{"title":"Management Going Concern Disclosure, Mitigation Plan, and Failure Prediction - Implications from ASU 2014-15","authors":"Jingjing Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3905057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The going concern (GC) assumption forms the basis for preparing financial statements unless liquidation becomes imminent. ASU 2014-15 requires management to evaluate GC uncertainties quarterly and provide disclosures in the notes. I compare management GC disclosures between the pre-standard and post-standard regimes. I find that the market reacts negatively to substantial doubt in GC only after ASU 2014-15. Next, I find the effect of ASU 2014-15 for quarterly reports, but not annual reports. More importantly, by employing detailed textual analysis to extract and categorize mitigation-plan discussions, I show that certain types of management mitigation plans are interpreted more positively by investors after ASU 2014-15, thereby alleviating the negative market reaction. These plans include issuing debt, debt restructuring, increasing revenue, and selling assets. Finally, I demonstrate that management GC conclusions are more indicative of corporate failures after ASU 2014-15 and that mitigation-plan discussions are associated with firms' future viability.","PeriodicalId":355269,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Disclosure & Accounting Decisions (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Disclosure & Accounting Decisions (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The going concern (GC) assumption forms the basis for preparing financial statements unless liquidation becomes imminent. ASU 2014-15 requires management to evaluate GC uncertainties quarterly and provide disclosures in the notes. I compare management GC disclosures between the pre-standard and post-standard regimes. I find that the market reacts negatively to substantial doubt in GC only after ASU 2014-15. Next, I find the effect of ASU 2014-15 for quarterly reports, but not annual reports. More importantly, by employing detailed textual analysis to extract and categorize mitigation-plan discussions, I show that certain types of management mitigation plans are interpreted more positively by investors after ASU 2014-15, thereby alleviating the negative market reaction. These plans include issuing debt, debt restructuring, increasing revenue, and selling assets. Finally, I demonstrate that management GC conclusions are more indicative of corporate failures after ASU 2014-15 and that mitigation-plan discussions are associated with firms' future viability.