File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.04.002
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84960314996
- WOS: WOS:000371936500007
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting
Title | The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Debt contracting Going concern opinions Explanatory language Audit opinions |
Issue Date | 2016 |
Citation | Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2016, v. 61, n. 1, p. 121-144 How to Cite? |
Abstract | © 2015 Elsevier B.V. This study examines the relevance of modified audit opinions (MAO) in private debt contracting. We use the auditor's explanatory language to partition MAOs into Inconsistency opinions, resulting from an accounting change or a restatement; and Inadequacy opinions, arising from a material uncertainty or a going concern (GC) opinion. Using the loan contracts of firms with MAOs, we find that, compared with loans issued in the year after a clean opinion, loans issued in the year after an MAO are associated with higher interest spreads (17 basis points on average), fewer financial covenants, more general covenants, smaller loan sizes, and a higher likelihood of requiring collateral. We find that the effect on loan spreads (as well as on other non-price terms) varies by the type of MAO, ranging from no effect for an accounting change to an average increase of 107 basis points for a GC opinion. Additional analyses of GC opinions find that auditors communicate incremental information to lenders about clients' credit risk. Overall, our empirical results suggest that lenders incorporate the information contained in MAOs into debt contracting. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/273713 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 5.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 8.337 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Chen, Peter F. | - |
dc.contributor.author | He, Shaohua | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ma, Zhiming | - |
dc.contributor.author | Stice, Derrald | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-12T09:56:26Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-12T09:56:26Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Accounting and Economics, 2016, v. 61, n. 1, p. 121-144 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0165-4101 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/273713 | - |
dc.description.abstract | © 2015 Elsevier B.V. This study examines the relevance of modified audit opinions (MAO) in private debt contracting. We use the auditor's explanatory language to partition MAOs into Inconsistency opinions, resulting from an accounting change or a restatement; and Inadequacy opinions, arising from a material uncertainty or a going concern (GC) opinion. Using the loan contracts of firms with MAOs, we find that, compared with loans issued in the year after a clean opinion, loans issued in the year after an MAO are associated with higher interest spreads (17 basis points on average), fewer financial covenants, more general covenants, smaller loan sizes, and a higher likelihood of requiring collateral. We find that the effect on loan spreads (as well as on other non-price terms) varies by the type of MAO, ranging from no effect for an accounting change to an average increase of 107 basis points for a GC opinion. Additional analyses of GC opinions find that auditors communicate incremental information to lenders about clients' credit risk. Overall, our empirical results suggest that lenders incorporate the information contained in MAOs into debt contracting. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Accounting and Economics | - |
dc.subject | Debt contracting | - |
dc.subject | Going concern opinions | - |
dc.subject | Explanatory language | - |
dc.subject | Audit opinions | - |
dc.title | The information role of audit opinions in debt contracting | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jacceco.2015.04.002 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84960314996 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 61 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 121 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 144 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000371936500007 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0165-4101 | - |