Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ANALYSIS THE INFLUENCE OF CASH FLOW,
PROFITABILITY, AUDIT QUALITY, AND COMPANY
SIZE TOWARD ISSUANCE OF GOING CONCERN
AUDIT OPINION
(A CASE STUDY: MANUFACTURE – BASIC
INDUSTRY LISTED IN IDX PERIOD 2011-2014)
SKRIPSI
By
Rica Mandasari Sembiring
008201200045
A skripsi presented to the Faculty of Business President University in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor Degree in Economics, Major in
Accounting
President University
Cikarang Baru – Bekasi
Indonesia
2016
ii
PANEL OF EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET
Herewith the Panel of Examiners declare that the skripsi entitles “Analysis the
Influence of Cash Flow, Profitability, Audit Quality and Company Size Toward
Issuance of Going Concern Audit Opinion (A Case Study: Manufacture – Basic
Industry Listed in IDX Period 2011-2014)”submitted by Rica Mandasari
Sembiring, Accounting Study Program, and Faculty of Business, has been
assessed and proved to pass the Oral Examination
Chair, Panel of Examiner,
Dr. Josep Ginting, CFA
Examiner 1
Drs. Gatot Imam Nugroho,Ak., MBA
Examiner 2
Andi Ina Yustina, M.sc
iii
RECOMMENDATION LETTER OF SKRIPSI
ADVISOR
The skripsi prepared and submitted by
Name : Rica Mandasari Sembiring
Student ID : 008201200045
Faculty : Business
Study Program : Accounting
Field of Study : Quantitative
Skripsi Title : Analysis the Influence of Cash Flow, Profitability, Audit
Quality and Company Size Toward Issuance of Going
Concern Audit Opinion (A Case Study: Manufacture –
Basic Industry Listed in IDX Period 2011-2014
Has been reviewed and found to have satisfied the necessities for Oral Defense as
partial fulfillment of the requirements for Bachelor Degree in Economics–
Faculty of Business.
Cikarang, Indonesia, January 22, 2016
Acknowledge,
Misbahul Munir, MBA., Ak., CPMA.,
CA
Head of Accounting Study Program
Skripsi Advisor,
Dr. Joseph Ginting, CFA
Advisor
iv
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
This skripsi entitled “Analysis the Influence of Cash Flow, Profitability, Audit
Quality and Company Size Toward Issuance of Going Concern Audit Opinion
(A Case Study: Manufacture – Basic Industry Listed in IDX Period 2011-2014)”
is originally written by me on my own research and has never been used for any
other purpose before. I therefore request the skripsi for Oral Defense.
Cikarang, Indonesia January 22, 2016
Researcher,
Rica Mandasari Sembiring
008201200045
v
Analysis the Influence of Cash Flow, Profitability, Audit Quality and
Company Size Toward Issuance of Going Concern Audit Opinion (A Case
Study: Manufacture – Basic Industry Listed in IDX Period 2011-2014)”
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to examine the influence of cash
flow, profitability, audit quality and company size toward Issuance of
Going Concern Audit Opinion by auditor. The independent variables used
in this study is cash flow, profitability, audit quality and company size;
Independent variable is going concern audit opinion.
This research used 40 manufacturing companies in basic industry,
which listed on the Stock Exchange in the period 2011-2014 as the sample.
The samples were selected using purposive sampling the data were
analysed using logistic regression analysis model.
The result shows that the cash flow, profitability, and company size
have influance on the issuance of going concern audit opinion, but audit
quality has no influence toward issuance of going concern audit opinion .
Key words: cash flow, profitability, audit quality, company size, going
concern audit opinion
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks to God Almighty for His blessing to keep the author stay healthy
physically and mentally. His blessing made the author to finish this skripsi
entitled “Analysis the influence of cash flow, profitability, audit quality and
company size toward Issuance of Going Concern Audit Opinion (A Case Study:
Manufacture – Basic Industry Listed in IDX Period 2010-2014)” on time.
Furthermore, it would not have been possible to write this thesis without the help
and support of the kind people around the Author. Therefore, the author would
like to express my respect and gratitude. it is possible to give particular mention
here:
1. Misbahul Munir, MBA., Ak., CPMA., CA, as the Head of Accounting
Study Program.
2. Mr. Dr. Joseph Ginting, CFA as the supervisor who always gave his time to
provide the guidance, advice, and ideas in the preparation of this skripsi.
Thank you for all of your effort, guidance, and patience
3. Beloved father and mother who support my financial and give me a
motivation all the day.
4. Beloved brother and sister Samuel, Hesti who encouraged to support me
everyday by a phonecall and pray for me, heard my complaint, and helps
me all the time in his busy time. Thank you for your support.
5. My closer lovely sister who really care on my health and everything i need
during doing this skripsi.
6. My dear Jeffy who have been support me and help me during doing my
skripsi and always accompany me in all the things related to this skripsi.
7. My best friend Ririn, Feby, Nael and Tephen, Thank you for your patience
in hearing my story and always encourage me mentally.
vii
8. Shierly who always accompany me as an accounting skripsi fellow who
always tell me a funny thing. Thank you for your help and courages to
doing skripsi in my room.
9. Friends of Accounting batch 2012 which cannot be mention one by one
who share the information and support each other.
10. All peoples surround me that may cannot mention one by one.
May the God Almighty bless us and repay the kindness for those who helped
physically or in form of prayer and motivation and hopefully this skripsi can be
useful for the future development.
Cikarang, 22 January 2016
Author
viii
Contents PANEL OF EXAMINERS APPROVAL SHEET .................................................................... ii
RECOMMENDATION LETTER OF SKRIPSI ADVISOR ...................................................... iii
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................................. iv
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................... 12
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 12
I.1. Research Background .............................................................................................. 12
I.2. Problems Identification and Statement .................................................................. 16
I.2.1. Problems Identification .................................................................................... 16
I.3. Scope and limitation .............................................................................................. 17
I.3.1. Scope ................................................................................................................ 17
I.3.2. Limitation ......................................................................................................... 17
I.4. Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 17
1.5. Research Benefits ................................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER II ............................................................................................................... 19
LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................ 19
II.1. Theoritical Review .................................................................................................. 19
II.1.1. Agency Theory ............................................................................................... 19
II.1.2. Going Concern Audit Opinion ....................................................................... 20
II.1.3. Audit Opinion ................................................................................................ 23
II.1.4. Profitability .................................................................................................... 26
II.1.5 . Cash Flow ...................................................................................................... 26
II.1.6. Audit Quality ................................................................................................. 27
II.1.7. Company Size ................................................................................................ 28
II.2. Previous Research ................................................................................................ 29
II.3. Theoritical Framework .......................................................................................... 35
II.3.1. Variables Identification ................................................................................. 35
II.3.2. Variables Definition ....................................................................................... 36
II.4 . Hypothesis ............................................................................................................ 37
ix
II.4.1. Cash Flow and Going Concern Audit opinion .................................................. 37
II.4.2 . Profitability Ratio and Going Concern Audit opinion .................................... 38
II.4.3. Audit quality and Going Concern Audit opinion .......................................... 38
II.4.4. Company Size and Going Concern Audit opinion .......................................... 39
CHAPTER III .............................................................................................................. 41
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 41
III.1 Research Method ................................................................................................... 41
III.2 Operational definition of variables ...................................................................... 41
III.3.2.1. Dependent Variable ................................................................................... 42
III.3. Research Instrument ............................................................................................. 44
III.4 Sampling Design .................................................................................................. 44
III.5. Data Analysis .................................................................................................... 45
III.5.1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis ....................................................................... 46
III.5.2. Classic Assumption Tests .............................................................................. 46
III.5.3. Hypothesis Test .............................................................................................. 50
CHAPTER IV .............................................................................................................. 54
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION .................................................................................... 54
IV.1. RESEARCH SAMPLES AND DATA ........................................................................... 54
IV.2 DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 55
IV.2.1 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 55
IV.2.2. CLASSICAL ASSSUMPTION TEST ..................................................................... 57
IV.3. HYPOTHESIS TESTING ........................................................................................... 62
IV.3.1 t- Statistical Test............................................................................................. 62
IV.3.2. F- Statitical Test ............................................................................................. 67
IV.3.3 COEFFICIENT DETERMINATION TEST (R2) ..................................................... 67
CHAPTER V ............................................................................................................... 69
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 69
V.1. Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 69
V.2. Limitation .......................................................................................................... 70
V.3. Recommendation .............................................................................................. 71
REFERENCES & APPENDICES
x
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2. 1 Previous Research ................................................................................ 29
Table 3. 1 Sampling Process ................................................................................. 45
Table 4. 1 Calculation of Sampling Process ......................................................... 54
Table 4. 2 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................ 55
Table 4. 4 Result of Multicolinearity Test ............................................................ 58
Table 4. 5 The Result of Autocorrelation Test ..................................................... 60
Table 4. 6 Coefficient ............................................................................................ 63
Table 4. 7 The Result of F-Test ............................................................................ 67
Table 4. 8 The Result of R2 Test .......................................................................... 68
xi
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 4. 1 Scatterplot ....................................................................................................... 61
12
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
I.1. Research Background
The financial report is an important tool to communicating financial
information to parties outside the company. Financial reporting should provide
information relative to the firm’s economic resources, obligations, and owners’
equity. SFAC No. 1 is concerned with the objectives of business financial
reporting. Its overall purpose is to provide information that is useful for making
business and economic decisions. SFAC No. 1 maintains that financial statements
must be general purpose in nature rather than geared toward specific needs of a
particular user group, although investors, creditors, and their advisers are singled
out among external users. This is the reason why companies have to present a
good quality financial statement.
According to Agency Theory, separation of ownership and control has
long been recognized to potentially have an adverse effect on the firm value. It is
believed that the incentive to pursue personal benefits increases when the manager
owns a smaller portion of the firm’s shares,and the incentive to invest in sub-
optimal investments and misappropriation of assets declines as a manager’s share
ownership increases because his/her share of a firm’s profit increases with
ownership while benefits from perquisite consumptions are constant (Mat Nor and
Sulong, 2007), It is claimed that when managers own the shares of the firm, they
have the incentive to increase the value of the firm rather than shrink it, as they
have vested interest in the company (Jensen and Meckling,1976).
To prevent the rise of bankruptcy, companies required to prepare
financial statement on the basis of going concern assumption. Going concern
assume that company will continue its future business and does not have intention
13
to liquidate or materially reduce its business scale. Going concern opinion from
auditor is needed about viability of a company, thus many companies hired
auditor to do audit the companies.
Auditor responsibility with respect to assessing the continued viability of
audit clients and the requisite reporting of substantial doubt. This reporting
responsibility becomes all the more problematic in periods of economic difficulty
when businesses are already likely to be under additional financial stress.
Reporting that the auditor has significant concerns regarding the continued
viability of their client can only exacerbate an already difficult time for a
financially struggling. However, it is at exactly those times when users look to the
auditor for assistance in evaluating the continued viability of the company. In that
context, several commenters contended that more businesses had filed for
bankruptcy without receiving a prior going-concern modified opinion (GCO)
from their auditor after the onset of the Global Financial Crisis than immediately
before it began (Spinos,2013).
Under SAS No. 126 (AICPA, 2012), auditors have a responsibility to
evaluate whether there is substantial doubt regarding an entity’s ability to
continue as a going-concern for a reasonable period of time (not exceeding 12
months from the balance sheet date). Under U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP), the going-concern basis for presentation of financial
statements is assumed in the absence of information to the contrary. Accordingly,
auditors’ evaluations are made based on knowledge obtained from audit
procedures, and knowledge of conditions and events existing at or prior to the
completion of fieldwork that relates to the validity of the going-concern
assumption and the use of the going-concern basis for preparing the financial
statements.
