This study examines the effect of CPA firm type on regulators' decisions with respect to the closure of banks. Using a sample of 116 closed and 116 nonclosed banks in the state of Texas during 1990–1991, we estimate regression models which include (1) financial characteristics of the sample banks, (2) other characteristics of the sample banks, (3) the type of auditor's opinion received by the bank (with respect to the bank's ability to continue as a going concern), and (4) the CPA firm type (Big 6 vs. non-Big 6). Our results indicate that banks receiving modified opinions from Big 6 firms were more likely to be continued (not closed) by regulators than those receiving modified opinions from non-Big 6 firms. In contrast, banks receiving nonmodified opinions from non-Big 6 firms were more likely to be closed than those receiving nonmodified opinions from Big 6 firms. These findings indicate that, ceteris paribus, banks audited by Big 6 firms are more likely to be continued, consistent with regulators' perceptions that economic reporting incentives may result in Big 6 firms being more likely to modify their opinions to reflect going-concern uncertainties.