Japanese annual securities reports carry the company's own statement about material uncertainty over continuing as a going concern. We list the companies that carry one, but never said what it implies. With three years of filings for the same companies, we can count what happened next.
Only 12.3% of companies with a note had it removed the following year; 77.4% still carried it. Over the same window, median headcount at companies that started with a note moved -9.7%, against +3.0% at companies with no disclosure. Average pay rose +3.4%, so this is people leaving, not pay being cut.
| Previous year | Pairs | → None | → Material events | → Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No disclosure | 7,293 | 98.9% | 0.9% | 0.2% |
| Material events | 231 | 23.8% | 68.8% | 7.4% |
| Going concern note | 106 | 12.3% | 10.4% | 77.4% |
7,630 consecutive-year pairs. "Material events" is the lighter disclosure that usually precedes a formal note; it resolves in both directions.
| Disclosure at start | n | No disclosure at end | Δ headcount | Δ average pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No disclosure | 3,599 | 98.2% | +3.0% | +5.7% |
| Material events | 117 | 37.6% | -5.3% | +5.6% |
| Going concern note | 47 | 21.3% | -9.7% | +3.4% |
Median consolidated headcount is 748 for companies with no disclosure and 68 for those with a note — an order of magnitude smaller, so single events move the numbers more.
Source: annual securities reports (EDINET, Financial Services Agency of Japan),
as of 2026-08-08. Method: pipeline/analyze_gc.py.
Companies currently disclosing: going concern warnings.
Japanese edition: 継続企業の前提に注記がついた会社は、その後どうなったか.