Investor Reaction to Auditors' Going Concern Emphasis of Matter: Evidence from a Natural Experiment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Using a “natural experiment” provided by a change in Canadian auditing standards requiring an emphasis of matter paragraph in the auditor's report (GC-EOM) when the financial statements include a going concern uncertainty disclosure (GC-FS), this paper examines the incremental investor reaction to the auditor's report over the related GC-FS. Conditioning on the linguistic severity of the GC-FS (weak and severe), we first document a negative price response to severe but not to weak GC-FS before the regulatory change. This implies that investors react to financial statement disclosures and account for their degree of interpretability in the absence of a GC-EOM. When the uncertainty disclosure is accompanied by a GC-EOM, we find incremental negative abnormal returns and lower abnormal trading volume only for weak GC-FS. Collectively, these findings imply that an emphasis of matter paragraph in the auditor's report can have incremental value to investors. JEL Classifications: M42; G12; G14. Data Availability: Data used are available from public sources identified in the study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it