IJSEGCE

VOL 2, No.3 November 2019

ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

GOING CONCERN AUDIT OPINION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN

MANUFACTURING COMPANIES LISTED ON BEI
Author

Ketut Sarpa Gunawan

ketutsarpa123@gmail.com
Post Graduate of Mahasarawati Denpasar University

Anik Yuesti
anikyuesti@unmas.ac.id
Post Graduate of Mahasarawati Denpasar University

Putu Kepramareni
pkepramareni@yahoo.co.id
Post Graduate of Mahasarawati Denpasar University

ABSTRACT

Going concern audit opinion is the opinion of the auditor regarding whether an audited company can
maintain going concern or its survival for at least one year. The auditor has the responsibility to evaluate
whether the company has the possibility of going concern or keep going forward, even though the purpose
of the audit is not to evaluate the financial health of the company. This study aims to determine whether
there may be an influence between profitability, leverage, company growth, acceptance of going concern
audit opinion and whether corporate governance is able to moderate profitability, leverage, and company
growth on going conern audit opinion. The population in this study were all manufacturing companies
listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2014 to 2018. While the study sample used a purposive sampling
method to obtain a sample of 13 companies. The type of data used in this study is secondary data. This
research uses logistic regression analysis method. The results of this study indicate that profitability has a
negative effect on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion, leverage has a positive effect on going
concern audit opinion and company growth does not affect the going concern audit opinion. While
corporate governance as a moderating variable is able to moderate the profitability and leverage of going
concern audit opinion and in addition corporate governance is not able to moderate the company's growth
towards going concern audit opinion.

Keywords : going concern audit opinion, profitability, leverage, company growth, and corporate
governance.

I. INTRODUCTION

Going concern opinion received by a company shows the existence of conditions and
events that raise auditor doubt about the survival of the company. One of the considerations that
need to be considered by the auditor in giving a going concern opinion is to predict whether the
auditee will go bankrupt or not. Ross et al. (2002) stated the indication of bankruptcy can be seen
from whether the company experienced financial distress, which is a condition where the
company's operating cash flow is not sufficient to meet its current liabilities. Financial distress will
cause companies to experience negative cash flow, bad financial ratios, and failure to pay
obligations. In the end, this financial distress will lead to bankruptcy of the company so that the
continuity of the company's business is in doubt. The risk of financial difficulties experienced by
the company can be reduced if the company has the awareness to implement good corporate
governance in carrying out its business activities. Good corporate governance is a series
consisting of processes, habits, policies, rules and institutions that affect the direction,
management, and supervision conducted by the company (Pertiwi and Pratama, 2012: 120). The
application of good corporate governance in this study was proxied by the proportion of
independent boards of commissioners. In addition, several researchers including Mutchler et al.
(1997), Louwers (1998), Geiger and Raghunandan (2002), Geiger and Rama (2006), Januarti

277
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

(2009) show that factors such as audit quality, audit lag, previous year's audit opinion, and client
tenure auditor also influence going concern audit opinion reception. Therefore, a study of going
concern audit opinion can be conducted by looking at factors such as profitability, leverage,
company growth and Corporate Governance as moderating variables. Where moderating
variables are independent variables that will strengthen or weaken the relationship between other
independent variables to the dependent variable (Ghozali, 2006: 199).
Profitability is the ability of a company to make a profit in relation to sales, total assets and
own capital (Sartono, 2001: 122). Profitability can be measured by the ratio of net income before
tax divided by net sales (NIBTS). The greater this ratio shows the better performance of the
company to generate profits so as not to cause auditors doubts about the company's ability to
continue its business and can reduce the possibility of receiving going concern opinion. Research
by Mutchler (1985), Panji Putranto (2018), Handhayani and Budiartha (2015), Widyantari (2011),
Chen and Church (1992), and Behn et al. (2001) found that this ratio had a negative effect on the
acceptance of going concern audit opinion. But the research of Hani et al. (2003), Kuntara (2014),
Sari and Soetikno (2012), and Rahayu (2007) found that profitability ratios had no significant
effect on the issuance of going concern audit opinion.
Large business losses repeatedly or lack of working capital, as well as the company's
inability to meet its obligations when due, reflect the company's financial condition is problematic.
The leverage ratio can be used to determine the company's capacity to meet both short-term and
long-term obligations. The leverage ratio is generally measured using a debt ratio that compares
total liabilities with total assets. The amount of debt that exceeds the total assets causes the
company to experience capital deficiency or a negative equity balance. The higher leverage ratio
shows the company's financial performance is getting worse and can cause uncertainty about the
company's survival. Companies that have assets that are smaller than their obligations will face
the danger of bankruptcy (Chen and Church, 1992). Research by Aryantika and Rasmini (2015),
Wardana (2011), and Widyantari (2011), found evidence that leverage has a positive effect on
going concern audit opinion. While research Rudyawan and Badera (2008) states that the
leverage ratio has no significant effect on the likelihood of acceptance of going concern audit
opinion.
The company's growth indicates the company's ability to maintain business continuity.
Growth companies show that their operational activities are running properly so that the company
can maintain its economic position and survival, while companies with negative growth indicate a
greater tendency towards bankruptcy (Altman, 1968). Research Kristiana, Ira. (2012), Ratna Sari
and Sri Wahyuni (2014), and Krissindiastuti and Rasmini (2016) found evidence that company
growth negatively affected the going concern audit opinion. Whereas research Ardika and
Ekayani (2012) found evidence that company growth has a positive effect
Based on the description above, the authors are interested in conducting research with the
title "Effect of Profitability, Leverage and Company Growth on Going Concern Audit Opinions with
Corporate Governance as Moderation Variables in Manufacturing Companies Registered on the
Stock Exchange"

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Going concern audit opinion is the opinion of the auditor regarding whether a company
being audited can maintain going concern or survival for at least one year in the future. The
factors that influence the auditor to provide a going concern audit opinion are profitability,
leverage, company growth and corporate governance as a moderating variable that is
proportional to the independent commissioner.
in the Corporate Governance Structure there is a change in the leadership structure of
the company that can affect the company's performance, ownership of shares by internal and
external parties, where with the intervention of these parties, it can influence and urge the auditor
to provide going concern audit opinion. Corporate governance is positioned as a moderating
variable that is to strengthen or weaken the variable x to the variable y. Corporate governance
itself is proportional to the independent commissioner.
Profitability ratio is one tool to measure the company's financial condition. Profitability is
the company's ability to make a profit and its relationship with sales, total assets, and own capital.
Leverage is a policy carried out by a company in terms of investing funds or obtaining sources of
funds accompanied by a fixed cost that must be borne by the company. While company growth is
measured by the sales growth ratio or sales growth ratio. Sales growth ratio (sales growth ratio) is

278
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

a ratio that measures the company's ability to increase sales compared to the previous year. The
data analysis technique in this study is the logistic regression model because the dependent
variable used is a dummy variable.

III. RESEACH METHOD

This research was conducted at the Indonesia Stock Exchange which provides audited
financial statement data by accessing and downloading the official website of the Indonesia Stock
Exchange through the website www.idx.co.id. Manufacturing companies were selected as
samples in this study because (1) manufacturing companies are the types of companies that are
most listed on the IDX, so that variations of data for existing samples will be more and more; and
(2) to avoid the existence of industrial effects, namely industrial risks that differ from one industrial
sector to another (Behn et al, 2001; Blay and Geiger, 2001). Data analysis in this study was
carried out using logistic regression.

IV. RESEARCH RESULT

Result
Assessing the Feasibility of the Regression Model
Due Diligence (Hosmer And Lemeshow Godness Of Fit Model)
According to Ghozali (2016: 95), the godness of fit test can be done by paying attention
to the output of the Hosmer and Lemeshow's Godness of Fit test. Where if the statistical value of
Hosmer and Lemeshow is equal to or less than 0.05 then the null hypothesis is rejected because
the model cannot predict its observation value. If the statistical value of Hosmer and Lemeshow is
greater than 0.05 then the null hypothesis is not rejected because the model is able to predict the
value of its observations. The following are the results of the Hosmer and Lemeshow test that
have been tested with SPSS.
Table 1
Uji Hosmer And Lemeshow

Step Chi-square df Sig.

