Talk:Going concern/Archives/2013

Too Conceptual
Can anyone give an example?--Tassieroy 17:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of a going concern? Any business that produces financial statements, during the preparation of those statements the business is treated as if it was going to continue forever. i.e. it isn't going to shut down.  That may be different in real life but this is how reports are done.  -- 125.238.40.208 04:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of companies
From the article, the "going concern" concepts applies to public companies. It might improve the article to mention how it applies (or mention that it does not apply) to other types of businesses, such as proprietorships or partnerships.SlowJog (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What in the article makes you think it applies to public companies? It applies to all companies identically, though private companies of any type are generally less discussed and may not have all the bells and whistles around their financial statements.  The only thing I can see in the article that is public company specific is in the risk management section, as only a public company is subject to being owned by a mutual fund.  Everything else (potential for debt ratings, banks, financial statement users, auditors, and proper preparation of financial statements) is the same whether the company is public or private, though few if any private companies have rated debt; they usually have only bank or privately placed debt.  GRBerry 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Added Cross Ref Section, Suggest further editing
Added a cross ref section because article was cited for lacking that. Removed the tag.

The article itself has great content! However I think it could be improved with some editing.

Rick (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction is a bit arcane and sort of a harsh entry into the topic. Further it seems self contradictory
 * "is universally understood and accepted"' then...FASB exposure draft to help define it
 * see http://pcaobus.org/news/events/pages/03282012_iagmeeting.aspx for more on definition and usage issues.
 * And later..."The going concern concept is not clearly defined anywhere in generally accepted accounting principles, and so is subject to a considerable amount of interpretation regarding when an entity should report it."
 * order of presentation? Most general, easy to understand, for the widest possible audience should be first. How has it been used and understood for the past 10+ years? After that, well separated, more specific drill downs. e.g. instructions to CPA auditors.
 * Paragraphs seem long (huge blocks of type). Subdivide?
 * Seems like some things are repeated?
 * Seems like some material is out of date vs the March 2012 PCAOB cite and perhaps things after that?
 * Important relation to credit rating seem under covered? See more at the "See Also" cross ref.
 * Self fulfilling prophecy / feedback loops seem under covered?


 * Seems massively lengthy at the moment. I am guessing that you are in the process of refining it though ;o) I agree, there is a lot of repeated content! --FeralOink (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)!