Abstract
We test whether auditors’ Going-Concern Opinions (GCOs) provide incremental predictive content for corporate bankruptcy beyond analysts’ information and accounting- and market-based indicators. Using U.S. firm-year data from 1992–2018 and conditioning on analysts’ forecast bias, error, dispersion, and coverage, we find that GCO issuance is associated with a 20%–56% higher probability of bankruptcy. Adding GCOs to the model increases explanatory power by 12%–18%. Analyst bias and error are positively related to failure, while coverage is negatively related, indicating that auditors and analysts supply distinct, complementary signals. The evidence positions GCOs as economically meaningful state variables for default-risk models—rather than mere narrative disclosures—with particular value when analyst coverage is thin or forecast precision is weak. These findings have direct implications for policymakers, regulators and capital market participants.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 108432 |
| Journal | Finance Research Letters |
| Volume | 86 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1 Dec 2025 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
Keywords
- Analyst coverage
- Bankruptcy prediction
- Corporate bankruptcy
- Earnings forecasts
- Going concern opinion
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Finance
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Financial regulation and bankruptcy prediction: The informational value of auditor opinions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver