@article{67389,
  abstract     = {{We investigate banks' risk-taking and deposit flows around first-time going concern opinions (GCOs). While GCOs may strengthen market monitoring, they are also often suspected of destabilizing banks by triggering depositor runs. Our evidence is difficult to reconcile with that concern. Uninsured deposits begin to decline several quarters before the GCO, while insured deposits increase over the same period, leaving total deposits broadly stable around the opinion. This pattern suggests that more sophisticated depositors respond to timelier information than the annual audit report and shift from uninsured to insured funding before the GCO becomes public, whereas insured retail depositors do not exhibit large-scale withdrawals around the GCO. We also document that bank risk measures rise in the quarters leading up to the GCO and then stabilize and subsequently decline after the opinion. In addition, severe enforcement actions become more likely in the post-GCO period. Taken together, these patterns are consistent with an indirect supervisory channel that may help interpret the post-GCO change in risk-taking. Overall, our findings suggest that concerns about GCOs precipitating depositor runs may be overstated in the banking setting and that systematic auditor forbearance is not clearly justified on financial stability grounds.}},
  author       = {{Riepe, Jan and Mohrmann, Ulf}},
  journal      = {{Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Finance}},
  keywords     = {{banks, going concern opinions, market discipline, risk-taking, enforcement actions}},
  title        = {{{Banks' Risk-Taking and Deposits Around Going Concern Opinions}}},
  doi          = {{https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6334698}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}

@article{67388,
  abstract     = {{The impairment frequency and quantity of acquired intangible assets remain a focal point in the debate about the proper measurement of acquired intangible assets. Using hand-collected data on acquired intangible assets net amounts and their impairments, we exploit the different determinants of finite and indefinite intangible assets and goodwill to explore how impairment practices differ across categories. While indefinite intangible asset and goodwill impairments are largely explained by reporting quality indicators, we find only weak evidence between reporting quality and finite intangible asset impairments. In contrast, finite intangible asset impairments are explained by deteriorating business characteristics. Internal monitoring mechanisms strongly moderate the likelihood of timely impairments for indefinite intangibles and goodwill for firms that face impairment pressure, indicating the role of corporate governance in enhancing reporting quality. Our results are relevant for policymakers as they consider proposals to subsume intangible assets into goodwill as well as modifying impairment test procedures. }},
  author       = {{Riepe, Jan and Krishnan, Gopal and Liss, Alexander and Mohrmann, Ulf}},
  journal      = {{Accounting Horizon }},
  keywords     = {{goodwill, impairment, financial reporting, intangible assets, post-acquisition accounting}},
  title        = {{{Discretionary Impairments of Finite and Indefinite Intangible Assets}}},
  doi          = {{https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4660302}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}