Auditors are required to obtain information about management’s plans to
mitigate any concerns and assess the likelihood of successful implementation of
14
such plans. If the auditor still has substantial doubt about the entity’s ability to
continue as a going-concern, the auditor should consider the adequacy of
management’s disclosures in the financial statements and the auditor must modify
his/her opinion to include an explanatory paragraph outlining the reasons for
concern. Accountability of auditors is required to disclose the viability of
companies through auditor’s opinion in auditor report. The audit report relating to
going concern can provide warning for shareholders and users financial report in
order to avoid mistakes in decision-making.
Audit opinion as the result of responsibility of auditor is the most
important part in audit report, which reflects the healthiness and viability of
companies. There are five opinions can gave by auditors based on the audit
procedures conducted during audit engagement, unqualified opinion, unqualified
opinion with explanation paragraph, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, and
disclaimer opinion. In fact, many companies which is unhealthy companies
receive unqualified opinion. This act gave the bad effect to users of financial
statement. Just like Enron case, is one example the failure of auditors to assess the
company's ability to maintain the continuity of their business. Enron corporate
bankruptcy occurs because of an accounting scandal involve between
management and external auditor, Arthur Andersen. Arthur Andersen markup
revenue and hide debts through business partnership and issued an unqualified
opinion in the year prior to the bankruptcy.
One of the three financial factors identified as negative trends in SAS No.
59 (current ratio) is significantly correlated with the presence of the going concern
modification opinion. Consistent with the suggestion in SAS No. 59 regarding
adverse financial ratios, stockholders’ equity/debt is significantly correlated with
the going concern audit report. Profitability ratio have negative effect regarding
issuance of going concern opinion which means the higher amount of profitability
ratio will show that the less possibility companies receive going concern opinion
from auditor (Davis, 2010).
15
Some of research had found different result about going concern audit
opinion and financial condition of company that is shown by ratios. Some of
researcher concludes that profitability ratio had negative effect towards going
concern audit opinion. Negative effect means that the higher amount of
profitability ratio will less chance to auditor to issue going concern audit opinion
to the audited company. Through this research, researcher want to test
profitability have negative effect regarding issuance of going concern opinion and
cash flow ratio. The profitability will be represented by profit margin and cash
flow ratio will be represented by cash flow from operating activities to total debt.
As the purposes of this ratio, is to defined as the sum of short-term borrowings,
the current portion of long-term debt and long-term debt. This ratio provides an
indication of a company's ability to cover total debt with its yearly cash flow from
operations. Previous researcher defined that the higher the percentage ratio, the
better the company's ability to carry its total debt.
In addition, researcher also will add the analysis of the influence of audit
quality to the issuance of going concern opinion. Just like the previous statement
in the previous paragraph, external users use auditors’ opinion as guidance for
decision making. Qualified auditor and accounting firm should guarantee the
reliable of auditee financial report. Quality of the audit opinion commonly have
influenced by the size of Public Accounting Firm and reputation of auditor.
Larger offices are more likely to issue going-concern reports, and that their going-
concern reports are more accurate in terms of predicting next-period client
bankruptcy.
Size of company also have an influence on issuance of going concern
opinion. The size of the company can be measured by using the total assets , sales,
or capital of the company. Companies that have huge total assets indicates that the
company has reached maturity stage. At this stage the company has a positive
cash flow and is considered to have good prospects in a long period of time , but it
16
also reflects that the company is relatively more stable and better in generate
profits than firms with small total assets. Big company commonly have a better
ability to survive even when the company experienced financial distress.
Therefore, auditors will delay issuing an audit opinion concern with the
expectation that the company will be able to overcome adverse conditions in the
coming year.
Based on explanation above, the researcher is interest in analyzing the
influence of profitability ratio , cash flow , audit quality; and size of companies to
issuance of going concern audit opinion which will analyze and take information
in basic industry sector and the information are coming from listed manufacturing
companies listed in IDX start from 2011-2014. The title of the research is:
Analysis the Influence of Companys profitability, cash flow, audit Quality and
Company Size on the Issuance of Going Concern Audit Opinion
I.2. Problems Identification and Statement
I.2.1. Problems Identification
The aimed of this research is to analyze the influence of the profitability, cash
flow, audit quality and company size in getting going concern audit opinion for
the basic industry for the period 2010-2014 .Thus, the statement is “What is the
influence of the profitability, cash flow, audit quality and company size toward
going concern audit opinion?
There are several problems identified in this research, such as:
1. Does profitability has influence going concern audit opinion?
2. Does cash flow influence going concern audit opinion?
3. Does audit quality influence going concern audit opinion?
4. Does company size influence going concern audit opinion?
17
I.3. Scope and limitation
I.3.1. Scope
This research is entitled “The Influence of cash flow, profitability, audit
quality, and company size towards going concern audit opinion in basic
industry companies listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange for the Period 2011-
2014”.
I.3.2. Limitation
This study has limitations that can be considered for further researched:
1. The researched companies are limited only in the companies that run the
business on manufacturing sector, classify in basic industry.
2. Many companies did not provide the necessity information regarding the
variables that being researched and as the result, many companies cannot
be included in the research. The period of this study is only four years that
is unable to analyze the trend of the company’s going concern audit
opinion for a long-term period
I.4. Research Objectives
Based on the problem identified above, the objectives of this research are:
1. To obtain empirical evidence whether the issuance of going concern audit
opinion influenced by profitability ratio.
2. To obtain empirical evidence whether the issuance of going concern audit
opinion influenced by cash flow ratio.
3. To obtain empirical evidence whether the issuance of going concern audit
opinion influenced by audit quality.
4. To obtain empirical evidence whether the issuance of going concern audit
opinion influenced by companies’ size.
18
1.5. Research Benefits
1. Theoretical Benefits
Research aimed to give additional explanation about factors that can
influence issuance auditor in issuance of going concern audit opinion. As
the researcher, I found there are many others researcher, conducted
research and tested about going concern with different variables and
different research method.
2. Practical Benefit
For the researcher
To Give additional information about how factors, profitability, cash
flow audit quality, and size of company give an effect on issuance of
going concern opinion.
For the readers
This research is used to give further information regarding going
concern audit opinion to the readers. So the readers will have different
perspectives and thought about relationship of profitability, cash flow,
company size towards going concern audit opinion.
For users of financial report
This research can be used by the users of financial report before make
a decision. Management of company probably may use this research to
determine factors to avoid bankruptcy.
19
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
II.1. Theoritical Review
II.1.1. Agency Theory
Based on Bergen, Dutta, and Walker, Jr (1992) in Sam (2007) agency
theory may be generally defined as a relationship that is present whenever one
party (the principal) depends on another party (the agent) to undertake some
action on the principal's behalf. Based on Eisenhardt (1989) in sam (2007) agency
theory has enriched our understanding of transactions specific to the agency
problem - the differences in goals and incentives of principals and agents and the
risk preferences of these parties. In its most elemental sense, the agency problem
deals with how principals arrange optimal contracts for agents' services. Agency
theory is concerned with resolving two problems that can occur in agency
relationships. The first is the agency problem that arises when (a) the desires or
goals of the principal and agent conflict and (b) it is difficult or expensive for the
principal to verify what the agent is actually doing. The problem here is that the
principal cannot verify that the agent has behaved appropriately. The second is the
problem of risk sharing that arises when the principal and agent have different
attitudes toward risk. The problem here is that the principal and the agent may
prefer different actions because of the different risk preferences.
(Jensen and Meckling,1976) define an agency relationship as a contract in
which one or more persons (the principal) asks other party (agent) to carry out
some work on behalf of the principal involves delegating some decision-making
authority to the agent. If both parties involved in the contract seeks to maximize
their utility then it is possible that the agency will not be always act as the
interests of the principal. Principal designing contracts involved in the contract
agency, as follows:
20
Agents and principals have asymmetrical information which means
agent and principals have the same quality and amount of information
so there are no parties will take an advantage by hiding information.
Agent has a high certainty regarding remuneration.
However, in reality the agent as a manager of the company has more information
about the condition of the company compared to principal as the owner of the
company.
According to Sam (2007) there are three assumptions related to the theory
of human nature : (1) humans are generally selfish , act based on own interest,
(2) humans have limitation of thought regarding the prediction of future (bounded
rationality) , and (3) humans always avoid the risk (risk averse). Based on the
assumption of human nature manager will tend to act opportunistically by
prioritizing personal interests and this issue is trigger of agency conflict. The role
of the third party, auditors as an independent party is necessary to evaluate
management and financial accountability and finally give an opinion of the
fairness of financial statement presented by management.
Auditor as an independent party required to monitoring performance of
the management whether it has acted in accordance with the interest of the
principal through financial statements. Principal expects auditors can give an early
warning about the company's financial condition. Financial statement of company
will be more trusted by investors and other financial report users if the financial
statements reflect the performance and the financial condition of the company has
got a fair statement from auditor.
II.1.2. Going Concern Audit Opinion
The auditor's responsibility is to evaluate whether there is substantial
doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable
period of time. The auditor's evaluation is based on the auditor's knowledge of
21
relevant conditions or events that exist at, or have occurred prior to, the date of the
auditor's report. Information about such conditions or events is obtained from the
application of audit procedures planned and performed to achieve audit objectives
that are related to management's assertions embodied in the financial statements
being audited, as described in section 315, Understanding the Entity and Its
Environment and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement (AU-C Section
570.03).
Overall Objectives of the Independent Auditor and the Conduct of an
Audit in Accordance With Generally Accepted Auditing Standards, the potential
effects of inherent limitations on the auditor's ability to detect material
misstatements are particularly significant for future conditions or events that may
cause an entity to cease to continue as a going concern. The auditor cannot predict
such future conditions or events. The fact that the entity may cease to exist as a
going concern subsequent to receiving a report from the auditor that does not refer
to the auditor having substantial doubt, even within one year following the date of
the financial statements, does not, in itself, indicate inadequate performance by
the auditor. Accordingly, the absence of any reference to substantial doubt in an
auditor's report cannot be viewed as a guarantee as to the entity's ability to
continue as a going concern (AU-C Section 570.04).
The auditor should consider whether the results of the procedures
performed during the course of the audit identify conditions or events that, when
considered in the aggregate, indicate there could be substantial doubt about the
entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. The
auditor should consider the need to obtain additional information about such
conditions or events, as well as the appropriate audit evidence to support
information that mitigates the auditor's doubt.
If, after considering the identified conditions or events in the aggregate,
the auditor believes there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue
as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, the auditor should obtain
22
information about management's plans that are intended to mitigate the adverse
effects of such conditions or events. The auditor should:
a. assess whether it is likely that the adverse effects would be mitigated by
management's plans for a reasonable period of time;
b. identify those elements of management's plans that are particularly significant
to overcoming the adverse effects of the conditions or events and plan and
perform procedures to obtain audit evidence about them, including, when
applicable, considering the adequacy of support regarding the ability to obtain
additional financing or the planned disposal of assets; and
c. assess whether it is likely that such plans can be effectively implemented ( AU-
C Section 570.10).
With respect to auditor decision-making, based on Kida (1980) in
Barbadillo; Barbera; Benau (2004) distinguishes between the identification of a
company problem and the issuance of qualified opinions. The identification of a
distressed company does not necessarily lead to a qualification decision.
Following this reasoning, different authors (Mutchler,1984; Wilkerson, 1987;
Krishnan and Krishnan, 1996) in Barbadillo; Barbera; Benau (2004) describe the
going concern decision as a two-stage process: the first stage is the identification
of a company with a potential going-concern problem while the second stage is to
decide whether a going-concern opinion is appropriate. Both stages are very
closely related to issues of audit quality. Identifying a client as a potential receiver
of a going-concern opinion will depend on the client’s financial health and on the
level of auditor competence needed to detect it, while deciding to disclose the
going-concern uncertainty is a clear question of independence. In summary, the
definition of these two stages allows us a better understanding of the context in
which the auditor’s opinion is formulated, as well as the separation of the audit
evidence evaluation from the actual decision made by the auditor.
23
II.1.3. Audit Opinion
The conclusion the auditor draws about the directors’ going concern
assessment and liquidity risk disclosures (as disclosed in the financial report) will
determine the consequences for the type of opinion expressed in the auditor’s
report. The auditor may issue one of five possible audit opinions. In order of
impact on the company, ranging from favorable to unfavorable the auditor may
issue an unqualified opinion, unqualified opinion, but include an emphasis of
matter paragraph, qualified opinion, adverse opinion or issue a disclaimer of
opinion.
An unqualified audit opinion is one where the going concern basis is
determined by the auditor to be appropriate. The standard unqualified audit report
is issued when the following conditions have been met (Arens; Elder ; Beasley,
2004 :71):
1. All statements-balance sheet, income statement, statement of
changes in stockholders’ equity, and statement of cash flows are
included in the financial statements.
2. Sufficient appropriate evidence has been accumulated, and the
auditor has conducted the engagement in a manner that enables him
or her to conclude that the audit was performed in accordance with
auditing standards.
3. The financial statements are presented in accordance with U.S
generally accepted accounting principles or other appropriate
accounting framework. This also means that adequate disclosures
have been included in the footnotes and other parts of financial
statements.
4. There are no circumstances requiring addition of an explanatory
paragraph or modification of the wording of the report.
24
Unqualified opinion, with an emphasis of matter paragraph, If the
auditor concludes that a material uncertainty exists that leads to significant doubt
about the ability of the company to continue as a going concern and the
uncertainty has been adequately disclosed in the financial report the auditor is
required to express an unqualified opinion, but add an “emphasis of matter”
paragraph for the purpose of drawing attention to such disclosures. While an
emphasis of matter paragraph modifies the audit report, it does not qualify the
opinion. In a qualified, adverse, or disclaimer report, the auditor either has not
performed a satisfactory audit, is not satisfied that the financial statements are
fairly presented, or is not independent.
The following are the most important causes of the addition of an
explanatory paragraph or a modification in the wording of the standard
unqualified report under both AICPA and PCAOB audit standards (Arens; Elder ;
Beasley, 2004 :74):
Lack of consistent application of generally accepted accounting
principles
Substantial doubt about going concern
Auditor agrees with a departure from promulgated accounting
principles
Emphasis of other matters
Report involving other auditors.
A qualified opinion result from a limitation on the scope of the audit or
failure to follow GAAP. Qualified and adverse opinion, if the auditor concludes
that the financial report disclosures regarding a material uncertainty that leads to
significant doubt about the company’s going concern status are not adequate the
auditor is required to express either a qualified opinion or an adverse opinion as
appropriate and to provide their reasons for doing so. The distinctions between a
“qualified opinion” and an “adverse opinion” are as follows:
25
• The auditor expresses a qualified opinion when in the auditor’s
professional judgment the effects of inadequate disclosures on the
financial report of uncertainties that lead to a significant doubt about the
company’s ability to continue as a going concern are not so material and
pervasive to the financial report as to require an adverse opinion or a
disclaimer of opinion.
The auditor expresses an adverse opinion when in the auditor’s professional
judgment:
The effects of inadequate disclosures on the financial report (as discussed
above) are so material and pervasive that a qualified opinion is not
sufficient to disclose the incomplete or misleading nature of the financial
report resulting from such inadequate disclosures or
The company cannot continue as a going concern despite the financial
report having been prepared on that basis.
The auditor expresses a disclaimer of opinion when in the auditor’s
professional judgment, there is a limitation on the scope of the audit (for example,
the directors refuse to make or extend their going concern assessment) and the
effect of such limitation is so material and pervasive to the financial report that the
auditor has been unable to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to
complete the audit and subsequently to express an audit opinion on the financial
report. The disclaimer is distinguished from an adverse opinion in that it can arise
only from a lack of knowledge by auditor, whereas to express an adverse opinion,
the auditor must have knowledge that the financial statements are not fairly stated
(Arens; Elder ; Beasley, 2004 :79 paragraph 6).
26
II.1.4. Profitability
Profitability is an indicator of the ability of company to generate earning
from it sales, asset and amount of money invested. In Widyantari’s research
defined that the higher percentage of profitability means the higher ability of
company to generate earning for company’s operation. In this research,
profitability will be measured by net profit margin. This ratio is an important
variable in measurement of operating performance which can reflect the
company's ability to generate revenue and cost management efficiency to maintain
company’s viability (Widyantari, 2011).
Net Profit Margin ( )
II.1.5 . Cash Flow
Mills dan Yamamura (1999) in Widyantari (2011) stated that to fully
understand company’s ability to meet ongoing concern, auditor would do well
attention on simple ratio from data on the client’s cash flow statement cash flow
ratio from client’s cash flow statement because investor and other financial
statement user use cash flow prominently in their rating decisions.
The importance of cash flow ratios in predicting the viability of any
business for auditors, according to Mills and Yamamura (1999) in Masyitoh
(2010) is to fully understand a company’s viability as going concern, an auditor
would well calculate a few simple ratio from data on client’s cash flow statement.
Cash flow to total debt will be as indicator required to indicates the term required
by the company to settle its obligation because if the company has sufficient cash
flow, then it may help the company to pay debt obligation and to avoid financial
distress.
All cash flow from operating activities are used to pay back all
obligation of company. Cash flow from operations activities is cash flows from
27
operating activities companies directly related to the production, purchase and
sale. The numerator from this ratio represents operations cash flow. On the other
hand, the denominator accounts for total debts (that is both the short-term and the
long-term debts). Cash flow of companies will analyzed by cash flow to total debt
ratio as follows:
Cash Flow to total Debt Ratio ( )
II.1.6. Audit Quality
Based on explanation of human nature in Agency theory that assume
that humans is always self-iinterest, and this issue need third parties to act as
independent parties that can penetrate between principal and agent. Principal
expects auditors can give an early warning about the company's financial
condition. Financial statement of company will be more trusted by investors and
other financial report users if the financial statements reflect the performance and
the financial condition of the company has got a fair statement from auditor.
The size of the audit firm is often used as reference to the audit quality.
As expressed by Lys and Watts (1994) in Masyitoh (2010), bigger audit firms
have better financial resources and research facilities, superior technology and
more talented employees to undertake large company audits than smaller audit
firms. Their larger client enable them to resist management pressure whereas
smaller firms provide more personalized services due to limited client portfolios
and are expected to succumb to management’s requirements.”
According to Deis Jr and Giroux (1992) in Masyitoh (2010) Big audit
firms tend to be more independent than smaller audit firm, because the
responsibility toward the public and they also demanded to act professionally in
giving the actual opinion. Big audit firms tend to be more independent than those
28
smaller audit firm, because the responsibility toward the public and they are also
demanded to act professionally in giving the actual opinion. According to Lennox
(1999) in Masyitoh (2010), “large auditors are more likely to be sued and
criticized, especially when auditors were not giving adequate warnings of
bankruptcy and not following take over. Lennox also states that large audit firms
give more accurate signals, of traditional distress in their audit opinions.
II.1.7. Company Size
Based on Suwito and Herawaty research (2005) in Widyantari (2011)
stated that company size is a scale that can classify companies becomes large and
small company in a variety of ways, such as total asset of company, stock market
value, the average level of sale, and the amount of sales. The size of the company
can be seen from the total assets owned by company. Company with huge the
total assets shows that the company has reached the maturity stage because at this
stage the company cash flow is positive and considered to have good prospects
within a relative long period.
Basically, the size of company divided into large firm and small firm.
Mutchler (1985) in Ramadhany (2004) states that the auditor is more often issued
a going concern audit opinion on smaller companies because the auditor believe
that a large company can resolve the financial difficulties rather than smaller
companies. This relates to the ability of large companies to obtain additional
funds, large companies considered to have better operational and neat entity
structure that will have an impact on the achievement of targets. Based on
Ballesta and Garcia (2005) in Widyantari (2011) large companies have better
management in managing the company and the ability to produce a good quality
financial statements compared to smaller companies therefore, creditors and
investors feel more secure allocating funds in a large company.
29
II.2. Previous Research
Table 2. 1
Previous Research
Researcher
(Year)
Dependent
Variables
Independent
Variables
Result
Raymond
E.Figlewicz ;
Thomas L.Zeller
(1991)
Statement of
cash flow
Performance,
Liquidity, coverage
and Capital Ratio.
• A single measure
of
performance
based
on accrual
accounting
profitability
should
no longer
acceptable. Both
operating net
income and
operating cash
flow
are required to
fully
evaluate the
performance of
the firm.
Jane F.
Mutchler;
william
Going
concern audit
opinion
Payment default,
accounting firm size,
audit lag, bankruptcy
• The AUD variable
is
not significant,
30
Hopwood; james
M. Mckeown
(1997)
lag, company size,
accounting firm size,
payment default,
covenant default, cured
debt, The extreme
negative events
occurring before the
audit-report date are,
negative events
occurring after the
audit-report.
providing no
evidence of
differences between
Big-six and non-big
Six auditors.
• Auditor less likely
to issue going
concern
modification to
larger companies.
• The significant
Positive
coefficients
of payment
default
and covenants
default how that
clients with debt
currently in default
are more likely to
receive a going
concern modified
opinion, after
controlling for the
relation between
bankruptcy and
Default.
• Clients with debt
31
whose default has
been cured are
more likely,
beyond the
effect
of cured debt in
increasing
bankruptcy
probability, to
receive a going-
concern
modification than
clients who have
not been in
default.
• The extreme
negative events
occurring
before
the audit-report
date are
significant,
while those
occurring after
the audit-report
date are not.
John R.Mills;
Jeanne
h.Yamamura
Cash flow
Ratio
Liquidity and solvency
• Cash flow ratios
are
more reliable
32
(1999) indicators of
liquidity than
balance sheet or
income statement
ratios such as
quick
ratio or current
ratio.
Indira Januarti
(2009)
Going
concern audit
opinon
Financial condition,
audit quality, prior
audit opinion, company
growth
Audit quality
have no effect
on issuance of
going concern
audit opinion
auditor issue
going concern
audit opinion if
company have a
good financial
condition
Oni Currie
Masyitoh (2010)
Going
concern audit
opinon
Liquidity, profitability,
cash flow, audit firm
size, audit committee
Liquidity,
Profitability,
Operational cash
flow, and the
existence of
audit committee
of a company
has no
significant effect
against the
issuance of
33
going concern
audit opinion by
the auditor.
solvability has a
significant effect
and size of audit
firm has
sufficiently
significant effect
against the
issuance of
going concern
audit opinion by
the auditor
A.A.Ayu Putri
Widantari
(2011)
Going
concern audit
opinion
Liquidity, leverage,
profitability, cash flow,
company size,
company growth, audit
quality, audit lag, prior
audit opinion, auditor
client tenure
Liquidity has no
effect on the
issuance on going
concern audit
opinion
The higher debt
ratio the higher
opportunity
company get
going concern
audit opinion
Profitability have
a negative effect
on issuance of
going concern
34
audit opinion
The higher cash
flow to total debt
ratio the
possibility of
company to get
going concern
audit opinion is
smaller
The larger
company size get
the possibility of
company to get
going concern
company is
smaller.
Company growth,
audit quality,
audit lag and
auditor client
tenure have no
effect on issuance
of going concern
company
35
II.3. Theoritical Framework
There are many factors that influence the issuance of going concern
audit opinion. In this research, researcher focus on several variables there are cash
flow, profitability ratio that is represented by profit margin, audit quality and
company size.
