Going Concern Evaluation in the US Context: The Respective Roles of Auditors and Managers

  • Marisa Agostini


All the alternative types of corporate financial distress entail risks and uncertainties. A company’s ability to continue as a going concern must then be assessed in time and in a proper fashion. In the US, going concern assessment has traditionally been the auditors’ responsibility, but investors have complained that by the time auditors make the assessment, a failing business is already on the verge of bankruptcy. For this reason, US interested parties have expressed a need for accounting literature that clarifies that an entity has the primary responsibility for assessing its own ability to continue as a going concern. The chapter analyses a sample of US distressed companies to examine the timeliness of going concern decisions and examines the content evolutions of US accounting and auditing standards.


Accounting fraud Albert Dunlap Collusion Merger and acquisition Survival analysis 


  1. Agostini, M. (2013). Two common steps in firms’ failing path. Risk Governance & Control: Financial Markets & Institutions, 3(1), 115–128.Google Scholar
  2. Agostini, M., & Favero, G. (2017). Accounting fraud, business failure and creative auditing: A microanalysis of the strange case of the Sunbeam Corporation. Accounting History, 22(4), 472–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albrecht, W. S., & Willingham, J. J. (1993). An evaluation of SAS no. 53, the auditor’s responsibility to detect and report errors and irregularities. The expectation gap standards, proceedings of the expectation gap roundtable, 11–12.Google Scholar
  4. Angeloni, S. (2016). Cautiousness on convergence of accounting standards across countries. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 21(2), 246–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asare, S. K. (1990). The auditor’s going concern decision: A review and implications for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 9(1), 39–64.Google Scholar
  6. Beaver, W. H., McNichols, M. F., & Rhie, J. W. (2005). Have financial statements become less informative? Evidence from the ability of financial ratios to predict bankruptcy. Review of Accounting studies, 10(1), 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Cleveland: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Bradford, W. C. (2014). Because that’s where the money is: A theory of corporate legal compliance. Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law, 8, 337.Google Scholar
  9. Byrne, J. A. (1999). Chainsaw: The notorious career of Al Dunlap in the era of profit-at-any-price. New York, NY: Harper Business.Google Scholar
  10. Cybinski, P. (2001). Description, explanation, prediction—The evolution of bankruptcy studies? Managerial Finance, 27(4), 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeAngelo, L. E. (1981). Auditor size and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 3(3), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donovan, J., Frankel, R. M., & Martin, X. (2015). Accounting conservatism and creditor recovery rate. The Accounting Review, 90(6), 2267–2303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap, A. J., & Andelman, B. (1997). Mean business: How I save bad companies and make good companies great. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  14. Ehoff, C., Jr., & Gray, D. (2014). Going concern: Where is it going? Journal of Business & Economics Research, 12(2), 121.Google Scholar
  15. Erickson, M., Heitzman, S., & Zhang, X. F. (2011). Accounting fraud and the market for corporate control. University of Chicago, Booth School of Business working paper. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from
  16. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). (2014). Presentation of financial statements—Going concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure of uncertainties about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014–15. Norwalk, CT: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Gilson, S. C. (2010). Creating value through corporate restructuring: Case studies in bankruptcies, buyouts, and breakups (Vol. 544). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  18. Girard, R. (1972). La violence et le sacré. Grasset.Google Scholar
  19. Girard, R. (2005). Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Guénin-Paracini, H., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Auditors as modern pharmakoi: Legitimacy paradoxes and the production of economic order. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 21(2), 134–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hail, L., Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. (2010). Global accounting convergence and the potential adoption of IFRS by the US (Part I): Conceptual underpinnings and economic analysis. Accounting Horizons, 24(3), 355–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Humphrey, C. (2008). Auditing research: a review across the disciplinary divide. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(2), 170–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jennings, M. M., Recker, P. M., & Kneer, D. C. (1984). A source of insecurity: A discussion and an empirical examination of standards of disclosure and levels of materiality in financial statements. Journal of Corporation Law, 10(3), 639.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, M. (Ed.). (2011). Creative accounting, fraud and international accounting scandals. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Jones, M. J., & Shoemaker, P. A. (1994). Accounting narratives: A review of empirical studies of content and readability. Journal of Accounting Literature, 13, 142.Google Scholar
  27. Kaplan, S. E., & Williams, D. D. (2012). Do going concern audit reports protect auditors from litigation? A simultaneous equations approach. The Accounting Review, 88(1), 199–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klass, K. M. (2003). Left in the dark: Sarbanes-Oxley and corporate abuse of 401 (k) plan blackout periods. The Journal of Corporation Law, 29(4), 801–817.Google Scholar
