{"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}
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.