II.3.1. Variables Identification
Dependent Variable:
Y : Going Concern Audit Opinion
Independent variables:
X1 : Cash Flow (CF)
X2 : Profitability / Profit Margin Ratio (PMR)
X3 : Audit Quality (AQ)
X4 : Company Size (CZ)
Going
Concern
Audit
Opinion
Cash Flow
Profit
Margin
Audit
Quality
Company
Size
36
II.3.2. Variables Definition
These are the definition of each variable in this research, the independent
variable (X) and dependent variable (Y):
a) Going Concern audit Opinion as an indicator that show that based on the
result of auditor evaluation there is substantial doubt where company
cannot continue to run the operation of business. Through the going
concern audit opinion then an entity is considered to be able to
maintaining business operations in the long term, will not be liquidated in
the short term (Ruiz, 2004).
b) Profitability is the company capability to generate profit from its
operational activities (Ang,1997). Profitability will be represented by
profit margin ratio, which can reflect the ability of company in generating
revenue and efficiency cost management in order to maintain the company
operation (Widyantari, 2011).
c) Cash Flow ratio This is an important ratio to predicting the viability of
any business for auditors. Ratio that indicates the ability of a company to
cater for its future obligations to debt. The numerator from this ratio
represents operations cash flow. On the other hand, the denominator
accounts for total debts which consist of both the short-term and the long-
term debts (Masyitoh, 2010).
d) Audit Quality is the quality of services rendered by auditors to its client.
Quality of auditor may be seen from the level of competence and
independence of auditors. This variable was measured by using a dummy
variable, companies audited by auditors who worked on accounting firm
which affiliated with big four rated "1 '', companies audited by an auditor
37
who is not working in accounting firm affiliated with big four accounting
firm rated " 0 " (Ruiz, 2004).
.
e) Company Size is a scale that can classify companies into large and small
companies. The size of the company can be seen from the total assets
owned. Companies with huge total assets shows that the company has
reached maturity stage because at this stage the company has a positive
cash flow and is considered to have good prospects in a long period
(Widyantari, 2011).
II.4 . Hypothesis
II.4.1. Cash Flow and Going Concern Audit opinion
In this research liquidity ratio represented by the cash flow to total
debt ratio. The cash flow total debt ratio indicates the term required by the
company to settle its debt. As expressed by Ross, Westerfield, and Jafee
(2001) in Masyitoh (2010) research, if company has sufficient cash flow, then
it will reflect the ability of company to avoid failure against the debt
obligation and financial distress, that may influenced on giving an audit
opinion.
According to Albrecht (2003) in Amuzu (2010), the assumption here
is that the entire operating cash flow has been dedicated to the repayment of
such debts. A lower ratio here is an indication that a company is less flexible
in financial terms. For this reason, there is a higher likelihood that in the
future problems are bound to arise. It is important therefore that auditors, at
the time of planning, should consider reducing financial flexibility of a
company at a time when they are classifying audit areas that are high risk.
38
Following this argument, the first hypothesis is :
H1 : Cash flow has influence towards issuance of going concern audit
opinion.
II.4.2 . Profitability Ratio and Going Concern Audit opinion
Profitability ratios measure the capability of company to generate
profit from its operational activities. Company with high rate profitability
show that company can generate earning so it can avoid auditor attention
about ability of company as going concern.
investors would be very concern to analyze the profitability. The
company's profitability can be seen from the ratio of net income before
taxes divided by net sales. The greater this ratio indicates the more company's
ability to generate earnings so auditor will not doubt about the company's
ability to continue the business. Research conducted by Mutchler (1985),
Chen and Church (1992), Behn et al. (2001) found that this ratio has negative
influence significant for predicting the decision-making going concern
opinion.
Following this argument, the second hypothesis is :
H2 : Profitability has influence towards issuance of going concern
audit opinion
II.4.3. Audit quality and Going Concern Audit opinion
Auditor is responsible to provide an opinion on the fairness
financial statements presented by management and assessing the company's
ability to survive in reasonable period of time. Auditors with high quality
39
tend to issue a going concern audit opinion if there is a client-related issue
going concern the company. According to DeAngelo (1981) in Widyantari
(2011) larger Public accounting firm or Big four can be interpreted generate
better audit quality compare to small Public (non-big four) accounting firm.
Big four public accounting firms are also more likely to reveal problems
experienced by clients because they have more power in litigation.
Mutchler et al. (1997) in Rahman (2012 ) in his research found that
auditor in larger accounting firm more likely to issue going concern audit
opinion to company that meet financial distress than auditor in smaller
accounting firm. Auditor in larger accounting firm would be more likely to
disclose a problem and modify the opinions of bankrupt companies. The
larger accounting firm, the better quality of auditor which resulting the
bigger possibility of issuance of going concern audit opinion.
Following this argument, the third hypothesis is:
H3 : Audit quality has influence towards issuance of going concern
audit opinion.
II.4.4. Company Size and Going Concern Audit opinion
The size of the companies in this study measured by the natural log
of total asset owned by a company and researcher expect that there is a
negative relation between company size and receipt of going concern. Total
assets chosen as a proxy on the size of the company by take consideration of
the value of assets relatively more stable compared to the market capitalized
and sales (Carcello,2000).
Company with huge the total assets shows that the company has
reached the maturity stage because at this stage the company cash flow is
positive and considered to have good prospects within a relative long period.
40
Result from Mutchler (1986) in Widyantari (2011) suggest that auditors will
more often issue going concern modification to a small companies. It is
possible that auditors are more confident that larger companies can weather
financial difficulties.
Following this argument, the fourth hypothesis is :
H4 : Company Size has influence towards issuance of going concern
audit opinion.
41
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
III.1 Research Method
The researcher use quantitative method with the hypotheses that aim to test the
influence of cash flow, profitability, audit quality and company size towards audit
opinion of going concern. This research using secondary data source which
information gathered from IDX. In this research, there are one dependent variable
which is Going Concern Audit Opinion and four independent variables,
profitability ratio which represented by profit margin ratio (PMR) , cash flow
(CF) which represented by cash flow to total debt ratio, Audit Quality (AQ) and
Company Size (CZ).
The purpose of quantitative research is to develop the theories and hypotheses by
using mathematical method. There are measurement process which is will provide
the fundamental relationship between empirical observation and mathematical
expression of quantitative relationships.
III.2 Operational definition of variables
Variables analyzed in this research are:
1. Dependent variable is the variable of primary interest to the researcher
which the researcher’s goal is to understand and describe the dependent
variable, or to explain its variability, or predict it (Sekaran and Bougie,
2013:70). Dependent variable in this research is Going Concern audit
opinion (Y).
2. Independent variables is one that influences the dependent variable in
either a positive or negative way (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013:70).
42
Independent variables in this research are cash flow (X1), profitability
ratio/profit margin (X2), Audit Quality (X3), Company Size (X4).
III.3.2.1. Dependent Variable
Dependent variable is the issuance of Going Concern audit opinion (Y). In
this study researcher will use dummy variable which using scale 0 and 1.
Going concern audit opinion is an audit opinion with warning from
external auditor about auditor opinion of company viability in running the
business in the future.
III.3.2.2. Independent Variable
a) Cash Flow (X1)
All cash flow from operating activities are used to pay back all
obligation of company. Mills and Yamamura (1998) in Widyantari
(2011) stated that to fully understand company’s ability to meet
ongoing concern, auditor would do well attention on simple ratio from
data on the client’s cash flow statement because investor and other
financial statement user use cash flow prominently in their rating
decisions. Ross, Westerfield, and Jafee (2001) in Masyitoh (2011)
defined that, if the company has sufficient cash flow, then it may avoid
the company from failure against its debt obligation and financial
distress, that may influenced on giving audit opinion
Cash Flow to Total Debt Ratio
b) Profitability Ratio (X2)
Profitability is the company ability to generate profit from its
operational activities. Profitability in this research will be measured by
net profit margin to measure the company ability to generate profit
before tax for each of net sales. As expressed by Ang (1997) in
43
Masyitoh (2011), the company suffering from losses for several years
consecutively indicates that such company will likely fall into
bankruptcy.
Net Profit Margin ( )
c) Audit Quality (X3)
Mutchler et al. (1997) in Rahman (2012 ) in his reserach
found that auditor in larger accounting firm more likely to issue going
concern audit opinion to company that meet financial distress than
auditor in smaller accounting firm. The larger accounting firm, the
better quality of auditor which resulting the bigger possibility of
issuance of going concern audit opinion.
In this study audit quality measured by dummy variabel,
Audit Quality divided into two based on the size of kinds accounting
firm which auditors from a big four accounting firm (value =1) and
non-big four accounting firm (value = 0).
d) Company Size (X4)
Company Size divided into two they are, large company and
small company. The size of the companies in this study measured by
the natural log of total asset owned by a company and researcher
expect that there is a negative relation between company size and
receipt of going concern. Total assets chosen as a proxy on the size of
the company by take consideration of the value of assets relatively
more stable compared to the market capitalized and sales (Carcello,
2000). Company with huge the total assets shows that the company has
reached the maturity stage because at this stage the company cash flow
44
is positive and considered to have good prospects within a relative long
period.
III.3. Research Instrument
Documentation method is used as a data collection method. The data collection,
which is a secondary data, is performed directly by quoting or recording data from
annual reports, financial statements, and websites of researched company. The
data are financial and non-financial information which are presented in company’s
annual report and audited financial statements. The data is obtained from:
1. Financial statements and annual reports of listed manufacturing in basic
industry (real sector) companies for years 2010-2014.
2. Access of IDX website (www.idx.co.id) and www.sahamok.com.
3. Website of the firms.
III.4 Sampling Design
This study use purposive sampling. The sample of research is listed
manufacture companies specialized at basic industry at Indonesia Stock
Exchange. Purposive sampling, also known as judgmental, selective or subjective
sampling, is a type of non-probability sampling technique. The reseracher decides
what needs to be known and sets out to find subjects or objects taht can or provide
information by virtue of knowledge or experience.
The condition that necessary to make a company as the sample are:
1. The company is listed at Indonesia Stock Exchange and run the
business in the basic industry for the years 2011-2014.
2. Complete financial statement of listed companies from year 2011-
2014 that have been audited.
45
3. Complete Audite report includes auditor opinion, especially for
going concern audit opinion.
Table 3. 1
Sampling Process
Descriptive Number of
Companies
Companies which run business in manufacturing
specialize in basic industry (real sector) and listed as 31
December 2014
68
Companies with incomplete annual financial and audit
report (2011-2014)
(28)
Number samples 40
Number of samples during 4 years (2011-2014) 160
Number of samples run for 160
Manufacturing companies specialized in basic industry which are listed in the
Indonesia Stock Exchange since 2010-2014 are 68 companies. Several companies
are exclude from the list of the sample because do not meet the criteria of
sampling. From the table, 28 companies do not have complete data. The final
processed sample in this research is 160 samples.
III.5. Data Analysis
The data that has been obtained from the annual financial reports of the
company is processed and tabulated on Microsoft Excel before it is
analyzed further using the statistics software IBM Statistical Package for
Social Science (SPSS) version 22. SPSS is a statistics analysis software
46
that is commonly utilized by the researchers to investigating statistical
data. In this research, SPSS is used to analyze the descriptive statistics,
classic assumption tests and multiple linear regression model. There are
three tests in multiple regression analysis. It consists of coefficient
determinative test (R2), simultaneous test, and partial test.
III.5.1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis
Descriptive statistics are numbers that are used to summarize and
describe data. The aim of the descriptive statistics is to summarize a
sample rather than using the data to learn about the population based on
the sample representing it. The result of descriptive statistics are mean and
standard deviation of the data. Mean refers to one measure of the central
tendency either of a probability distribution or of the random variable
characterized by that distribution and Standard Deviation is a measure that is
used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values.
The purpose of descriptive statistics analysis in this research is to describe
the characteristics of the data of the dependent variables-Going Concern
opinion, and independent variables - Audit quality, Profitability, Cash Flow
and Company Size.
III.5.2. Classic Assumption Tests
Classical assumption test is the statistical requirements that must be met
in multiple linear regression analysis based on ordinary least square
(OLS) n order to produce a good value and result of testing. Accordance
47
to Ghozali (2009: 15), this research uses four classic assumptions tests,
which are normality tests, heteroscedasticity test, multicollinearity test,
and autocorrelation test. The tests are required for the multiple linear
regression.
III.5.2.1. Normality Tests
Normality tests are used to determine if the variables are normally
distributed and to measure the data is well-modeled by a normal
distribution. The test used in this research is the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test (Ghozali, 2009:107). Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S)
test is used to determine if the datasets differs significantly. All
the variables are distributed normally as the significant value are
more than 0.05 (sig > 0.05).
III.5.2.2. Heteroscedasticity Test
Heteroscedasticity refers to the circumstance in which the
variability of a variable is unequal across the range of values of a
second variable that predicts it. A collection of random variables
is heteroscedastic if there are sub-populations that have different
variability from others. It is important to assume that the error
term in the regression model is homogenous. Therefore it can be
assumed that heteroscedascticity occurs in the data if the
assumption is violated. The researcher use Glejser test to ensure
48
the best result. Heteroschedasticity will not happen if significant
more than 0.05 (sig > 0.05).
III.5.2.3 Multicollinearity Test
Multicollinearity refers to predictors that are correlated with other
predictors. It occurs when the model includes multiple factors that
are correlated not only to the dependent variable but also to the
other independent variables. It is a result when there are
redundant factors. It is therefore a type of disturbance in the data,
and if present in the data the statistical inferences made about the
data may not be reliable. To determine the collinearity, the
researcher uses the analysis of the values of tolerance, Variable
Influence Factor (VIF), Eigenvalue and Condition Index.
Tolerance is defined as free from multicollinerity if T > 0.05. The
data will free from multicollinerity if variance inflation factor of
the linear regression is less than 10 (VIF < 10). • Data will free
from multicollinearity if the value of Eigenvalue is more than
zero ( Eigenvalue > 0) or k = between 100-1000 ( moderate
multicollinearity to strong multicollinerity). Which k:
k =
k =
k= 2.508
49
Data will free from multicollinearity if the value of of Condition
Index is less than fifteen ( CI < 15).
CI = √
CI = √
=
CI =
CI = 1.4345
III.5.2.4 Autocorrelation Test
Autocorrelation is a relationship between values separated from
each other by a given time lag. The autocorrelation of a random
process describes the correlation of the process at different times.
Probability of autocorrelation happen to crossection data tend to
smaller than timeseries data. To determine autocorrelation
researcher used Durbin – watson. The Durbin-Watson Test is
used to determine whether there is autocorrelation between the
residuals of the regression analysis.
There will be no autocorrelation if dU < d < 4 – du. While, dU
(upper bound) = 1.7930 ; dL (lower bound) = 1.6906.
50
III.5.3. Hypothesis Test
Multiple linear regression analysis is used to measure the influence of the
independent variables on the dependent variable. The hypotheses in the
research are tested using the regression equation model:
In which:
GCAO = Going Concern Audit Opinion
α = constant
AQ = Audit Quality
PROF = Profitability
CFTDR = Cash Flow
CZ = Company Size
β1; β2; β3; β4 = Regression coefficients
There are three tests in multiple regression analysis. It consists of
coefficient determinative test (R2), simultaneous test, and partial test.
III.5.3.1. t-Test
t-test is the best of individual partial regression coefficients that
are used to determine whether the independent variables (X) will
51
individually affect the dependent variable (Y). These are steps of
testing:
a) Formulation of Ho and Ha
Ho : There is no influence between independent
variable (X) and independent variable (Y).
Ha : There is influence between independent
variable (X) and independent variable (Y).
b) t- table degree of freedom (α,k,n-k-1). Where :
α = 0.05
k = number of independent and dependent variables
n = number of samples
t-table = n-k
c) Conclusion
If t-score is less than t-table, so Ho fails to reject which
means there is no influence between independent and
dependent variable. Otherwise, if t-score is greater than
t=table, so Ho is rejected and ha fails to reject. It means
that there is influence simultaneously between
independent and dependent variable.
52
III.5.3.2. F-Test
According to Lind, Marchal, and Wathen (2010) F-Test useful to
determines whether all independent variables influencing the
dependent variable, where in this research the independent
variables- Cash Flow ratio, Profitability, Audit Quality and
Company Size and the dependent variable – Going concern audit
opinion. ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) F-test is used to test
significance between all factor means and/or between their
variances equality in Analysis of Variance procedure. These are
steps of testing:
d) Formulation of Ho and Ha
Ho : There is no influence between independent
variable (X) and independent variable (Y).
Ha : There is influence between independent
variable (X) and independent variable (Y).
e) F table degree of freedom (α,k,n-k-1). Where :
α = 0.05
k = number of independent and dependent variables
n = number of samples
53
f) Conclusion
If f-score is less than f-table, so Ho fails to reject and Ha is
rejected, it means that there is no influence between them.
Otherwise, if f-score is greater than F=table, so Ho is
rejected and ha fails to reject. It means that there is
influence simultaneously between them.
III.5.3.3. Coefficient Determination Test (R Squared Test)
R squared (R2) is a statistic that will give some information about
the goodness of fit of a model. In regression, the R2 coefficient of
determination is a statistical measure of how well the regression
line approximates the real data points. An R2 of 1 indicates that
the regression line perfectly fits the data.
If R2
is getting bigger, so the proportion of the variation in
the dependent variable (Y) that is explained by the
variation in the independent variable (X) will be higher.
If is getting smaller, so the proportion of the variation in
the dependent variable (Y) that is explained by the
variation in the independent variable (X) will be lower.
54
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
IV.1. RESEARCH SAMPLES AND DATA
In this chapter, researcher will discuss about research result. The researcher chooses
quantitative analysis as the method of analysis. The data analysis consist of multiple
regression analysis, discriminant analysis, and hypothesis testing. There are 40
companies in manufacturing company especially basic industry sector used as the
sample of this research and all of them should be listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange
(IDX) during the period of 2011- 2014. Using purposive sampling to determine the
research sample, with mentioned criteria, the researcher found samples that fulfill the
criteria to be sample for research.
Table 4. 1
Calculation for Research Sample
Descriptive Number of
Companies
Companies which run business in manufacturing
specialize in basic industry (real sector) and listed as 31
December 2014
68
Companies with incomplete annual financial and audit
report (2011-2014)
(28)
Number samples 40
Number of samples during 4 years (2011-2014) 160
Number of samples run for 160
55
The data is based on annual financial reports of the companies, which are secondary
data taken from the website of Indonesia Stock Exchange. The necessary data to be
used in this research are number of companies that receive unqualified opinion and
have ability to continue as going concern for dependent variable going concern audit
opinion ; audit report which state name of public accounting firm (big four and non-
big four) who audit each of companies for independent variable audit quality;
earning after tax and net sales for independent variable profitability; cash flow from
operation and total debt for independent variable cash flow; and number of total asset
for independent variable company size.
IV.2 DATA ANALYSIS
IV.2.1 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Descriptive statistics are numbers that are used to summarize and describe
data. Using the descriptive statistics, the researcher may see the mean and
standard deviation of the data. From the reconciliation of the sample, the
researcher gets 160 manufacturing especially in sector of basic industries
companies listed in IDX within the span of 4 years period (2011-2014) that
are eligible to be used as sample in the research.
Table 4. 2
Descriptive Statistic
Mean Std. Deviation N
GCAO ,03 ,157 160
AQ ,43 ,497 160
PROFIT ,0136 ,32644 160
CFTDR ,3246 1,49070 160
CZ 21,5014 6,16239 160
Source: Constructed on SPSS 22 (2015)
56
Based on table 4.2, it can be seen that the mean going concern audit opinion
in basic industry within the period of 2011-2014 is 0.03 with standard
deviation of 0.157. There are 156 samples out of 160 samples on the list that
have GCAO lower than the mean or received going concern audit opinion ,
which is 97.5% of the list, while the GCAO of the rest 4 samples, which make
up for 2.5% of 160 samples on the list, are above the mean.
The variable Audit Quality has mean value of 0.43 with standard deviation of
0.497. There are 91 samples, which is 56.875% of 160 samples on the list that
audited by Non-Big 4 accounting firm , while the other 69 (43.125%) samples
was audited by Big-4 accounting firm.
The variable profitability has mean value of 0.70136 and standard deviation of
0.32644. 59 samples (38.875% of 160 samples) have profitability ratio that is
lower than 0.70136 while the remaining 101 samples (63.125% of 160
samples) have leverage ratio that is higher than 0.70136.
The variable cash flow to debt ratio has mean value of 0.3246 and standard
deviation of 1.49070. 118 samples (73.75% of 160 samples) have cash flow
ratio that is lower than 0.3246 and the remaining 42 samples (26.25% of 160
samples) have higher cash flow ratio than 0.3246.
The variable company size has mean value of 21.5014 and standard deviation
of 6.16239. 78 samples (48.75% of 160 samples) have company size that is
lower than 21.5014 while the remaining 82 samples (51.25% of 160 samples)
have company size that is higher than 21.5014.
57
IV.2.2. CLASSICAL ASSSUMPTION TEST
Multiple regression analysis is used to analyze the data and it is helped by
SPSS 22 for windows. To get the best estimation, secondary data should be tested
by classical regression assumption, which are normality test, multicollinearity test,
autocorrelation test, and heteroschedasticity test.
IV.2.2.1 Normality Test
Normality tests are used to determine whether the variables are
normally distributed and to measure the data is well-modeled by a
normal distribution. In this step, Kolmogorov_Smirnov test used to test
the distribution of the data. Based on normality test result as shown on
table 4.3 all the variables are distributed normally as the significant value
are more than 0.05 (1.0129 > 0.05)
Table.4.3
Result of Normality Test
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Standardized Residual
N 160
Normal Parametersa,b
Mean ,0000000
Std.
Deviation ,98734126
Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,290
Positive ,290
Negative -,216
Test Statistic ,290
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1,0129c
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. b. Calculated from data
c. c. Liliefors Significance Correction
source : constructed on SPSS 22 (2015).
58
IV.2.2.2 Multicollinearity Test
Table 4. 3 Result of Multicolinearity Test
a.Dependent variable : GCAO
Source : Constructed on SPSS 22 (2015
Multicollinearity refers to predictors that are correlated with other
predictors. It occurs when the model includes multiple factors that
are correlated not only to the dependent variable but also to the other
independent variables. Multicollinearity in research data can be
known by observing the Value of Inflation Factor (VIF), tolerance
eigenvalue, condition index. It is resulted from the estimation of
multiple regression equation. The data is free from multicollinearity
symptom if :
The value of inflation Factor (VIF) is less than ten (VIF < 10).
The value of Tolerance is more than 0.05 (Tolerance > 0.05).
The value of Eigenvalue is more than zero ( Eigenvalue > 0) or
coefficienta
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95,0%
Confidence
Interval for B
Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta
Low
er
Boun
d
Upper
Bound
Tolera
nce VIF
1 (Constant
) ,179 ,052 3,455 ,001 ,077 ,281
AQ -,067 ,026 -,212 -2,543 ,012 -,119 -,015 ,836 1,196
PROFIT -,058 ,037 ,120 1,546 ,125 -,016 ,131 ,957 1,044
CFTDR -,013 ,008 ,124 1,617 ,108 -,003 ,029 ,979 1,021
CZ -,006 ,002 -,238 -2,888 ,062 -,010 -,002 ,854 1,170
59
k= between 100-1000 ( moderate multicollinearity to strong
multicollinerity).