  29. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Reliability. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  30. Krishnan, J., & Krishnan, J. (1996). The role of economic trade-offs in the audit opinion decision: An empirical analysis. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 11(4), 565–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kwak, W., Eldridge, S., Shi, Y., & Kou, G. (2009). Predicting material weaknesses in internal control systems after the Sarbanes-Oxley Act using multiple criteria linear programming and other data mining approaches. Journal of Applied Business Research, 25(6), 105.Google Scholar
  32. Langevoort, D. C. (2002). Monitoring: The behavorial economics of corporate compliance with law. Columbia Business Law Review, 71.Google Scholar
  33. Lee, T. A. (2004). Accounting and auditing research in the United States. In C. Humphrey & B. Lee (Eds.), The real life guide to accounting research: A behind-the-scenes view of using qualitative research methods (pp. 57–71). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levitan, A. S., & Knoblett, J. A. (1985). Indicators of exceptions to the going concern assumption. Auditing-A Journal of Practice & Theory, 5(1), 26–39.Google Scholar
  35. Mancino, J. (1997). The auditor and fraud. Journal of Accountancy, 183(4), 32–36.Google Scholar
  36. Mirza, A. A., & Ankarath, N. (2012). Wiley International trends in financial reporting under IFRS: Including comparisons with US GAAP, China GAAP, and India accounting standards. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  37. Mutchler, J. F. (1985). A multivariate analysis of the auditor’s going-concern opinion decision. Journal of Accounting Research, 23, 668–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Norris, F. (2001a, May 18). They noticed the fraud but figured it was not important. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  39. Norris, F. (2001b, July 16). The incomplete résumé: A special report. An executive’s missing years: Papering over past problems. The New York Times.Google Scholar
  40. Parker, L. D. (2005). Corporate governance crisis down under: post-Enron accounting education and research inertia. European Accounting Review, 14(2), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Parker, L. D. (2012). Qualitative management accounting research: Assessing deliverables and relevance. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 23(1), 54–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perkins, S., & Wylie, D. (1999). Albert Dunlap and corporate transformations (A). Case BAB032, Babson College. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Platt, H. D., & Platt, M. B. (2002). Predicting corporate financial distress: reflections on choice-based sample bias. Journal of Economics and Finance, 26(2), 184–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sarbanes, P. (2002, July). Sarbanes-oxley act (SOX) of 2002. In The public company accounting reform and investor protection act. Washington, DC: US Congress.Google Scholar
  45. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Release No. 7976. May 15, 2001. In the matter of Sunbeam Corporation. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from
  46. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Release No. 45653. May 27, 2002. In the matter of Kimberly-Clark Corporation and John W. Donehower. Retrieved October 6, 2017, from
  47. Shamrock, S. E. (2012). IFRS and US GAAP: A comprehensive comparison (Vol. 7). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  48. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 34. (AICPA, 1981). The Auditor’s considerations when question arises about an entity’s continued existence.Google Scholar
  49. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 54. (AICPA, 1989). Illegal acts by clients (AU Section 317).Google Scholar
  50. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 59. (AICPA, 1989). The Auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.Google Scholar
  51. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 82. (AICPA, 1997). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit.Google Scholar
  52. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 99. (AICPA, 2002). Consideration of fraud in a financial statement audit.Google Scholar
  53. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 126. (AICPA, 2012). The Auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.Google Scholar
  54. Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 132. (AICPA, 2017). The Auditor’s consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.Google Scholar
  55. Sun, J., & Li, H. (2011). Dynamic financial distress prediction using instance selection for the disposal of concept drift. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2566–2576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taffler, R. J. (1982). Forecasting company failure in the UK using discriminant analysis and financial ratio data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 145, 342–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tinoco, M. H., & Wilson, N. (2013). Financial distress and bankruptcy prediction among listed companies using accounting, market and macroeconomic variables. International Review of Financial Analysis, 30, 394–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Venuti, E. K. (2004). The going-concern assumption revisited: Assessing a company’s future viability. The CPA Journal, 74(5), 40.Google Scholar
  59. Watts, R. L., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1983). Agency problems, auditing, and the theory of the firm: Some evidence. The Journal of Law and Economics, 26(3), 613–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weber, P. (1985). Content analysis: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  61. Zhang, J. (2008). The contracting benefits of accounting conservatism to lenders and borrowers. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 45(1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marisa Agostini
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementCa’ Foscari UniversityVeniceItaly

Personalised recommendations