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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. repec:mth:ijafr8:v:9:y:2019:i:1:p:135-151 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Maria Consuelo Pucheta‐Martínez & Cristina De Fuentes, 2007. "The Impact of Audit Committee Characteristics on the Enhancement of the Quality of Financial Reporting: an empirical study in the Spanish context," Corporate Governance: An International Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(6), pages 1394-1412, November.
    14. Pernilla Broberg & Torbjörn Tagesson & Daniela Argento & Niclas Gyllengahm & Ola Mårtensson, 2017. "Explaining the influence of time budget pressure on audit quality in Sweden," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(2), pages 331-350, June.
    15. Gómez Aguilar, Nieves & Biedma López, Estíbaliz & Ruiz Barbadillo, Emiliano, 2018. "El efecto de la rotación de socio en la calidad de la auditoría," Revista de Contabilidad - Spanish Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 7-18.
    16. Sanoran, Kanyarat (Lek), 2018. "Auditors’ going concern reporting accuracy during and after the global financial crisis," Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 164-178.
    17. Yingwen Deng & Ole‐Kristian Hope & Cyndia Wang & Min Zhang, 2022. "Capital market liberalization and auditors' accounting adjustments: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1-2), pages 215-248, January.
    18. Donghui Wu & Qing Ye, 2020. "Public Attention and Auditor Behavior: The Case of Hurun Rich List in China," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 777-825, June.
    19. Carlo Caserio & Delio Panaro & Sara Trucco, 2014. "A statistical analysis of reliability of audit opinions as bankruptcy predictors," Discussion Papers 2014/174, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    20. Mei Feng & Chan Li, 2014. "Are Auditors Professionally Skeptical? Evidence from Auditors’ Going‐Concern Opinions and Management Earnings Forecasts," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(5), pages 1061-1085, December.
    21. 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.

    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.