The value of Condition Index is less than fifteen (CI < 15)
Table 4.4 shows that there are no independent variables – audit
quality, profitability, cash flow and company size that have value of
tolerance less than five percent (Tolerance < 5%) which means that
there are no correlation between each independent variables that the
value is more than ninety percent (correlation 90%). From the result
of VIF, Audit quality ( 1,196 ), Profitability ( 1,044), Cash Flow
(1,021), Company size (1,170) are less than 10, so it means there is no
muliticollineraity between each independent variables in regression
model.
Based on table collinearity diagnostics, eigenvalue of each
variabels are 2,537 ; 1,117; 0,829; 0,487; 0,029 which are more than
zero or, k (2,508) is below 100 which means there is no
muliticollinearity. Condition Index value is less than fifteen (1.4345 <
15) so it means through this test data are free from multicollineraity.
Condition index value came from square root of maximum eigenvalue
divided by minimum eigenvalue.
60
IV.2.2.3 Autocorrelation Test
In the Durbin-Watson test, Durbin Waton value is 2.202
show that there is no autocorrelation in regression model. There will
be no autocorrelation if dU < d < 4 – dU . While, dU = 1.7930 ; dL
= 1.6906.
1.7930 < 2.202 < 4 - 1.7930
1.7930 < 2.202 < 2.207
The value of Durbin Watson smaller than 4 – 1.7930 (dU) so it
means there is no autocorrelation between each variable.
Table 4. 4
The Result of Autocorellation Test
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Durbin-
Watson
1 ,318a ,101 ,078 ,150 2,202
a. Predictors: (Constant), CZ, PROFIT, CFTDR, AQ
b. Dependent Variable: GCAO
IV.2.2.4 Heteroschedasticity Test
A collection of random variables is heteroscedastic if there
are sub-populations that have different variability from others.
According to graphic method, heteroschedasticity will not happen if
the data spread out around zero point in Y axis and do not form any
certain pattern. In the scatterplot shown on figure 4.2, it can be seen
that some of data spread out but most of data form a line around
zero point in Y axis. Therefore, the data is heteroschedastic.
Researcher also used Glejser test to ensure the best result.
Heteroschedasticity cannot be found if significant more than 0.05
(5%). In the table 4.4, it can be seen that the value of significant of
61
profitability (0.125), cash flow to total debt ratio (0.108), and
company size (0.062) are above of 0.05. Because significantly of
all variables are higher than 0.05 (sig > 0.05), the data is free from
heteroschedasticity but the the significant value of profitability at
0.012 which means data is not free from heteroschedasticy.
Heteroschedasticity in this research caused by a lot number of
samples and the data is a crossection data. However, Bernstein,
Leopold A. (1989) expressed data tend to heteroscedas if the
company have high earning. Company with higher income
commonly has higher variability compared to company with low
earning. Furthermore, heteroschedasticity may be ignored if the
number of sample observed is large.
Figure 4. 1
Scatterplot
Source: Constructed on SPSS 22 (2015)
62
IV.3. HYPOTHESIS TESTING
IV.3.1 t- Statistical Test
Conclusions taken from the result of classic test assumption is regression
model in this research can be used properly because the model is a normal data;
free from multicollinearity, autocorrelation and heteroschedasticity. In this
step, t-test will be used to determine the significant of β constant and
independent variables – audit quality, profitability, cash flow and company size
which used as a predictor for dependent variables- going concern audit opinion.
Predictive ability of audit quality, profitability, cash flow and company size
toward going concern audit opinion is tested by t-test to examine significant
influence of each independent variables towards dependent variable. The
significance will tested by comparing the value of t-score with t-table. If the
value of t-score above of t-table means that independent variable has
significant influence towards dependent variable.
Based on the output of linear regression in table 4.6 , multiple regression
analysis used in this research can be formulated as follows:
Going Concern Audit Opinion (GCAO)
= 0.179 – 0.067 AQ - 0.058 PROFIT - 0.013 CFTDR - 0.006 CZ
63
Table 4. 5 Coefficient
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
95,0%
Confidence
Interval for B
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) ,179 ,052 3,455 ,001 ,077 ,281
AQ -,067 ,026 -,212 -2,543 ,012 -,119 -,015 ,836 1,196
PROFIT -,058 ,037 ,120 2,596 ,125 -,016 ,131 ,957 1,044
CFTDR -,013 ,008 ,124 2,117 ,108 -,003 ,029 ,979 1,021
CZ -,006 ,002 -,238 2,888 ,062 -,010 -,002 ,854 1,170
a. Dependent variable: GCAO
Source: Constructed on SPSS 22 (2015)
IV.3.3.1. Predictive ability of Cash Flow towards Going Concern Audit
Opinion
H1 : Cash Flow has influence towards issuance of going concern audit
opinion.
The independent variable – cash flow ratio has t value of 2.117, which is
above the t-table value of 1.975 which means that H1 fails to reject and
cash flow has influence towards issuance of going concern audit opinion.
Hypothesis test shows that cash flow has influence on issuance of going
concern audit opinion. As Pernyataan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan
(PSAK) No. 2 expressed information about cash flow of the entity is
useful for financial statement user as a basic to understanding the ability
64
of an entity to generate cash and cash equivalent; and know how much
out flow from operational. This result agreed with previous research
Widyantari (2011) which expressed company that has sufficient cash
flow, then it will reflect the ability of company to avoid failure against
the debt obligation and financial distress, that may influenced company
will not get an going concern audit opinion. Otherwise, this research
against the previous Masyitoh and Adhariani (2010) which stated that
that cash flow ratio have no influence towards issuance of going concern
audit opinion.
IV.3.3.2. Predictive ability of Profitability towards Going Concern Audit
Opinion
H2 : Profitability ratio has influence towards issuance going concern
Audit opinion.
The independent variable – Profitability ratio has t-score of 2.596, which
is above the t-table value of 1.975. Therefore, Profitability ratio has
influence towards issuance of Going Concern audit Opinion. This result
wholely support second hypothesis in this study and this research also
agreed the previous research from Mutchler (1985) and Widyantari
(2011) which expressed Profitability ratio has negative influence in
predicting Going Concern audit Opinion. Otherwise, this reserch against
previous research from Masyitoh and adharini (2010) which stated that
Profitability ratio has no influence towards Going Concern audit Opinion.
65
IV.3.3.3. Predictive ability of Audit Quality towards Going Concern Audit
Opinion
H3 : Audit quality has influence towards issuance of going concern audit
Opinion.
The independent variable –Audit Quality ratio has t-score of - 2,543, which
is below the t-table value of 1.975. Therefore, audit Quality has
insignificant influence towards Going Concern audit Opinion or in other
words H3 is rejected. This research show that audit quality cannot become
an indicator of issuance of going concern audit opinion. Both of public
accounting firm who affiliated with Big Four or non-Big Four accounting
Firm can give good audit quality, act independently and issue going
concern audit opinion.
Based on hypothesis result, this research agreed the previous research
from Setyarno (2006) and Widyantari (2011) which expressed, audit
Quality has insignificant influence towards Going Concern audit
Opinion. Otherwise this research result different with the research of
Mutchler et al. (1997) and Rahman (2012) in his research found that
auditor in larger accounting firm more likely to issue going concern audit
opinion to company that meet financial distress than auditor in smaller
accounting firm. Auditor in larger accounting firm would be more likely
to disclose a problem and modify the opinions of bankrupt companies.
Januarti (2009) in her research expressed that when a public accounting
firm has a reputation, they will maintain the objective and sustainability
of the public accounting firm.
66
IV.3.3.4. Predictive ability of Company Size towards Going Concern Audit
Opinion
H4 : Company Size has influence towards the issuance of going concern
audit opinion.
Based on test result, independent variable-Company Size which
represented by total asset has t-score 2.888 which above of t-table value
(1.975). Based on this t-test H4 is accepted and reflects Company Size has
influence towards issuance of going concern audit opinion.
Company with huge total assets shows that the company has reached the
maturity stage because at this stage the company cash flow is positive and
considered to have good prospects within a relative long period. Result
from Mutchler (1986) in Widyantari (2011) suggest that auditors will
more often issue going concern modification to a small companies. It is
possible that auditors are more confident that larger companies can
weather financial difficulties.
This study agree with previous research from Kevin et al. (2006), which
found that big company more capable in maintain sustainability of
company and faced financial distressed. Widyantari (2010) in her
research also found that company size has influence towards issuance of
going concern audit opinion. The bigger company size, the higher ability
of company to faced financial problem and the lower probability
company get going concern audit opinion from auditor.
67
IV.3.2. F- Statitical Test
The result of hypothesis testing is to verify the predictive ability of
independent variables toward going concern audit opinion as dependent variable
as follows:
Table 4. 6
The Result of F-Test
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression ,396 4 ,099 4,374 ,002b
Residual 3,504 155 ,023
Total 3,900 159
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
b. Predictors: (Constant), CZ, PROFIT, CFTDR, AQ
This test is done by using F-test to show all of independent variables have
influence, significantly, toward dependent variable. From table 4.7, we know
that significant value is 0,002 which means that is smaller than the requirement
level of significance < 0.05% and the value of F (4.374) is higher than value of f-
table (2.4300). Thus, independent variables-audit quality, profitability, cash flow
and company size are significant predictor in predicting going concern audit
opinion.
IV.3.3 COEFFICIENT DETERMINATION TEST (R2)
R2 is a statistic that will give some information about the goodness of
fit of a model. It measures of how well the regression line approximates the real
data points. The strength of independent variables influence toward dependent
variable variance can be discovered from how big the value of coefficient of
68
determination (R2) in which 0 < R
2 < 1. Table 4.5 shows the result for R square
test.
Table 4. 7
The Result of R2 Test
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Durbin-
Watson
1 ,318a ,101 ,078 ,150 2,202
a. Predictors: (Constant), CZ, PROFIT, CFTDR, AQ
b. Dependent Variable: GCAO
Table 4.8 shows the value of R2
is 0.101, which means that 10.1% of the
dependent variable – going concern audit opinion can be explained by the
independent variables - audit quality, profitability, cash flow, company size and
the remaining 89.9% shall be explained by other variables that are not covered in
the research.
69
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
V.1. Conclusions
In this final chapter of the research, the researcher draws the
conclusions and recommendations based on the integrated quantitative
analysis that includes the descriptive statistics analysis, the classic
assumption tests, and the hypothesis tests. The analysis is conducted in
order to fulfill the objective of this research, which is to analyze some
factors influencing the issuance of going concern opinion of the basic
industry companies that are listed in the Indonesian Stock Exchange during
the period of 2011-2014.
Based on the analysis result of the research using cash flow to total
debt ratio, profitability ratio, audit quality and company size, the researcher
concludes that:
1. Cash flow is proven negatively influence the issuance of going
concern audit opinion in a company. Company who has positive
cash flow has the ability to avoid failure against the debt
obligation and financial distress that influence auditor will not
issue a going concern audit opinion.
2. Profitability has negative influence towards going concern audit
opinion. The higher profitability ratio of the entity, the higher
the ability of entity to generate profit therefore, the lower
probability of the entity to get going concern audit opinion.
70
3. Audit quality has insignificant influence towards going concern audit
opinion. From the research’s result researcher can take conclusion that
audit quality cannot become an indicator of issuance of going
concern audit opinion. Both of public accounting firm who
affiliated with Big Four or non-Big Four accounting Firm can give
good audit quality, act independently and issue going concern audit
opinion.