1 8.510 7 .290

The feasibility of the regression model was assessed using the Hosmer and Lemeshow's
Goodness of Fit Test. Hosmer and Lemeshow's Goodness of Fit Test tests the null hypothesis
that empirical data matches or matches the model (there is no difference between the model and
the data so the model can be said to be fit). The statistical value of Hosmer and Lemeshow's
Goodness of Fit Test is 8,510 with a significance probability of 0.290 whose value is above 0.05.
Thus it can be concluded that the model is able to predict the value of its observations or the
model can be said to be acceptable because it matches the observational data.

Assessing the Overall Model

The likelihood (L) of the model is the probability that the hypothesized model describes the input
data whether it fits with the data or not. L is transformed into -2 log likehood results of block
number 0 (-2logL1) if there is a decrease, then the model shows a good regression model or in
other words the model is hypothesized fit with the data (Ghozali, 2006: 233). The following is an
assessment of the whole model tested using SPSS.
Table 2
Iteration history
Keterangan Nilai
-2Log Likelihood pada awal (block 83.201
number = 0)
-2Log Likelihood pada akhir (block 62.214
number = 1)

279
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

Based on the results of testing the whole model obtained the value of -2 Log Likelihood, where in
block number 0 for the first model a value of 83,201 was obtained. After the independent variable
is entered, the Log Likelihood value has decreased to 62,214, this shows that the logistic
regression model used is a good model, or in other words the model hypothesized fit with the
data.

Coefficient of Determination (Cox and Snell’s R Square and Nagelkereke’s R Square)

Cox and Snell's R Square and Nagelkereke's R Square values indicate how much the variability
of the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variables. Cox and Snell's R
Square is a measure that tries to mimic the size of R square in multiple regression based on
likelihood estimation techniques with a maximum value of less than 1 so that it is difficult to
interpret. The following are the results of cox and snell's R squere and nagelkereke's R squere
tests which were tested using SPSS.
Table 3
Uji Cox and Snell’s Rquare and Nagelkerke’s R Square
-2 Log Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R
Step likelihood Square Square
1 62.214a .276 .382

Based on Cox and Snell's R Square value of 0.276 and Nagelkerke R Square value of 0.382
which means the dependent variable used can be explained by the variability of the independent
variable by 38.2%, while the remaining 61.8% is explained by other variables outside the study.
This shows that together the variation of the independent variables can explain the going concern
audit variable variation of 38.2%.

Classification
The 2x2 classification calculates the correct and incorrect estimation values. In the column are
two predictive values of the devendent variable in this case going concern opinion (1) and non
going concern opinion (0), while the row shows the real observation value of the dependent
variable. The following is a 2x2 classification table that is tested with SPSS.
Table 4
Classification test

Based on the SPSS test results in Table 4 shows that 43 companies get a non-gocing concern
audit opinion, only 41 companies predicted, so the percentage correct is 95.3%. While of the 22
companies that received going-concern opinions, it was predicted that 40.9%. For overall results
obtained a correct percentage of 76.9% which shows that the model in this study is quite able to
explain the opinion received by the company.

Logistics Regression Formed

Estimation of parameters from the model can be seen in the Variable in the Equation output.
Output Variable in the Equation shows the value of the regression coefficient and its level of
significance. The regression coefficient of each of the variables tested shows the form of the
relationship between the variables. Hypothesis testing in this study is a one-sided test carried out

280
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

by comparing the significance level (sig) with an error rate (α) = 5%. If sig <α, it can be said that
the independent variable has a significant effect on the dependent variable.
Table 5
Logistic Regression Coefficient Test

Based on Table 5 the logical regression equations formed in this study are:

Based on the logistic regression equation above then explained as follows:

A constant value of -4,222 means that if the variable profitability, leverage, company growth and
corporate governance are zero or constant, the going concern audit opinion will decrease by
4,222.
1. β1 -0.335 means that if the profitability variable increases, the going concern audit opinion
will decrease by 0.335, assuming the independent variable is considered constant.
2. β2 0.016 + β3 0.014 + β4 0.008 + β5 0.000 + β6 0.000 means that if the variable leverage,
company growth, CG on profitability, CG on leverage, CG on company growth increases, it
will be followed by an increase in going concern audit opinion, with the assumption of free
variables that are considered constant.
Hypothesis testing is done by comparing the level of significance (sig) with an error rate (α) = 5%
or 0.05. If sig <α, it can be said that the independent variable has a significant effect on the
dependent variable.

1. Testing the First Hypothesis (H1. The first hypothesis states that profitability obtained a
regression coefficient of -0.335 with a significance level of 0.025 <0.05 which means that
profitability negatively affects the acceptance of going concern audit opinion. The results of
this study support the first hypothesis which states that profitability negative effect on going
concern audit opinion.
2. Second Hypothesis Testing (H2). The second hypothesis states that leverage obtained a
regression coefficient of 0.016 with a significance level of 0.016 <0.05 which means that
leverage has a positive effect on the going concern audit opinion. The results of this study
support the second hypothesis which states that leverage positively influences the
acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
3. Third Hypothesis Testing (H3). The third hypothesis states that company growth obtained by
a regression coefficient of 0.014 with a significance level of 0.651> 0.05 which means that
company growth does not affect the going concern audit opinion. The results of this study do
not support the third hypothesis which states that company growth has a negative effect on
the acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
4. Fourth Hypothesis Testing (H4). The fourth hypothesis states that profitability moderated by
corporate governance variables obtained a regression coefficient of 0.008 with a significance
level of 0.025 <0.05 which means that corporate governance has a positive effect on the
relationship between profitability and going concern audit opinion. The results of this study
support the fourth hypothesis which states that corporate governance influences the
relationship between profitability and acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
5. Testing the Fifth Hypothesis (H5). The fifth hypothesis states that the leverage moderated by
corporate governance variables obtained a regression coefficient of 0,000 with a significance

281
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

level of 0.029 <0.05 which means that corporate governance has a positive effect on the
relationship between leverage and going concern audit opinion. The results of this study
support the fifth hypothesis which states that corporate governance influences the
relationship between leverage and acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
6. Testing of the Sixth Hypothesis (H6). The sixth hypothesis states that corporate growth is
moderated by corporate governance variables obtained a regression coefficient of 0.000 with
a significance level of 0.672> 0.05 which means that corporate governance has no effect on
the relationship between company growth and acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
The results of this study do not support the sixth hypothesis which states that corporate
governance affects the relationship between company growth and acceptance of going-
concern audit opinion.

