管理层持续经营披露、缓解计划和故障预测——来自ASU 2014-15的启示

Jingjing Wang
{"title":"管理层持续经营披露、缓解计划和故障预测——来自ASU 2014-15的启示","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

除非清算迫在眉睫,否则持续经营假设构成了编制财务报表的基础。ASU 2014-15要求管理层每季度评估GC不确定性,并在附注中提供披露。我比较了标准前和标准后制度之间的管理GC披露。我发现只有在ASU 2014-15之后,市场才会对GC的实质性怀疑做出负面反应。接下来,我发现ASU 2014-15对季度报告的影响,而不是年度报告。更重要的是,通过使用详细的文本分析来提取和分类缓解计划的讨论,我表明,ASU 2014-15之后,某些类型的管理缓解计划被投资者更积极地解释,从而缓解了市场的负面反应。这些计划包括发行债券、债务重组、增加收入和出售资产。最后,我证明了管理GC结论更能说明ASU 2014-15之后的公司失败,并且缓解计划的讨论与公司未来的生存能力有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management Going Concern Disclosure, Mitigation Plan, and Failure Prediction - Implications from ASU 2014-15
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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