Vol. 13 No. 4 (2025): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

The relationship between going concern and auditor opinion: An empirical study on manufacturing firms listed on Borsa Istanbul

PDF (Turkish)
  • Günay Baba,
  • Murat Ocak,
  • Gülümser Ünkaya
Günay Baba
PhD. Student, Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, Türkiye
Bio
Murat Ocak
Assoc. Prof. Dr., Trakya University, Edirne, Türkiye
Gülümser Ünkaya
Prof. Dr., Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, Türkiye

Published 2025-12-25

Keywords

  • Going Concern, Audit Opinions, Financial Risks, Logistic Regression, IV-Probit Model
  • İşletmenin Sürekliliği, Denetçi Görüşü, Finansal Risk Skorları, Lojistik Regresyon, IV-Probit Modeli

How to Cite

The relationship between going concern and auditor opinion: An empirical study on manufacturing firms listed on Borsa Istanbul. (2025). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13(4), 2054-2075. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i4.2670

Copyright (c) 2025 Günay Baba- Murat Ocak- Gülümser Ünkaya

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

The relationship between going concern and auditor opinion: An empirical study on manufacturing firms listed on Borsa Istanbul. (2025). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 13(4), 2054-2075. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v13i4.2670

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between going concern and independent audit opinions. The research utilises data from companies operating in the manufacturing sector listed on Borsa Istanbul between 2018 and 2022. The going concern status of companies is measured using financial indicators such as the Altman Z-score, Ohlson score, Zmijewski score, and leverage ratio. The relationship between these indicators and the audit opinion is analysed using Logistic Regression. The findings indicate that as indicators of financial distress increase, auditors are more likely to issue a qualified opinion, an adverse opinion, or a disclaimer of opinion. Additionally, an Instrumental Variable model is applied to address potential endogeneity concerns, and the results are consistent with the main findings. Supplementary analyses based on audit firm size indicate that smaller audit firms tend to consider going-concern risk a more decisive factor. In contrast, larger audit firms may take other risk factors into account.