Discussion
Profitability ratios have a negative effect on going concern audit opinion. Which shows
that the greater the profitability ratio, the smaller the tendency for companies to get a going
concern audit opinion. profit growth or profit income by the company will avoid the company
getting going concern audit opinion, because with high profit shows that the company has good
performance in various aspects.
The leverage ratio has a positive effect on the going concern audit opinion. Which shows
that the higher the debt the company has, the more likely it is to get a going concern audit
opinion, a high leverage ratio will cause the company to focus more on using its capital to pay
obligations rather than to fund its company's operations. This causes the company's ability to
generate profits will be reduced so that it can threaten the company's survival. The high leverage
ratio also shows that the smaller the company's assets are funded by the owner so that the
company's risk is also greater. This can cause auditors to doubt the company's ability to continue
its business.
The ratio of company growth does not affect the going concern audit opinion. which
shows that company growth is proxied by sales growth does not always indicate that the profits
earned by the company also increased. An increase in operating expenses that is higher than an
increase in sales will result in a negative net profit and an impact on the company's retained
earnings balance. The results of this study indicate that the auditor does not consider the
company's sales growth in providing going concern audit opinion, because the increase in sales
is not necessarily followed by an increase in profits.
Corporate governance that strengthens the relationship between profitability and going-
concern audit opinion. This research is in line with the fourth hypothesis namely corporate
governance influences the relationship between profitability and going concern audit opinion.
which shows that the company has the awareness to implement good governance so as to get
high profits. With this, corporate governance is able to strengthen the relationship between
profitability and going-concern audit opinion. so it can be concluded that corporate governance is
able to moderate the profitability of going concern audit opinion. Corporate governance that
strengthens the relationship between leverage and going-concern audit opinion. going concern
audit opinion. This research is in line with the fifth hypothesis that corporate governance
influences the relationship between leverage and going concern audit opinion. Which shows that
the company does not have the awareness to implement good governance, so the higher the
leverage, the higher the company gets a going concern audit opinion. So it can be concluded that
corporate governance is able to moderate the leverage between going concern audit opinion.
Corporate governance cannot strengthen the relationship between company growth and
going-concern audit opinion. This research is not in line with the sixth hypothesis that corporate
governance influences the relationship between company growth and going concern audit
opinion. Which shows that if the company is able to implement good governance, the company
can increase sales growth and be able to reduce the increase of expenses / high growth in
operational costs so that it can generate positive net profits. Therefore the company does not get
a going concern audit opinion. With this concluded that corporate governance is not able to
moderate the growth of the company against going concern audit opinion.

V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

282
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

Profitability has a negative effect on going concern audit opinion. This shows that the
greater the value of a company's profitability ratio, the greater the company's ability to generate
profits so as not to cause auditors doubts about the company's ability to continue its business.
Leverage has a positive effect on going concern audit opinion. which shows that leverage is
positively related to giving going-concern audit opinion. A high leverage ratio indicates that the
smaller the assets of the company funded by the owner, the greater the risk of the company. This
can cause auditors to doubt the company's ability to continue its business.
Company growth has no effect on going concern audit opinion. The results of this study
indicate that the growth of a company that is proxied by sales growth does not always indicate
that the profits of the company also increase. An increase in operating expenses that is higher
than an increase in sales will result in a negative net profit and an impact on the company's
retained earnings balance. The results of this study indicate that the auditor does not consider the
company's sales growth in providing going concern audit opinion, because the increase in sales
is not necessarily followed by an increase in profits.
Corporate governance in this study is able to moderate the relationship between profitability
and going-concern audit opinion reception. Shows that the company has the awareness to
implement good governance so that it gets high profits. With this, corporate governance is able to
strengthen the relationship between profitability and going-concern audit opinion.
Corporate governance in this study is able to moderate the relationship between leverage
and acceptance of going concern audit opinion. Indicates that the company does not have the
awareness to implement good governance, so the higher the leverage, the higher the company
gets a going concern audit opinion.
Corporate governance in this study is not able to moderate the relationship between
company growth and acceptance of going concern audit opinion. Showing that if the company is
able to implement good governance, the company can increase sales growth and be able to
reduce the increase in expenses / high growth in operating costs so that it can generate positive
net profits. Therefore the company does not get a going concern audit opinion.

RECOMMENDATIONS
For companies, it is recommended to further improve its overall performance in all aspects
so that it can make it easier for investors to choose which stocks are in accordance with their
perceptions.
For investors and potential investors, it is suggested that those who want to invest should
look and analyze in advance in choosing a company by considering Return on Assets (ROA),
because in this study the ratio has a significant effect on stock prices

