Wassie, F A and Lakatos, L P (2024) Key audit matters disclosure: Do they reveal construction firm's risk of financial distress? Evidence from Ethiopia. International Journal of Construction Management, 24(15), pp. 1689-1697. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
Recent studies have provided insights into key audit matters (KAMs) disclosure content and their determinants. While conducting this study, no known study examined the relation between the type of KAMs reported and the level of clients' financial distress (FIDT) risk in Ethiopia, which is a clear research gap. Hence, this study aimed to examine the disclosure of KAMs' (in number and nature) usefulness in assessing a client construction firm’s FIDT risk. A quantitative method with five-year (2017–2022) secondary data of KAMs disclosure in the audited financial reports of grade one construction companies in Ethiopia was used to study the relationship. The pooled OLS regression analysis shows that KAMs reported by auditors are valuable in predicting and assessing a firm’s risk of FIDT. The number of KAMs and all account-specific KAMs were useful in assessing firms' FIDT. However, from the company-wide KAMs, going concern was found to be significant. Results were found robust to FIDT, using alternative measures, and tests of endogeneity. Overall, this study suggests construction firms contemplate auditor disclosers (KAMs) as one of the financial health assessment approaches.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction companies; financial distress; key audit matters |
| Index terms: | construction company, construction firm, Ethiopia, quantitative method, evidence, endogeneity, audit, secondary data, financial distress, determinant, regression analysis |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, organization, data analysis and analytics, economic analysis, performance measurement, Geography, statistical analysis, financial analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Risk Management, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here