4. Company size has negative influence towards going concern audit
opinion. Company with huge total assets shows that the company
has reached the maturity stage because at this stage the company
cash flow is positive and considered to have good prospects within
a relative long period. Big company more capable in maintain
sustainability of company and faced financial distressed. The
bigger company size, the higher the ability of company to face
financial problem and the lower probability company get going
concern audit opinion from auditor.
V.2. Limitation
This study has limitations that can be considered for further researched:
1. The researched companies are limited only in the companies that
run the business on manufacturing sector, classify in basic industry.
2. Many companies did not provide the necessity information
Regarding the variables that being researched and as the result,
many companies cannot be included in the research. The period of
this study is only four years that is unable to analyze the trend of
the company’s going concern audit opinion for a long- term period.
71
3. This study use multiple regression to test the factors that
influencing the dependent variable . Since independent variables
of this study is dummy variable, the best regression for this study is
using logistic regression.
V.3. Recommendation
Based on the conclusion of the research obtained through the analysis
as stated above, the researcher would like to give a few recommendations:
1. To decision makers: for all the decision makers of share investments,
they should pay attention to some factors that become variables in this
research, so that there will be no error in decision making eapecially
while dicide whether to invest in particular enities. They should be
concern on the ability of entities to survive during financial problem
and consider the ability of company to pay both short term and long
term debt and finance the operational of the entities.
2. To the Entities: Companies that listed in IDX may want to complete
the annual financial report and Increase the quality of scanned
documents.
3. To the Future Researchers: The researchers who are going to research
in relation to going concern audit opinion better increase the span of
research period into at least 5 years if use cross section data, so
heteroscedasticity do not founded but the better one is by using time
series data,, because heteroschedasticity found in crossection data and
large number of samples. The researchers are also encouraged to
explore other variables that are not covered in this research, such as
audit quality by using questionnaires if possible. Furthermore, as the
data used in the research is only limited to the information from the
companies’ annual financial reports, the future researchers are
suggested to gather information from more various sources outside the
72
companies’ annual financial reports for more coverage on other
aspects of going concern audit opinion
4. To the future researchers : The researchers who are going to research
in relation with combination of parametric and non-parametric better
to use logistic regression in order to get best result which in the scale
of 0-1, because by multiple regression the result of independent
variable could be more than 0 – 1.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, W. S. (2003). Fraud Examination. Mason, Ohio, Thomson and South-
Western. (p.34-52)
Amuzu, M. S. (2010). Cash flow ratio as a measure of performance of listed
companies in emerging economies: The Ghana example.
Ang, Robert. (1997). Buku Pintar Pasar Modal Indonesia (The Intelligent Guide to
Indonesian Capital Market). Jakarta: Mediasoft Indonesia.
Arens, A.A., Elder,R.J., Beasley. M.S. (2004). Auditing and Assurance Sevices an
integrated approach fifteenth edition. Kendallville, United States of
America: Pearson Education limited.
AU-C Section 570, 2012. The Auditor’s Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to
Continue as a Going Concern. Last accessed on 16 December 2015.
http://www.aicpa.org/Research/Standards/AuditAttest/Downloadable
Documents/AU-C-00570.pdf
AU-C Section 341, 1989. The Auditor’s Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to
Continue as a Going Concern. Last accessed on 16 December 2015.
http://www.aicpa.org/Research/Standards/AuditAttest/Downloadable
Documents/AU-00341.pdf
Ballesta, P. S. J. & Garcia.M. E. (2005). Audit qualifications and corporate
governance in Spanish listed firms. Managerial Auditing Journal, 20(7),
725-738.
Barbadillo, E.G.A, Barberá.,C.García-Benau, M. A. (2004). Audit quality and the
going-concern decision-making process: Spanish evidence. European
Accounting Review, 13(4), 597-620.
Behn, B. K., Kaplan, S. E., & Krumwiede, K. R. (2001). Further evidence on the
auditor's going-concern report: The influence of management
plans.Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 13-28.
Bergen, M., Dutta, S., & Walker Jr, O. C. (1992). Agency relationships in
marketing: A review of the implications and applications of agency and
related theories. The Journal of Marketing, 1-24.
Bernstein, Leopold A. (1989). Financial Statement analysis: Theory, application,
and Interpretation, Fourth Edition. Illnois: Irwin.
Carcello, Joseph V., and Terry L. Neal. (2000). Audit Committee Composition
and Auditor Reporting. Available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=229835.
Chen, K. C. W., and B. K. Church.(1992). Default on Debt Obligation and the
Issuance of Going-Concern Report. Auditing: A Journal of Practice &
Theory, Fall (p. 30 – 49).
Davis, R. R. (2010). Financial Ratios Influencing the Lifting of Auditor's Going
Concern Opinions. Proceedings of the Northeast Business & Economics
Association.
DeAngelo, L. (1981). Auditor Independence, “Low Balling” and Disclosure
Regulation. Journal of accounting and Economics (p. 113-127).
Deis Jr, D. R., & Giroux, G. A. (1992). Determinants of audit quality in the public
sector. Accounting Review, 462-479.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of
management review, 14(1), 57-74.
Figlewicz, R. E., & Zeller, T. L. (1991). The Statement of Cash Flows. Akron
Business And Economic Review. (p.64).
Geiger, M A., and Dasaratha V.R. "Audit firm size and going-concern reporting
accuracy." Accounting Horizons 20.1 (2006): 1-17.
Ghozali, I. (2009). Ekonometrika Teori, Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan SPSS 17.
Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro: Semarang (p. 15).
Ghozali, I.(2009). Ekonometrika Teori, Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan SPSS 17.
Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro: Semarang (p.107).
IDX Fact Book 2011. (2012). Jakarta: Bursa Efek Indonesia. Last accessed on 12
September 2015.
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/StaticData/Publication/FactBook/FileD
ownload/Fact-Book_2011.zip
IDX Fact Book 2012. (2012). Jakarta: Bursa Efek Indonesia. . Last accessed on 12
September 2015.
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/StaticData/Publication/FactBook/FileD
ownload/Fact-Book_2012.zip
IDX Fact Book 2013. (2013). Jakarta: Bursa Efek Indonesia. Last accessed on 12
September 2015.
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/StaticData/Publication/FactBook/FileD
ownload/20130731_Fact-Book-2013.pdf
IDX Fact Book 2014. (2014). Jakarta: Bursa Efek Indonesia. . Last accessed on 12
September 2015.
http://www.idx.co.id/Portals/0/StaticData/Publication/FactBook/FileD
ownload/20140911_FB-2014.pdf
Januarti, I. (2009). Analisis Pengaruh Faktor Perusahaan, Kualitas Auditor,
Kepemilikan Perusahaan terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going
concern (Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia). Makalah Disampaikan dalam Simposium Nasional Akuntansi
XII. Palembang: 4-6 November.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial
behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of financial
economics.( 3(4), 305-360).
Kajananthan, R., Velnampy, T. (2014). Liquidity, Solvency and Profitability
Analysis Using Cash Flow Ratios and Traditional Ratios: The
Telecommunication Sector in Sri Lanka. Research Journal of Finance and
Accounting 5.23 ( p. 163-170).
Kida, T. (1980). An investigation into auditor's continuity and related
qualification judgments. Journal of Accounting Research, 20(2), 506–523.
Lennox, C. (1999). Are large auditors more accurate than small
auditors?.Accounting and business research, 29(3), 217-227.
Lys, T., & Watts, R. L. (1994). Lawsuits against auditors. Journal of accounting
research,(p. 65-93).
Lind, D.A., Marchal, W.G.,Wathen, S. A. (2010). Statistical Techniques in
Business & Economics: Updated Fourteenth Edition. New York:McGraw-
Hill.Inc. (p.235).
Masyitoh, O. C., Desi, A. (2010). The Analysis of Determinants of Going concern
Audit Report. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing. (Vol. 6, No.4,
p. 26-37).
Mat Nor, F. and Sulong, Z. (2007).The interaction effect of ownership structure
and board governance on dividends: evidence from Malaysian listed firms
listed firms. Capital Market Review.(Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 73-101).
Mills, J. R., and Jeanne, H. Y. (1999). The Power of Cashflow Ratios. Journal of
Accountancy 186.4 (p. 53 - 61).
Mutchler, J. F.(1985). A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor's Going-Concern
Opinion Decision. Journal of Accounting Research 2.23 (p. 668-682).
Mutchler, J. (1986). A Multivariate Analysis of the Auditor's Going Concern
Opinion Decision. Journal of Accouning Research. Autumn. (p. 668 –
678).
Mutchler, J. F., Hopwood, W., McKeown, J. M. (1997). The Influence of
Contrary Information and Mitigating Factors on Audit Opinion Decisions
on Bankrupt Companies. Journal of Accounting Research. ( p. 295-310).
Rahman, A., Siregar, B. (2012). Faktor – Faktor yang Mempengaruhi
Kecenderungan Penerimaan Opini audit Going Concern Pada
Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia) (2012).
Ramadhany, A. (2004). Analisis Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Penerimaan
Opini Going Concern pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Mengalami
Financial Distress di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Tesis. Universitas Diponegoro,
Semarang.
Ross, S. R. W. W., Jaffe, J. (2001). Corporate Finance.. McGraw-Hill, New York
(p.365).
Ruiz, B. E., Aguilar, N. G., Barbera, C. D. F., Benau, M. A. G. (2004). Audit
Quality and The Going-concern Decision Making Process. European
Accounting Review. Vol.13. No.4. (p. 597-620).
Sam, C.Y. (2007). Corporate governance reforms in the post-1997 Asian crisis: is
there really a convergence to the Anglo?, Global Economic Review, Vol.
36 No. 3, ( pp. 267-85).
Samuel, M. A. (2010). Dissertation for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy: Cash
Flow Ratio as Measure of Performance of Listed Companies In Emerging
Economies. (151-309).
Setyarno, E. B., Januarti, I., Faisal. (2006). Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Kondisi
Keuangan Perusahaan, Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Pertumbuhan
Perusahaan terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern. Makalah Disampaikan
dalam Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IX. Padang: 23-26 Agustus.
Spinos, E. (2013), Managerial Ownership and Earnings Management in times of
Financial Crisis: Evidence from the USA. Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Suwito, E., & Herawaty, A. (2012). Analisis pengaruh karakteristik perusahaan
terhadap tindakan perataan laba yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan yang
terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business. United
Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
SFAC (2008). Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 1 Objectives of
Financial Reporting by Business, issued November 1978. Last accessed
on 16 July, 2015.
http://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1218220
132541&acceptedDisclaimer=true
Widyantari, A. A. A. P. (2011). Opini Audit Going Concern dan Faktor-Faktor
yang Mempengaruhi: Studi Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur di Bursa Efek
Indonesia. Diss. Tesis, 2011.
http://www.idx.co.id
APPENDICES
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
GCAO ,03 ,157 160
AQ ,43 ,497 160
PROFIT ,0136 ,32644 160
CFTDR ,3246 1,49070 160
CZ 21,5014 6,16239 160
Correlations
GCAO AQ PROFIT CFTDR CZ
Pearson Correlation GCAO 1,000 -,139 ,165 ,129 -,151
AQ -,139 1,000 -,149 ,006 -,376
PROFIT ,165 -,149 1,000 ,133 ,016
CFTDR ,129 ,006 ,133 1,000 ,041
CZ -,151 -,376 ,016 ,041 1,000
Sig. (1-tailed) GCAO . ,039 ,019 ,051 ,028
AQ ,039 . ,030 ,471 ,000
PROFIT ,019 ,030 . ,047 ,421
CFTDR ,051 ,471 ,047 . ,304
CZ ,028 ,000 ,421 ,304 .
