The going-concern opinion and the adverse credit rating: an analysis of their relationship

IF 2.4 Q2 BUSINESS, FINANCE
Matthew Strickett, D. Hay, David Lau
{"title":"The going-concern opinion and the adverse credit rating: an analysis of their relationship","authors":"Matthew Strickett, D. Hay, David Lau","doi":"10.1108/arj-04-2021-0135","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between going-concern (GC) opinions issued by the Big 4 audit firms and adverse credit ratings from the two largest credit rating agencies (CRAs) – Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Moody’s. This question is relevant because there have been suggestions that auditors and CRAs should become more similar to each other, and because the two largest CRAs have different ownership structures that could affect their ratings.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nUnivariate and multivariate analyses are performed using a sample of firms that filed for bankruptcy between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2013 that also had an audit opinion signed during the 12 months prior to bankruptcy, along with a credit rating issued by either or both S&P and Moody’s. Both influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time.\n\n\nFindings\nBoth audit reports and credit ratings influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nAuditors are more likely to issue GC opinions when there is a downgrade to the credit rating, and CRAs are more likely to downgrade their ratings when there is a GC opinion. The study highlights that CRAs with different ownership structures provide different credit rating outcomes.\n","PeriodicalId":45591,"journal":{"name":"Accounting Research Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounting Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/arj-04-2021-0135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between going-concern (GC) opinions issued by the Big 4 audit firms and adverse credit ratings from the two largest credit rating agencies (CRAs) – Standard & Poor’s (S&P) and Moody’s. This question is relevant because there have been suggestions that auditors and CRAs should become more similar to each other, and because the two largest CRAs have different ownership structures that could affect their ratings. Design/methodology/approach Univariate and multivariate analyses are performed using a sample of firms that filed for bankruptcy between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2013 that also had an audit opinion signed during the 12 months prior to bankruptcy, along with a credit rating issued by either or both S&P and Moody’s. Both influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time. Findings Both audit reports and credit ratings influence each other. The likelihood of an auditor issuing a GC opinion is related to the credit rating issued by both S&P and Moody’s in the month prior to the audit report signing. The results also show differences between the CRAs. S&P reacted in the month after an auditor issued a GC opinion by downgrading its ratings 68% of the time. However, Moody’s did not react as strongly as S&P, downgrading its ratings only 24% of the time. Originality/value Auditors are more likely to issue GC opinions when there is a downgrade to the credit rating, and CRAs are more likely to downgrade their ratings when there is a GC opinion. The study highlights that CRAs with different ownership structures provide different credit rating outcomes.
持续经营意见与不良信用评级的关系分析
本研究的目的是研究四大审计事务所发布的持续经营意见与两家最大的信用评级机构——标准普尔(S&P)和穆迪(Moody’s)的不良信用评级之间的关系。这个问题是相关的,因为有人建议审计机构和评级机构应该变得更加相似,而且两个最大的评级机构拥有不同的所有权结构,这可能会影响它们的评级。设计/方法/方法使用2002年1月1日至2013年12月31日期间申请破产的公司样本进行单变量和多变量分析,这些公司在破产前12个月内签署了审计意见,并获得了标准普尔和穆迪的信用评级。两者相互影响。审计师发表GC意见的可能性与标准普尔和穆迪在审计报告签署前一个月发布的信用评级有关。结果也显示了评级机构之间的差异。在一家审计机构发布GC意见后,标普在当月下调了68%的评级。然而,穆迪的反应没有标准普尔那么强烈,只有24%的时间下调了中国的评级。审计报告和信用评级相互影响。审计师发表GC意见的可能性与标准普尔和穆迪在审计报告签署前一个月发布的信用评级有关。结果也显示了评级机构之间的差异。在一家审计机构发布GC意见后,标普在当月下调了68%的评级。然而,穆迪的反应没有标准普尔那么强烈,只有24%的时间下调了中国的评级。原创性/价值当信用评级被下调时,审计师更有可能发布GC意见,而当信用评级机构有GC意见时,评级机构更有可能下调他们的评级。研究强调,不同股权结构的评级机构提供了不同的信用评级结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounting Research Journal
Accounting Research Journal BUSINESS, FINANCE-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信