本研究針對會計師「對繼續經營假設有疑慮」、「違反一致性」以及「投資損益依未查核財報認列」意見，以單期logit 模型與離散時間涉險模型，測試會計師意見是否有助於預測企業財務危機。增額測試中，若公司在該年度四月三十日以前就發生財務危機，則改採用該公司前二年度的會計師意見作預測，並比較四大會計事務所的預測是否較其他會計事務所更準確。研究結果發現離散時間涉險模型的預測績效優於單期logit 模型，也發現會計師意見具增額解釋能力。增額測試進而顯示會計師並未及時簽發「對繼續經營假設有疑慮」的意見，大會計師事務所預測能力僅些微優於小會計師事務所，實證結果並未強力支持會計師具備財務危機預測或出具修正式意見的道德勇氣。

This study utilizes “doubts of going-concern”, “lack of consistency” and “realized investment income based on non-audited financial statements” opinions provided by auditors to construct sixteen predictive models of financial distress. Two different approaches: single-period logit model and discrete-time hazard model are developed to forecast financial distress and the results obtained are compared among the various models. Furthermore, additional tests revise to adopt the auditors' opinions from the most recent auditors' reports in the predictive models. If a firm suffers financial distress prior to April 30,
additional tests choose the auditors' opinions in the year before the last. The results show that the accuracy of discrete-time hazard model is superior to that of single-period logit model. In addition, the coefficients of auditors' opinions are statistically significant, which
implies that the auditors' opinion provides incremental information content in explaining financial distress. Finally, the results of additional tests show that the auditors do not timely issue “going-concern” opinion before financial distress. Even the Big-4 CPA firms only
perform slightly better than the other CPA firms in predicting financial distress. The findings do not strongly support the views that auditors meet the ethics requirements in financial distress prediction and the issuance of modified opinions.