An Experimental Investigation of Alternative Going‐Concern Reporting Formats: A Canadian Experience*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study questions whether the current or proposed Canadian standard of disclosing a going‐concern contingency is viewed as equivalent to the standard adopted in the United States by financial statement users. We examined loan officers' perceptions across three different formats ‐ namely, an integrated note with a clean auditor's report (the current Canadian standard), a stand‐alone note with referencing on the face of the balance sheet and income statement (the proposed and now rescinded standard), and a modified auditor's report with an explanatory paragraph in addition to a stand‐alone going concern note (the standard adopted in the United States and other countries). Bank loan officers were selected as the appropriate financial statement users for this study. The results of the test of the hypothesis suggest that once the going‐concern note is fully disclosed in the notes, the style of presentation within the notes (a stand‐alone note versus an integrated note) does not significantly influence the reactions and perceptions of risk if the auditor's report is unmodified (i.e., if no reference is made to a going‐concern contingency). However, when the auditor's report is modified with an explanatory paragraph detailing the uncertainty and referencing the going‐concern note in the footnotes, the format appeared to convey a stronger signal of financial distress to loan officers. These results appear to differ from prior research, which holds that once the information is released in the financial statements, the format has no additional effect. The finding of this study is that the proposed and withdrawn Canadian standard was not perceived differently by the bankers from the present Canadian standard, but the standard adopted in the United States and most other countries was. This makes a strong argument for moving all the way to that standard as opposed to the “halfway” approach of the now rescinded CICA exposure draft. Thus, the public interest in Canada may not be served by adopting a halfway approach.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".