Advertisement

Review of Accounting Studies

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 1512–1542 | Cite as

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

  • Linda A. MyersEmail author
  • Jonathan E. Shipman
  • Quinn T. Swanquist
  • Robert L. Whited
Article

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.

Keywords

Going Concern Modifications Market Reactions Auditor Reporting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Paul Fischer (the editor) and an anonymous reviewer for their important contributions to this study. We are also grateful to Ben Anderson, Douglas Ayres, Nathan Bergland, Brian Blank, Cory Cassell, James Chyz, Bill Kinney, Tom Lopez, Bill Mayew, James Myers, Terry Neal, Patricia O’Brien, Andy Puckett, Lauren Reid, Steve Utke, Christine Weidman, and Ben Whipple for helpful suggestions, discussion, and comments. We also thank Robbie Moon for programming assistance and Yuzhou Chen, Jodi Henley, and Jenny McCallen for excellent research support. Finally, we thank workshop participants at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Lancaster University, University of Alabama, University of Tennessee, and University of Waterloo, as well as conference participants at the 2014 AAA Audit Midyear Meeting, the University of Arkansas 2014 Summer Research Conference, the 2015 Southeast Summer Accounting Research Conference at Georgia Tech, the 2016 Oklahoma State University Accounting Research Conference, and the 2016 European Accounting Association Annual Congress for valuable input. We thank Georgia State University’s Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk for providing funding in support of this research. Linda Myers also gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Haslam Chair of Business and the William B. Stokely Faculty Research Fellowship at the University of Tennessee.

Supplementary material

11142_2018_9459_MOESM1_ESM.docx (128 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 127 kb)

References

  1. Amin, K., Krishnan, J., & Yang, J. S. (2014). Going concern opinion and cost of equity. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 33(4), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bamber, L. S., Barron, O. E., & Stevens, D. E. (2011). Trading volume around earnings announcements and other financial reports: theory, research design, empirical evidence, and directions for future research. Contemporary Accounting Research, 28(2), 431–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartov, E., DeFond, M. L., & Konchitchki, Y. (2013). The consequences of untimely quarterly and annual financial reporting. Working paper, New York University, University of Southern California, and University of California – Berkeley.Google Scholar
  4. Blay, A. D., & Geiger, M. A. (2013). Auditor fees and auditor independence: Evidence from going concern reporting decisions. Contemporary Accounting Research, 30(2), 579–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blay, A. D., Geiger, M. A., & North, D. S. (2011). The auditor’s going-concern opinion as a communication of risk. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carcello, J. V., & Neal, T. L. (2003). Audit committee characteristics and auditor dismissals following “new” going-concern reports. The Accounting Review, 78(1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carson, E., Fargher, N. L., Geiger, M. A., Lennox, C. S., Raghunandan, K., & Willekens, M. (2013). Audit reporting for going-concern uncertainty: A research synthesis. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32, 353–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Center for Audit Quality (CAQ). (2012). Request for Proposals for Academic Research in Auditing. http://www.thecaq.org/docs/research-advisory-board/proposalsforacademicresearchdecember2012.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
  9. Chen, K. C. W., & Church, B. K. (1996). Going concern opinions and the market’s reaction to bankruptcy filings. The Accounting Review, 71(1), 117–128.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, P. F., He, S., Ma, Z., & Stice, D. (2016). The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 61(1), 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cready, W., & Hurtt, D. (2002). Assessing investor response to information events using return and volume metrics. The Accounting Review, 77(4), 891–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Souza, J., Ramesh, K., & Shen, M. (2010). Disclosure of GAAP line items in earnings announcements. Review of Accounting Studies, 15(1), 179–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeFond, M. L., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2), 275–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dodd, P., Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R., & Leftwich, R. (1984). Qualified audit opinions and stock-prices – Information content, announcement dates, and concurrent disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 6(1), 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Elliott, J. A. (1982). “Subject to” audit opinions and abnormal security returns – Outcomes and ambiguities. Journal of Accounting Research, 20(2), 617–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fleak, S. K., & Wilson, E. R. (1994). The incremental information content of the going-concern audit opinion. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 9(1), 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Francis, J., Schipper, K., & Vincent, L. (2002a). Earnings announcements and competing information. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 33(3), 313–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Francis, J., Schippe, K., & Vincent, L. (2002b). Expanded disclosures and the increased usefulness of earnings announcements. The Accounting Review, 77(3), 515–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frankel, R., & Li, X. (2004). Characteristics of a firm’s information environment and the information asymmetry between insiders and outsiders. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 37(2), 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman, R. N., & Tse, S. Y. (1992). A nonlinear model of security price responses to unexpected earnings. Journal of Accounting Research, 30(2), 185–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geiger, M. A., & Rama, D. V. (2006). Audit firm size and going-concern reporting accuracy. Accounting Horizons, 20(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heflin, F., & Hsu, C. (2008). The impact of the SEC’s regulation of non-GAAP disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 46(2–3), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holder-Webb, L. M., & Wilkins, M. S. (2000). The incremental information content of SAS No. 59 going-concern opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 38(1), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB). (2013). Reporting on Audited Financial Statements: Proposed New and Revised International Standards on Auditing.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, F. L. (1996). The information content of the auditor’s going concern evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 15(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaplan, S. E., & Williams, D. D. (2013). Do going concern audit reports protect auditors from litigation? A simultaneous equations approach. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kothari, S. P. (2001). Capital markets research in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 31(1–3), 105–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kolev, K., Marquardt, C. A., & McVay, S. E. (2008). SEC scrutiny and the evolution of non-GAAP reporting. The Accounting Review, 83(1), 157–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landsman, W. R., Maydew, E. L., & Thornock, J. R. (2012). The information content of annual earnings announcements and mandatory adoption of IFRS. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(1–2), 34–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lennox, C. S., & Kausar, A. (2017). Estimation risk and auditor conservatism. Review of Accounting Studies, 22(1), 185–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loudder, M. L., Khurana, I. K., Sawyers, R. B., Cordery, C., Johnson, C., Lowe, J., & Wunderle, R. (1992). The information content of audit qualifications. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 11(1), 69–82.Google Scholar
  32. Louis, H., & Robinson, D. (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, 39(2), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayew, B. J., Sethuraman, M., & Venkatachalam, M. (2015). MD&A disclosure and the firm’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Accounting Review, 90(4), 1621–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Menon, K., & Williams, D. D. (2010). Investor reaction to going concern audit reports. The Accounting Review, 85(6), 2075–2105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Myers, L. A., Schmidt, J., & Wilkins, M. (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, 43(1), 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ponemon, L. A., & Raghunandan, K. (1994). What is “substantial doubt”? Accounting Horizons, 8(2), 44–54.Google Scholar
  37. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2014). Staff Audit Practice Alert: Matters Related to the Auditor’s Consideration of a Company’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. http://pcaobus.org/Standards/ QandA/09222014_SAPA_13.pdf.
  38. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (2016). Standard-Setting Update. https://pcaobus.org/Standards/Documents/Q42016-standard-setting-update.pdf.
  39. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2004). Final Rule: Additional Form 8-K Disclosure Requirements and Acceleration of Filing Date. https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8400.htm
  40. Willenborg, M., & McKeown, J. C. (2000). Going-concern initial public offerings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30(3), 279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wooldridge, J. M. (2013). Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach 5e. Mason, OH: Cengage.Google Scholar
  42. Zhang, H., & Zheng, L. (2011). The valuation impact of reconciling pro forma earnings to GAAP earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(1–2), 186–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of ArkansasFayettevilleUSA
  3. 3.University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA
  4. 4.North Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations