2017A01 – Going concern opinions research synthesis
Project Number – 2017A01

2017A01 – Going concern opinions research synthesis

What?

What?

This project provides a structured synthesis of academic and practitioner research on auditors’ going concern judgments and reporting decisions. It reviews what is known about how auditors assess going concern uncertainty, decide whether to issue a going concern opinion, and communicate financial distress risks. The study also highlights areas where evidence is mixed or limited and identifies opportunities for future research relevant to audit practice.

Why?

Going concern decisions are among the most complex and consequential judgments auditors make, with significant implications for companies, investors, lenders, and regulators. Auditors must balance evidence, professional judgment, and stakeholder expectations while managing risks such as litigation and self-fulfilling prophecies. By consolidating existing research, this project helps practitioners and standard setters better understand what drives effective going concern judgments and where audit guidance and practice can be strengthened.

No related news items found.
The auditor’s decision regarding a going concern opinion (GCO) is among their most important judgments, as GCOs impact the client company, markets, financial statement users, and auditors themselves. Such a sensitive and complex judgement call requires expertise and experience. In the academic literature, GCO decisions are often seen as related to audit quality, and they are among the few observable outcomes of the audit that vary across engagements. In the last decades, academic researchers have spent considerable effort examining GCO decisions. We believe that audit practitioners can benefit from improved awareness of the insights that research has generated. In our complete report (Geiger, Gold, and Wallage, 2019), we review and synthesize 149 academic studies authored since 2013, the end of the previous synthesis by Carson et al (2013). In this practitioner note, we make a selection of what we deem the most interesting insights from our review, and discuss their implications for practice. We then report on our focus group engagement with audit practitioners where we obtained their perceptions regarding some the academic findings, the issues faced in making GCO decisions, as well as areas where additional research would be helpful.
In the FARview Podcast Series, FAR staff members conduct interviews with academics and professionals regarding the practical relevance of academic research in the field of auditing. This written report contains an edited transcript of the interview with Marshall Geiger. Geiger is the CSX Chair in Management and Accounting and Professor of Accounting at the University of Richmond, US. Key points
  • A Going Concern Opinion is not supposed to predict failure, it’s a mechanism for the auditor to alert readers that there are concerns.
  • Going concern research in a COVID-19 era might flesh out more cleanly that more industry experience will lead to more accurate going concern opinions.
  • Companies are adapting their business models, but the real issue is how well they are going to do under the new business model, how excellent are they going to be able to execute their business plans.
  • The possibility of a second COVID_19 wave is an important issue. What will that wave look like? How much will it affect specific companies? And how much support will companies get then? That should also be disclosed by management.
A two-part article published in Accounting Horizons Part 1 – Outcomes and Consequences Abstract: Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes, insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going-concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings and the goals of our subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2)  identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, we report on our discussions with practitioners and provide a summary of practitioner-informed GCO-related future research topics. In this first of a two-part sequence, we provide background information relating to our practitioner interactions, and summarize our discussions pertaining to GCO outcomes and GCO consequences, as well as future research. Part 2 – Reporting Environment and the Decision-Making Process Abstract: Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes,  insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided  practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings. The goals of our  subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2) identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, in this second of a two-part sequence of articles, we discuss the outcomes of our interactions with practitioners related to the GCO reporting environment and the GCO decision-making process, as well as directions for future research.
Marshall Geiger, Anna Gold and Philip Wallage presented a masterclass on Going Concern Opinions (GCOs). In this report, a summary of the masterclass is presented. The main purpose of the session was to communicate the main results of their literature synthesis and to extend and corroborate the findings of the focus group meeting that was part of the research project, by means of an in-depth discussion concerning eight broad GCO topics.  
Reporting on going-concern-related uncertainties remains one of the most challenging issues faced by external auditors. Even though professional standards do not hold external auditors responsible for predicting future events, such as the subsequent viability of audit clients, if an auditor refrains from issuing a going concern modified audit opinion (hereafter GCO) and the client company subsequently fails (referred to in the academic literature as a “type II” reporting error), the costs to the auditor in terms of increased litigation costs and loss of reputation are often substantial (Carcello and Palmrose 1994). At the same time, companies usually do not welcome a GCO from their auditor. For example, if an auditor renders a GCO to a financially distressed client, there is often concern that the GCO itself may precipitate, or at least accelerate, the financial distress of the already troubled company resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy. Further, if an auditor renders a GCO to a client that subsequently survives (referred to in the academic literature as a “type I” reporting error), these clients are significantly more likely to switch to another auditor for their next audit (Geiger, Raghunandan and Rama 1998). It is not surprising, then, that audit practitioners, regulators and standard-setters around the world continue to grapple with this complex issue. As requested by the Foundation for Audit Research (FAR), the primary purpose of this research synthesis is to review and discuss the recent academic literature pertinent to the auditor’s decision to issue, or not issue, a GCO. Our review begins with research available after the going-concern research synthesis provided in Carson, Fargher, Geiger, Lennox, Raghunandan and Willekens (2013). We attempt to minimize the gap and the overlap in the research discussed in Carson et al. (2013) and our work. Further, in an attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, we do not limit our coverage to only published research, but also include well-developed working papers in the public domain, particularly if we determine they add significant contribution to the literature.  
Auditing researchers rarely engage practicing auditors regarding the phenomena examined, or conclusions reached, in academic research. In an attempt to bridge this gap, we report on the outcomes, insights, and observations from focused interactions with Dutch audit practitioners regarding their perspectives on recent research regarding auditor going concern opinion (GCO) decisions. We provided practitioners with a summary of some of the most salient recent GCO research findings and the goals of our subsequent discussions were to (1) obtain practitioners’ responses to the research findings, and (2) identify relevant issues for future study from the perspective of practitioners. Accordingly, we report on our discussions with practitioners and provide a summary of practitioner-informed GCO-related future research topics. In this first of a two-part sequence, we provide background information relating to our practitioner interactions, and summarize our discussions pertaining to GCO outcomes and GCO consequences, as well as future research.  
No related events found.

Project info

Project Lead

Prof. Marshall Geiger

Research team

Philip Wallage
Prof. dr. Philip Wallage
Prof. Dr. Anna Gold
Prof. dr. Anna Gold

Involved University

Theme(s)

Project Number – 2017A01

Newsletter

Receive updates on FAR research, publications and events.

Filter projects: 

Project Lead
Theme Filter
University Filter
1 - 10 of 51 projects