The Impact of Qualified Opinions and Audit Firm’s Reputation on Enterprise Value in Vietnam

Article Sidebar

PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.28924/2291-8639-23-2025-127
Published: May 26, 2025
Cite as:
Nguyen Van Linh, Hung Dang Ngoc, Nguyen Thi Mai Lan, The Impact of Qualified Opinions and Audit Firm’s Reputation on Enterprise Value in Vietnam, Int. J. Anal. Appl., 23 (2025), 127.

Main Article Content

Nguyen Van Linh, Hung Dang Ngoc, Nguyen Thi Mai Lan

Abstract

This study examines the impact of qualified opinions and audit firm reputation on firm value. Data were collected from 9,199 observations of listed companies on the Vietnam stock market during the period from 2016 to 2023, of which 1,472 observations included qualified audit reports, accounting for 16%. The study employed the GLS regression method. The results show that qualified opinions have a negative effect on firm value, while the reputation of audit firms has a positive effect on firm value. However, when considering the interaction between qualified opinion and audit firm reputation, it only impacts firm value when measured by stock prices, and the results are inconsistent when measuring firm value using market value and Tobin's Q. Based on the research findings, we propose several recommendations for users of audit reports and for auditors to assess the appropriateness of qualified opinion, as well as to enhance the quality of financial reports, thereby increasing firm value.

Article Details

References

  1. M.C. Jensen, W.H. Meckling, Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure, J. Financ. Econ. 3 (1976), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X.
  2. S. Anvarkhatibi, M. Safashur, J. Mohammadi, The Effect of Auditors Opinions on Shares Prices and Returns in Tehran Stock Exchange, Res. J. Manag. Sci. 1 (2012), 23-27.
  3. C.J.P. Chen, X. Su, R. Zhao, An Emerging Market’s Reaction to Initial Modified Audit Opinions: Evidence from the Shanghai Stock Exchange, Contemp. Account. Res. 17 (2000), 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1506/GCJP-5599-QUWB-G86D.
  4. A.A. Al‐Thuneibat, B.A. Khamees, N.A. Al‐Fayoumi, The Effect of Qualified Auditors’ Opinions on Share Prices: Evidence from Jordan, Manag. Audit. J. 23 (2007), 84–101. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900810838182.
  5. Z.J. Lin, Q. Tang, J. Xiao, An Experimental Study of Users’ Responses to Qualified Audit Reports in China, Journal of International Accounting, Audit. Tax. 12 (2003), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1061-9518(03)00005-3.
  6. A. Duréndez Gómez‐Guillamón, The Usefulness of the Audit Report in Investment and Financing Decisions, Manag. Audit. J. 18 (2003), 549–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900310482687.
  7. M.A. Robu, I.B. Robu, The Influence of the Audit Report on the Relevance of Accounting Information Reported by Listed Romanian Companies, Procedia Econ. Finance 20 (2015), 562–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00109-4.
  8. J. Sağlar, Z. Gizer, The Effect of Audit Opinions on TOBIN'S Q and Stock Value by Panel Data Analysis, İşlet. Araşt. Derg. (J. Bus. Res. - Turk) 15 (2023), 865-877. https://doi.org/10.20491/isarder.2023.1623.
  9. M.C.P. Martínez, A.V. Martínez, M.A.G. Benau, Reactions of the Spanish Capital Market to Qualified Audit Reports, Eur. Account. Rev. 13 (2004), 689–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/0963818042000216848.
  10. A.A. Arens, R.J. Elder, M.S. Beasley, Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach, Prentice Hall, 2012.
  11. M. Butler, A.J. Leone, M. Willenborg, An Empirical Analysis of Auditor Reporting and Its Association with Abnormal Accruals, J. Account. Econ. 37 (2004), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2003.06.004.
  12. H.E. Leland, K.B. Toft, Optimal Capital Structure, Endogenous Bankruptcy, and the Term Structure of Credit Spreads, J. Finance 51 (1996), 987–1019. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1996.tb02714.x.
  13. I. Pandey, Financial Management 9th Edition, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, Vikas Publishing House, 2004.
  14. F. Modigliani, S. Johnson, The Collected Papers of Franco Modigliani: The Life Cycle Hypothesis of Saving, MIT Press, 1980.
  15. O. Maxwell, F. Kehinde, Capital Structure and Firm Value: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria, Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 3 (2012), 252-261.
  16. M. La Rocca, Is Ownership a Complement to Debt in Affecting Firm's Value. A Meta-Analysis, 2010. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266879079.
  17. R. La Porta, F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, R. Vishny, Investor Protection and Corporate Governance, J. Financ. Econ. 58 (2000), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00065-9.
  18. R. Ball, S.P. Kothari, A. Robin, The Effect of International Institutional Factors on Properties of Accounting Earnings, J. Account. Econ. 29 (2000), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-4101(00)00012-4.
  19. R. Morck, A. Shleifer, R.W. Vishny, Management Ownership and Market Valuation, J. Financ. Econ. 20 (1988), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(88)90048-7.
  20. J.R. Francis, E.R. Wilson, Auditor Changes: A Joint Test of Theories Relating to Agency Costs and Auditor Differentiation, Account. Rev. 63 (1988), 663-682. https://www.jstor.org/stable/247906.
  21. R.E. Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, Boston, 1984.
  22. G.A. Akerlof, The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, Q. J. Econ. 84 (1970), 488-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431.
  23. M. Firth, Qualified Audit Reports: Their Impact on Investment Decisions, Account. Rev. 53 (1978), 642-650. https://www.jstor.org/stable/245672.
  24. B. Soltani, Some Empirical Evidence to Support the Relationship between Audit Reports and Stock Prices—The French Case, Int. J. Audit. 4 (2000), 269-291.
  25. B. Leo Handoko, C. Michaela, How Audit Opinion Increase Value Added in Indonesian Sustainability Index Corporation, in: 2021 7th International Conference on E-Business and Applications, ACM, 2021: pp. 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457640.3457663.
  26. M. Bessell, A. Anandarajan, A. Umar, Information Content, Audit Reports and Going‐concern: An Australian Study, Account. Finance 43 (2003), 261–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629x.2003.00091.x.
  27. J.P. Boone, I.K. Khurana, K.K. Raman, Do the Big 4 and the Second-Tier Firms Provide Audits of Similar Quality?, J. Account. Public Policy 29 (2010), 330–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2010.06.007.
  28. H. Lee, H. Lee, Do Big 4 Audit Firms Improve the Value Relevance of Earnings and Equity?, Manag. Audit. J. 28 (2013), 628–646. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-07-2012-0728.
  29. N.T.T. Phuong, D.N. Hung, V.T.T. Van, N.T. Xuan, Effect of Debt Structure on Earnings Quality of Energy Businesses in Vietnam, Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 10 (2020), 396–401. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.9110.
  30. H.N. Dang, K. Hoang, V.T. Vu, L.V. Nguyen, Do Socially Responsible Firms Always Disclose High-Quality Earnings? Evidence from an Emerging Socialist Economy, Asian Rev. Account. 29 (2021), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARA-11-2020-0174.
  31. D. Ngoc Hung, Studying the Factors That Affect the Application of Accounting Standards in Vietnam via SEM Model, VNU J. Sci.: Econ. Bus. 33 (2017), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1108/vnueab.4123.