N GCAO 160 160 160 160 160
AQ 160 160 160 160 160
PROFIT 160 160 160 160 160
CFTDR 160 160 160 160 160
CZ 160 160 160 160 160
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Entered
Variables
Removed Method
1 CZ, PROFIT,
CFTDR, AQb
. Enter
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summaryb
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 ,318a ,101 ,078 ,150 ,101 4,374 4 155 ,002 2,202
a. Predictors: (Constant), CZ, PROFIT, CFTDR, AQ
b. Dependent Variable: GCAO
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression ,396 4 ,099 4,374 ,002b
Residual 3,504 155 ,023
Total 3,900 159
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
b. Predictors: (Constant), CZ, PROFIT, CFTDR, AQ
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model Dimension Eigenvalue
Condition
Index
Variance Proportions
(Constant) AQ PROFIT CFTDR CZ
1 1 2,537 1,000 ,01 ,04 ,00 ,02 ,01
2 1,117 1,507 ,00 ,02 ,54 ,27 ,00
3 ,829 1,749 ,00 ,00 ,38 ,72 ,00
4 ,487 2,283 ,01 ,68 ,08 ,00 ,03
5 ,029 9,305 ,98 ,25 ,01 ,00 ,96
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardize
d Coefficients
Standardiz
ed
Coefficient
s
t Sig.
95,0%
Confidence
Interval for B Correlations
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta
Lower
Boun
d
Uppe
r Bound
Zero-
order
Partia
l Part
Tole
ranc
e VIF
1 (Const
ant) ,179 ,052 3,455 ,001 ,077 ,281
AQ -,067 ,026 -,212 -2,543 ,012 -,119 -,015 -,139 -,200 -,194 ,836 1,196
PROFI
T -,058 ,037 ,120 -2,596 ,125 -,016 ,131 ,165 ,123 ,118 ,957 1,044
CFTDR -,013 ,008 ,124 2,117 ,108 -,003 ,029 ,129 ,129 ,123 ,979 1,021
CZ -,006 ,002 -,238 2,888 ,062 -,010 -,002 -,151 -,226 -,220 ,854 1,170
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
Collinearity Diagnosticsa
Model
Dimensio
n Eigenvalue
Condition
Index
Variance Proportions
(Constant) AQ PROFIT CFTDR CZ
1 1 2,537 1,000 ,01 ,04 ,00 ,02 ,01
2 1,117 1,507 ,00 ,02 ,54 ,27 ,00
3 ,829 1,749 ,00 ,00 ,38 ,72 ,00
4 ,487 2,283 ,01 ,68 ,08 ,00 ,03
5 ,029 9,305 ,98 ,25 ,01 ,00 ,96
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value -,16 ,20 ,03 ,050 160
Residual -,197 ,879 ,000 ,148 160
Std. Predicted Value -3,611 3,450 ,000 1,000 160
Std. Residual -1,311 5,849 ,000 ,987 160
a. Dependent Variable: GCAO
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Standardized Residual
N 160
Normal Parametersa,b
Mean ,0000000
Std.
Deviation ,98734126
Most Extreme Differences Absolute ,290
Positive ,290
Negative -,216
Test Statistic ,290
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 1,0129c
d. Test distribution is Normal.
e. b. Calculated from data
f. c. Liliefors Significance Correction
2011 GCO AQ PROF PMR CFTDR CZ
AKKU 0 0 0,01 0,13 23,19
ALKA 0 0 0,01 0,17 19,37
ALMI 0 0 0,17 0,85 28,21
AMFG 0 1 0,09 0,25 14,81
ASII 0 1 0,04 0,06 5,03
BRNA 0 0 0,17 0,40 20,28
BUDI 0 0 0,30 0,33 14,57
CPIN 0 1 0,10 -0,30 15,47
CTBN 0 1 0,04 0,61 19,32
ETWA 0 0 -0,02 -0,02 27,15
FASW 0 1 0,14 0,41 29,23
FPNI 0 1 0,06 0,05 12,71
IGAR 0 0 0,01 0,04 26,50
INAI 0 0 0,01 0,17 27,02
INKP 1 0 0,34 1,61 15,66
INRU 0 0 0,04 0,04 12,68
INTP 0 1 0,08 -3,00 16,71
IPOL 0 0 0,03 0,15 14,78
JPRS 0 0 -0,03 0,04 26,81
KDSI 0 0 0,06 0,02 27,10
KIAS 0 0 0,25 0,63 28,35
KRAS 0 1 0,07 0,12 16,88
LION 0 0 0,00 0,03 26,63
LMSH 0 0 -0,02 -0,25 25,31
MLIA 0 1 0,02 -0,06 22,53
NIKL 0 1 0,01 0,02 20,64
SIAP 0 0 0,20 0,61 25,82
SIPD 0 0 0,31 0,88 28,60
SMCB 0 1 0,04 0,14 16,21
SMGR 0 1 0,09 0,27 23,70
SPMA 0 0 -0,75 0,01 28,07
SRSN 0 0 0,00 -0,10 19,70
SULI 0 1 0,07 0,07 28,16
TIRT 0 0 0,22 0,40 27,26
TKIM 0 0 0,00 -0,01 14,76
TOTO 0 1 0,09 0,27 27,92
TPIA 0 1 0,00 -0,04 14,29
TRST 0 1 0,06 -0,37 28,39
UNIC 0 1 -2,51 -0,33 19,45
YPAS 0 0 0,16 0,12 26,13
2012 GCO AQ PROF-PMR CFTDR CZ
AKKU 0 0 0,01 -0,05 23,08
ALKA 0 0 0,001 -0,02 19,32
ALMI 0 0 0,16 -0,63 28,26
AMFG 0 1 0,10 0,23 14,95
ASII 0 1 0,005 0,00 5,21
BRNA 0 0 0,16 0,40 20,46
BUDI 0 0 0,23 0,02 14,65
CPIN 0 1 0,05 0,10 16,33
CTBN 0 1 0,00 0,11 19,41
ETWA 0 0 -0,02 0,01 27,59
FASW 0 1 0,01 0,46 29,35
FPNI 0 1 0,05 -0,21 12,67
IGAR 0 0 0,01 0,04 26,47
INAI 0 0 -0,04 0,17 27,14
INKP 1 0 0,36 1,70 15,71
INRU 0 0 0,04 0,17 12,66
INTP 0 1 0,03 -0,20 16,94
IPOL 0 0 0,04 0,20 19,46
JPRS 0 0 0,09 0,78 26,71
KDSI 0 0 0,00 0,01 27,07
KIAS 0 0 0,31 1,08 28,39
KRAS 0 1 0,20 0,34 14,76
LION 0 0 -0,01 0,10 26,80
LMSH 0 0 -0,05 0,10 25,58
MLIA 0 1 0,02 0,26 22,60
NIKL 0 1 0,00 -0,07 11,61
SIAP 0 0 0,21 0,45 25,94
SIPD 0 0 0,32 1,50 28,82
SMCB 0 1 0,04 0,03 16,31
SMGR 0 1 0,07 -0,06 24,00
SPMA 0 0 -0,39 -0,14 28,14
SRSN 0 0 -0,06 0,02 19,81
SULI 0 1 0,03 0,07 27,99
TIRT 0 0 0,21 0,30 27,24
TKIM 0 0 -0,05 0,15 14,80
TOTO 0 1 0,04 0,09 28,05
TPIA 0 1 0,01 0,19 14,34
TRST 0 1 0,05 -0,15 28,41
UNIC 0 1 -1,68 -0,11 19,33
YPAS 0 0 0,15 0,10 26,58
2013 GCO AQ PROF-PMR CFTDR CZ
AKKU 0 0 0,00 0,00 24,53
ALKA 0 0 0,01 0,34 19,30
ALMI 0 0 0,14 0,71 28,64
AMFG 0 1 0,01 0,13 15,08
ASII 0 1 0,02 0,15 5,37
BRNA 0 0 0,13 0,36 20,84
BUDI 0 0 0,22 0,43 14,68
CPIN 0 1 0,03 0,27 16,57
CTBN 0 1 0,07 0,05 19,43
ETWA 0 0 0,01 0,05 27,89
FASW 0 1 0,08 0,35 29,37
FPNI 0 1 0,02 0,12 12,58
IGAR 0 0 0,08 0,08 26,48
INAI 0 0 0,06 0,20 27,36
INKP 1 0 0,35 1,49 15,73
INRU 0 0 0,05 0,13 12,68
INTP 0 1 0,09 5,61 17,10
IPOL 0 0 0,03 0,17 19,44
JPRS 0 0 0,08 0,90 26,65
KDSI 0 0 -0,01 0,10 27,47
KIAS 0 0 0,25 0,63 28,45
KRAS 0 1 0,08 0,44 14,68
LION 0 0 -0,09 0,11 26,94
LMSH 0 0 0,00 0,04 25,68
MLIA 0 1 0,03 0,21 22,70
NIKL 0 1 0,00 0,05 11,73
SIAP 0 0 0,14 0,37 26,33
SIPD 0 0 0,28 0,67 28,78
SMCB 0 1 -0,02 0,07 14,55
SMGR 0 1 0,08 1,93 24,15
SPMA 0 0 -1,64 -0,14 28,20
SRSN 0 0 -0,26 -0,03 19,86
SULI 0 1 0,01 -0,04 13,75
TIRT 0 0 0,19 0,45 27,31
TKIM 0 0 0,01 0,15 14,77
TOTO 0 1 0,09 0,04 28,19
TPIA 0 1 0,04 0,02 14,46
TRST 0 1 0,02 -0,03 28,81
UNIC 0 1 0,15 14,81 19,41
YPAS 0 0 0,14 0,00 26,49
2014 GCO AQ PROF-PMR CFTDR CZ
AKKU 0 0 0,00 6,67 25,23
ALKA 0 0 0,00 -0,36 18,81
ALMI 0 0 0,16 0,77 28,52
AMFG 0 1 0,17 0,00 15,18
ASII 0 1 0,02 0,04 12,37
BRNA 0 1 0,07 0,02 21,35
BUDI 0 0 0,17 0,26 14,72
CPIN 0 1 -0,17 0,17 16,85
CTBN 0 1 0,02 0,34 19,38
ETWA 0 0 -0,01 0,00 27,92
FASW 0 1 0,10 3,36 29,35
FPNI 0 1 0,04 0,11 12,45
IGAR 0 0 0,05 0,07 26,58
INAI 0 0 0,02 -0,01 27,52
INKP 1 0 0,34 1,30 15,69
INRU 0 0 0,04 0,10 12,71
INTP 0 1 -0,03 -5,02 17,18
IPOL 0 0 0,04 -0,04 19,47
JPRS 0 0 0,13 0,23 26,64
KDSI 0 0 -0,10 0,00 27,58
KIAS 0 0 0,17 0,40 28,49
KRAS 0 1 0,04 0,42 14,77
LION 0 0 0,03 0,06 27,12
LMSH 0 0 -0,04 -0,13 25,66
MLIA 0 1 0,01 0,51 22,70
NIKL 0 1 0,01 -0,02 11,71
SIAP 0 0 0,10 0,20 22,33
SIPD 0 0 0,26 0,72 28,66
SMCB 0 1 0,04 0,03 16,66
SMGR 0 1 0,06 0,04 24,26
SPMA 0 0 0,03 0,03 28,37
SRSN 0 0 0,03 0,12 19,95
SULI 0 1 0,01 0,10 13,71
TIRT 0 0 0,19 0,39 27,29
TKIM 0 0 0,01 0,11 14,81
TOTO 0 1 0,03 0,16 28,34
TPIA 0 1 0,00 0,34 14,47
TRST 0 1 -0,02 0,16 28,81
UNIC 0 1 -1,47 -0,56 19,28
YPAS 0 0 0,14 0,13 26,49
2011
2012
2013
2014