REFFERENCES

Adikusuma, W., Perwitasari, D.A., Supadmi, W. 2014. Evaluasi kualitas hidup pasien diabetes
melitus tipe 2 Rumah Sakit Umum PKU Muhammadiyah Bantul. Dalam Mae Sri Hartati (Ed.),
Prosding simposium nasional “Peluang dan tantangan obat tradisional dalam pelayanan
kesehatanformal”. Yogyakarta: Bagian Farmakologi dan Terapi FK UGM.
Ardika Dan Ekayani. 2012. Analisis Faktor Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Kecenderungan
Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di
BEI Periode 2007-2011
Arens, A. A., Elder, R.j., dan Beasley, M. S. 2009. Auditing and Assurance Service: An Integreted
Approach (14thed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Aryantika, Putrid and Rasmini, Ketut. 2015. Profitabilitas, Leverage, Prior Opinion dan Kompetisi
Auditor Going concern. E-Jurnal Akuntansi, Volume 11, Nomer 2, Halaman 414-425. Jurusan
Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Udayana.
Badera dan Rudyawan. 2009. “Opini Audit Going Concern: Kajian Berdasarkan Model Prediksi
Kebangkrutan, Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Leverage, dan Reputasi Auditor”. Jurnal Akuntansi
dan Bisnis,Vol.4.No.2,2009.
Bambang Riyanto. 1997, Dasar-dasar Pembelanjaan Perusahaan, Edisi 4. BPFE, Yogyakarta.

283
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

Behn, Bruce K., Steven E. Kaplan, and Kip R. Krumwiede. 2001. Further Evidence on the
Auditor’s Going-Concern Report: The Influence of Management Plans. Auditing: A Journal of
Practice & Theory. Vol. 20, No.1: 13-18.
Boediono, Gideon SB. 2005. Kualitas Laba: Studi Pengaruh Mekanisme Corporate Governance
dan Dampak Manajemen Laba Dengan Menggunakan Analisis Jalur. Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi VIII. Solo.
Blay, Allen D. and Marshall A. Geiger. 2001. Market Expectation for First Time Going-Concern
Recipients. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance. Vol. 16, No. 3: 209-226.
Carcello, Joseph V., and Terry L. Neal. 2000. Audit Committee Composition and Auditor
Reporting. Available at ttp://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=229835. (accessed 5
November 2010).
Chen, R. R., Lin, H. C., dan long, M. 2012. The Deferred Default Problem of Myopic Going
Concern Practice.
Chen, Kevin C. W., and Bryan K. Church. 1992. Default on Debt Obligations and the Issuance of
Opini Going-Concern Opinions. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory. Vol. 11, No. 2: 30-
49.
Clarkson, Peter M., and Dan A. Simunic. 1994. The Association between Audit Quality, Retained
Ownership, and Firm-Specific Risk in U.S. vs. Canadian IPO Markets. Journal of Accounting
and Economics. Vol. 17: 207-228.
Darmawati, dkk. 2004. Hubungan Corporate Governance dan Kinerja Perusahaan. Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi VII 2-3 Desember. Denpasar
Dewayanto, Totok. 2011. Menganalisis Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan, Ukuran Perusahaan
OPini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Auditor client Tenure, Opinion Shopping dan Kualitas
Auditor Terhadap Probabilitas Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern. Fokus Ekonomi Vol. 6
No 1 Pg 81-104.
Dewi, Salpiana. 2014. Pengaruh Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan, Reputasi Auditor, Opini Audit
Tahun Sebelumnya, dan Audit lag Terhadap Pengungkapan opini Audit Going Concern.
Jurnal Riset Akuntansi. Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Udayana.
Eisenhardt, Kathleem. 1989. Agency Theory: An Assesment and Review. Academy of
Management Review, 14. Hal 57-74.
Fanny, Margareta dan Sylvia, Saputra. 2005. Hubungan Antara Model Prediksi, Kebangrutan
Pertumbuhan Perusahaan dan Reputasi Kantor Akuntan Publik (KAP) Terhadap Penerimaan
Opini Audit Going Concern. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi VIII. Malang.
Geiger, Marshall A. and K. Raghunandan. 2002. Going-Concern Opinions in the “New” Legal
Environment. Accounting Horizons. Vol. 16, No. 1: 17-26.
Geiger, Marshall A. and Dasaratha V. Rama. 2006. Audit Firm Size and Going Concern
Reporting Accuracy. Accounting Horizons. Vol. 20, No.1: 1-17.
Ghozali, Imam. 2016. Aplikasi Analisis Multiviriate Dengan Program IMB SPSS 23 Semarang:
Badan Penerbit UNDIP.
Gujarati, D. N. 2007. Basic Econometrics (4thed). New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Gunawan, Sumodiningrat. 2007. Kajian Ringkas Tentang Pembangunan Manusia Indonesia.
Jakarta: Kompas
Handayani, Surya, dan Budhiartha, Ketut. 2015. Pengaruh Size, Profitabilitas, Loan To Deposito
Ratio, Dan Kecukupan Modal Terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern. E-jurnal Akuntansi,
Volume 11, Nomer 3, Halaman 771-787. Jurusan Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis
Universaitas Udayana.
Hanafi, Mamduh M. dan Abdul Halim, 2014, Analisis Laporan Keuangan., Edisi tujuh., UPP AMP
YKPN, Yogyakarta.
Jensen, Michael C. dan Meckling. William H., 1976, “Thery of The Firm: Managerial Behavior,
Agency Cost, and Ownership Structure”, Jurnal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4,
October pp. 305-360.
Junaidi, dan Hartono, J. 2010. Faktor Non keuangan Pada Opini Going Concern. Simposium
National Akuntansi XIII, hal. 1-23.
Jogiyanto, H.M. 2010. Teori Portofolio dan Analisis Investasi. Edisi Ketujuh. BPFE. Yogyakarta.
Kasmir. 2012. Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Jakarta: PT. Rajawali Pers.
Kaihatu, T. S. 2006. Good Corporate Governance dan Penerapannya di Indonesia. Jurnal
Manajemen dan Kewirausahaan, Vol. 8, No.1 : 1-9, Maret.
Keown, A.J. 2004, Manajemen Keuangan, Terjemahan Haryandini, edisi 9, indeks, Jakarta.

284
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

Klapper, L., dan Love. 2002. Corporate Governance, Investor Protection and Performance in
Emerging Markets. World Bank Working Paper, hal. 23-64.
Kuntara, Podra. 2014. Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi Kecendrungan Penerimaan Opini Audit
Going Concern. Skripsi Akuntansi. Jurusan Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas
Muhamadiyah, Surakarta.
Koh Hian Chye, dan Tan Sen Suan. 1999. “ A Neural Network Approach to The Prediction of
Going Concern Status”.
Krissindiastuti, dan Rasmini. 2016 Faktor-Faktor Yang Mempengaruhi Opini Audit Going Concern
Kristiana, Ira. 2012. Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Profitabilitas, Likuiditas, Pertumbuhan
Perusahaan Terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern.
Komalasari, Agrianti. 2004. Analisis Pengaruh Kualitas Auditor dan Proxy Going Concern
terhadap Opini Auditor. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan. Vol. 9, No. 2: 1-15.
LaSalle, Randal E. dan Anandarajan, asokan. 1996. Auditor View on The Type of Audit Report
Issued to Entities with Going Concern Uncertainties. Accounting Horizons, Vol 10. Juni. pp
51-72.
Levitt, A. 1998. The Importance of High Quality Accounting Standards. Accounting Horizons. Vol.
12, No. 1, pp. 79-82.
L.M, Samryn. 2002. Akuntansi manajemen suatu pengantar, edisi 1 jakarta : Raja Grafindo
Persada.
Louwers, Timothy J. 1998. The Relation between Going-Concern Opinions and the Auditor’s Loss
Function. Journal of Accounting Research. Vol. 36, No.1: 143-156.
Lusiana, Lia Metrika. 2014. Pengaruh Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Laverage, Pertumbuhan
Perusahaan, dan Ukuran PerusahaanPada Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern. Skripsi.
Fakultas Universitas Mahasaraswati Denpasar.
Mahantara. A.A. Gd. Widya. 2010. Analisis Pengaruh Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Laverage,
Opinion Shopping dan Auditor Client Tenure Pada Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern.
Skripsi. Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Udayana.
Masyitoh, Oni Currie and Desi Adhariani. 2010. The Analysis of Determinants of Going concern
Audit Report. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing. