "Application Of Altman Z Score on BSE-Greenex Companies," Journal of Applied Management and Investments, Department of Business Administration and Corporate Security, International Humanitarian University, vol. 6(3), pages 205-215, September.
    21. 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.

    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:zbw:jumsac:295029. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://jums.academy/en/ .

    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.