This study empirically examines audit reports provided to financially stressed companies in the United Kingdom and the magnitude of audit and non-audit service fees paid to the company's auditors. We find that the magnitude of both audit fees and non-audit fees are significantly associated with the issuance of a going-concern modified audit opinion. In particular, financially stressed companies with high audit fees are more likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion, whereas companies with high non-audit fees are less likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion. Additional analyses indicate that the results are generally robust across alternative model and variable specifications. Overall, evidence supports the contention that high non-audit fees have a detrimental effect on going-concern reporting judgments for financially stressed U.K. companies.The accounting profession has come under increased scrutiny over recent years about the growing number of non-audit fees received from audit clients and the possible negative impact of such fees on auditor independence. The argument advanced is that providing substantial amounts of non-audit services to clients may make it more likely that auditors concede to the wishes of the client management when difficult judgments are made. Such concerns are particularly salient in the case of reporting decisions related to going-concern uncertainties for financially stressed clients.This study empirically examines audit reports provided to financially stressed companies in the United Kingdom and the magnitude of audit and non-audit service fees paid to the company's auditors. We find that the magnitude of both audit fees and non-audit fees are significantly associated with the issuance of a going-concern modified audit opinion. In particular, financially stressed companies with high audit fees are more likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion, whereas companies with high non-audit fees are less likely to receive a going-concern modified audit opinion. Additional analyses indicate that the results are generally robust across alternative model and variable specifications. Overall, evidence supports the contention that high non-audit fees have a detrimental effect on going-concern reporting judgments for financially stressed U.K. companies.

Auditor reporting on going-concern-related uncertainties remains one of the most challenging issues faced by external auditors. Business owners, market participants and audit regulators want an early warning of impending business failure. However, companies typically do not welcome audit opinions indicating uncertainty regarding their future viability. Thus, the auditor’s decision to issue a "going concern opinion" (GCO) is a complex and multi-layered one, facing a great deal of tension. Given such a rich context, academic researchers have examined many facets related to an auditor’s decision to issue a GCO. This monograph reviews and synthesizes 182 recent GCO studies that have appeared since the last significant review published in 2013 through the end of 2019. The authors categorize studies into the three broad areas of GCO: (1) determinants, (2) accuracy and (3) consequences. As an integral part of their synthesis, they summarize the details of each study in several user-friendly tables. After discussing and synthesizing the research, they present a discussion of opportunities for future research, including issues created or exacerbated as a result of the global COVID-19 pandemic. This monograph will be of assistance to researchers interested in exploring this area of auditor responsibility. It will also be of interest to auditing firms and individual practitioners wanting to learn what academic research has examined and found regarding this challenging aspect of audit practice. Auditing standard-setters and regulators will find it of interest as the authors review numerous studies examining issues related to audit policy and regulation, and their effects on GCO decisions. The examination of GCO research is extremely timely given the financial and business disruption caused by the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. This unprecedented global event has caused companies, auditors and professional bodies to revisit and reassess their approach to going concern, and to think even more deeply about this fundamental business imperative.

This book employs a narrative analytical approach to explore all aspects of the debate surrounding auditor reporting on going concern uncertainty worldwide. In-depth analysis of significant academic studies and of regulatory perspectives is combined with an illuminating empirical study in the Italian context. The book opens by discussing the assessment of going concern for accounting and auditing purposes. It is examined how going concern is considered in the FASB and IASB accounting standards and how auditors in the PCAOB and IAASB environments should verify its presence in financial statements and report on it in the audit report. Accounting and auditing in relation to going concern in other jurisdictions are also addressed. Research into the determinants, accuracy, and consequences of going concern opinions (GCO) is then thoroughly reviewed, with separate examination of studies and trends in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world. In the third part of the book, interesting evidence from the Italian Stock Market, including investor reactions to GCOs during the period 2008–2014, is presented and evaluated. The book will be of interest to academics, regulators, and practitioners alike.

This book employs a narrative analytical approach to explore all aspects of the debate surrounding auditor reporting on going concern uncertainty worldwide. In-depth analysis of significant academic studies and of regulatory perspectives is combined with an illuminating empirical study in the Italian context. The book opens by discussing the assessment of going concern for accounting and auditing purposes. It is examined how going concern is considered in the FASB and IASB accounting standards and how auditors in the PCAOB and IAASB environments should verify its presence in financial statements and report on it in the audit report. Accounting and auditing in relation to going concern in other jurisdictions are also addressed. Research into the determinants, accuracy, and consequences of going concern opinions (GCO) is then thoroughly reviewed, with separate examination of studies and trends in the United States, Europe, and the rest of the world. In the third part of the book, interesting evidence from the Italian Stock Market, including investor reactions to GCOs during the period 2008–2014, is presented and evaluated. The book will be of interest to academics, regulators, and practitioners alike.