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Akpınar, O., & Akpınar, G. (2017). Finansal başarısızlık riskinin belirleyicileri: Borsa İstanbul’da bir uygulama. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(4), 932–951. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2017.366
  2. Alareeni, B., & Branson, J. (2011). The relative performance of auditors' going-concern opinions and statistical failure prediction models in Jordan. Kluwer – Accountancy and Bedrijfskunde, 8, 23–35.
  3. Altman, E. I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589–609. https://doi.org/10.2307/2978933
  4. Anandarajan, M., & Anandarajan, A. (1999). A comparison of machine learning techniques with a qualitative response model for auditor's going concern reporting. Expert Systems with Applications, 16, 385–392.
  5. Bellovary, J. L., Giacomin, D. E., & Akers, M. D. (2007). A review of going concern prediction studies: 1976 to present. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 5, 9–28.
  6. Carcello, J. V., & Palmrose, Z. V. (1994). Auditor litigation and modified reporting on bankrupt clients. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 1–30.
  7. Chan, N. (2016). The analysis of delisting decision of garment companies observed from the aspect of bankruptcy prediction, compatibility with income statement and auditor's opinion. International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 9(2), 60.
  8. Chen, K. C., Church, B. K. (1996). "Going concern opinions and the market's reaction to bankruptcy filings". The Accounting Review, 117-128.
  9. Citron, D. B., & Taffler, R. J. (1992). The audit report under going concern uncertainties: An empirical analysis. Accounting and Business Research, 22(88), 337–345.
  10. Çelik, M. S. (2018, October 26–29). Altman Z-skor modeli kullanılarak BIST-30 endeksinde yer alan imalat şirketlerinin finansal başarısızlık riskinin tahmin edilmesi [Bildiri sunumu]. International Congress on Political, Economic and Social Studies (ICPESS), İstanbul, Türkiye.
  11. Çavuş, G., & Başar, A. B. (2020). Finansal başarısızlık durumunun öngörülmesinde nakit akış bilgilerinin rolü. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 22, 292–318.
  12. Defond, M. L., Raghunandan, K., & Subramanyam, K. R. (2002). Do non-audit service fees impair auditor independence? Evidence from going concern audit opinions. Journal of Accounting Research, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.00088
  13. Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R. W., & Leftwich, R. W. (1988). Predicting audit qualifications with financial and market variables. The Accounting Review, 62(3), 431–454.
  14. DP, E. N., & Wulandari, V. (2014). Analisis perbandingan model Altman, Springate, Ohlson, Fulmer, CA-score dan Zmijewski dalam memprediksi financial distress: Studi empiris pada perusahaan food and beverages yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia periode 2010–2012 [Doctoral dissertation, Riau University].
  15. Ertugay, E., Gülencer, İ., & Aydoğan, G. (2021, November). Şirketlerin finansman tercihlerinin COVID-19 salgını sürecindeki finansal sıkıntı düzeyleri üzerine etkisi ile özkaynak kullanımına ilişkin hukuki değerlendirmeler [Bildiri sunumu]. VI. International Symposium on Accounting and Finance (ISAF), Balıkesir, Türkiye.
  16. Farhana, I., Rahmawaty, & Basri, H. (2017). The determinants of going concern audit opinion; An empirical study on non-bank financial institutions listed in Indonesian stock exchange 2008-2014). Journal of Accounting, Finance and Auditing Studies 3(4), 32-51.
  17. Gallizo, J. L., & Saladrigues, R. (2016). An analysis of determinants of going concern audit opinion: Evidence from Spain stock exchange. Intangible Capital, 12(1), 1–16.
  18. Geiger, M. A., & Raghunandan, K. (2002). Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 21(1), 67–78.
  19. Geiger, M. A., Raghunandan, K., & Rama, D. V. (2005). Recent changes in the association between bankruptcies and prior audit opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24(1), 21–35.
  20. Gissel, J. L., Robertson, J. C., & Stefaniak, C. M. (2010). Formation and consequences of going concern opinions: A review of the literature. Journal of Accounting Literature, 29, 59–141.
  21. Grice, J. S. (2000). Bankruptcy prediction models and going-concern audit opinions before and after SAS No. 59. A Journal of Applied Topics in Business and Economics.
  22. Guiral-Contreras, A., Gonzalo-Angulo, J. A., & Rodgers, W. (2007). Information content and recency effect of the audit report in loan rating decisions. Accounting and Finance, 47(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2006.00208.x
  23. Güneş, R., Onay, A., & Benligiray, S. (2023). Finansal başarısızlık ve denetim görüşü ilişkisi: Deprem bölgesindeki şirketler üzerine bir araştırma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Dergisi, 187–203.
  24. Güngör, N., Ayluçtarhan, A., & Sarı, E. S. (2022). İşletmenin sürekliliği (BDS 570) standardının denetim raporlarına etkisi: BİST şirketlerinde bir inceleme. Sayıştay Dergisi, 33(127).
  25. Gürol, B., & Özparlak, G. (2022). Finansal başarısızlık ile performans ilişkisi: Borsa İstanbul şirketleri üzerine bir araştırma. Social Science Development Journal, 7(33), 244–256.
  26. Habib, A. (2013). A meta-analysis of the determinants of modified audit opinion decisions. Managerial Auditing Journal, 28(3), 184–216.
  27. Hahn, W. (2011). The going-concern assumption: Its journey into GAAP. The CPA Journal.
  28. Hillegeist, S. A., Keating, E. K., Cram, D. P., & Lundstedt, K. G. (2004). Assessing the probability of bankruptcy. Review of Accounting Studies, 9, 5–34.
  29. Hopwood, W., Mckeown, J. C., & Mutchler, J. F. (1994). A reexamination of auditor versus model accuracy within the context of the going-concern opinion decision. Contemporary Accounting Research, 10(2), 409–431. doi:10.1111/j.1911-3846.1994.tb00400.x
  30. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2015). Conceptual framework for financial reporting. IFRS Foundation. https://www.ifrs.org
  31. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2021). International Accounting Standard 1: Presentation of Financial Statements. IFRS Foundation. https://www.ifrs.org
  32. Jones, F. L. (1996). The information content of the auditor's going concern evaluation. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 15, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4254(95)00062-3
  33. Kamu Gözetimi Muhasebe ve Denetim Standartları Kurumu (KGK). (2020). BDS 570: İşletmenin sürekliliği standardı. https://www.kgk.gov.tr
  34. Koh, H. C. (1988). Prediction of going-concern status: A probit model for the auditors [Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University].
  35. Louwers, T. J. (1998). The relation between going-concern opinions and the auditor's loss function. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(1).
  36. Louwers, T. J., Messina, F. M., & Richard, M. D. (1999). The auditor's going-concern disclosure as a self-fulfilling prophecy: A discrete-time survival analysis. Decision Sciences, 30(3), 805–824. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb00907.x
  37. McKee, T. E. (2007). Altman's 1968 bankruptcy prediction model revisited via genetic programming: New wine from an old bottle or a better fermentation process? Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 4(1), 87–101.
  38. Maliye Bakanlığı. (1992, 26 Aralık). Muhasebe Sistemi Uygulama Genel Tebliği (Sıra No: 1). Resmî Gazete (21447).
  39. Mirgen, Ç. (2025). Türkiye’de BIST sınai şirketlerinin finansal başarısızlık dinamikleri: Altman Z-skor modeli perspektifi. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 105.
  40. Nogler, G. E. (2008). Going concern modifications, CPA firm size, and the Enron effect. Managerial Auditing Journal, 23(1), 51–67.
  41. Ohlson, J. A. (1980). Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 109–131.
  42. Prayanthi, I., & Kakunsi, N. G. C. (2017). The Altman model and auditor's opinion about going concern of the companies. Science Journal of Business and Management, 5(5), 189-193.
  43. Read, W. J., & Yezegel, A. (2018). Going-concern opinion decisions on bankrupt clients: Evidence of long-lasting auditor conservatism? Advances in Accounting, 40, 20–26.
  44. Ryu, T. G., & Roh, C.-Y. (2007). The auditor's going-concern opinion decision. International Journal of Business and Economics, 6(2), 89–101.
  45. Senal, S., & Erkan, A. (2019). Bağımsız denetim kapsamında işletme sürekliliği: Borsa İstanbul’da imalat sektöründe faaliyet gösteren işletmeler üzerine bir araştırma. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(4), 105–118.
  46. Shumway, T. (2001). Forecasting bankruptcy more accurately: A simple hazard model. The Journal of Business, 74(1), 101–124.
  47. Stanley, J., Zoort, F. T. D., & Taylor, G. (2009). The association between insider trading surrounding going concern audit opinions and future bankruptcy. Managerial Auditing Journal, 24(3), 290–312.
  48. Tanç, A., Çardak, D., & Canlitepe, F. (2022). Covid-19 salgınının işletmelerin finansal başarısızlığı üzerine etkileri: BİST imalat sektöründe yer alan işletmelerin Altman Z-skor yöntemi kullanılarak incelenmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 25(Özel Sayı), 85–102.
  49. T'ing, L. C., Mohamad, Z. Z., & Razak, R. A. (2021). The determinants of auditor's going concern opinion and the effect of monitoring mechanisms. Asian Journal of Accounting and Finance, 3(3), 10-30.
  50. Trainor, J. E., Phillips, C. R., & Cangialos, M. (2018). An Analysis of the FASB's New Going-Concern Standard and Its Relation to Liquidation Basis Accounting Requirements. Interdıscıplınary Journal On Risk And Society, 38(1).
  51. Uzay, Ş., & Tanç, Ş. G. (2010). İMKB’de işlem gören şirketlerin bağımsız denetim raporlarında işletmenin sürekliliği kavramının analizi. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 12(2), 143–177.
  52. Vanstraelen, A. (1999). The auditor's going concern opinion decision: A pilot study. International Journal of Auditing, 3(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1099-1123.00041
  53. Wu, Y., Gaunt, C., & Gray, S. (2010). A comparison of alternative bankruptcy prediction models. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics, 6(1), 34–45.
  54. Yeh, C.-C., Chi, D.-J., & Lin, Y.-R. (2014). Going-concern prediction using hybrid random forests and rough set approach. Information Sciences, 254, 98–110.
  55. Yee, H. L. (2018). Predicting financial distress amongst public listed companies in Malaysia using Altman's Z-score model and auditors' opinion on going concern [Doctoral dissertation, Curtin University].
  56. Yaşar, A. (2017). İşletmenin sürekliliğinde ortaya çıkan belirsizliğin bağımsız denetim raporlarındaki denetçi görüşleri açısından incelenmesi: BIST’de işlem gören sınai şirketlerine yönelik bir araştırma. Muhasebe Bilim Dünyası Dergisi, 19(1), 58–86.
  57. Yaşar, A., & Çetin, E. (2020). BDS 570 kapsamında verilen denetçi raporlarının iletişim değeri açısından incelenmesi. İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 384–391.
  58. Zmijewski, M. E. (1984). Methodological issues related to the estimation of financial distress prediction models. Journal of Accounting Research, 22, 59–82.