What is "Substantial Doubt"?
通过调查五类审计意见使用者，发现他们对“重大疑虑”的概率阈值理解存在显著差异，银行家和分析师认为概率较高，而法官和立法人员认为较低。
Abstract This paper builds upon the work of researchers who have empirically sought to provide evidence showing how users of financial statement information interpret the "going concern" audit report modification for troubled organizations. In particular, the objective of this study is to determine if perceptual differences exist among key groups of audit opinion users and professional auditors concerning the meaning of the so-called "substantial doubt" expression used in the context of Statement on Auditing Standards Nos. 59 and 64 (AICPA 1988, 1990). Employing a survey instrument, the researchers asked five representative samples of audit opinion users, including commercial bank loan officers, financial analysts, judges involved in commercial litigation, legislative staff to Congressman Ron Wyden, and audit partners and managers, to frame substantial doubt as a numerical probability threshold. Results reveal statistically significant differences among subject groups. That is, in comparison to auditors, bankers and financial analysts perceive substantial doubt as a relatively high numerical probability, while judges and legislative staff members view substantial doubt as a relatively low numerical probability value. This suggests that financial statement users may believe that substantial doubt connotes greater assurance of an audit client's financial demise than intended by auditors. Members of the judiciary and Congressional legislators, on the other hand, may believe that auditors are too conservative in rendering going concern report modifications for troubled audit clients. The regulatory implications and limitations of these findings are provided in the last section of this paper.