SUMMARY: In this paper we examine whether there is auditor differentiation through industry specialization and audit methodology in judging the adequacy of mitigating management actions as implemented by financially distressed companies. Using a sample of U.S. companies from manufacturing industries (SIC 20–39) that went bankrupt between 1999–2002, we find evidence that specialist auditors are more likely to issue a going-concern opinion for soon-to-be bankrupt companies when management undertakes strategic turnaround initiatives, relative to non-specialist auditors. Interestingly, and counter to our expectations, we find that audit firms that use a business risk audit methodology are less likely to issue a going-concern opinion for a firm that subsequently goes bankrupt if the client has undertaken operating initiatives to mitigate financial distress. Finally, we also find very strong evidence that all auditors, irrespective of type, are less likely to issue a going-concern opinion for clients that subsequently go bankrupt when the client has plans to raise cash in the short term.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
1 February 2011
Research Article|
February 01 2011
Auditor Differentiation, Mitigating Management Actions, and Audit-Reporting Accuracy for Distressed Firms
Online ISSN: 1558-7991
Print ISSN: 0278-0380
American Accounting Association
2011
AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory (2011) 30 (1): 1–20.
Citation
Liesbeth Bruynseels, W. Robert Knechel, Marleen Willekens; Auditor Differentiation, Mitigating Management Actions, and Audit-Reporting Accuracy for Distressed Firms. AUDITING: A Journal of Practice & Theory 1 February 2011; 30 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2011.30.1.1
Download citation file:
Pay-Per-View Access
$25.00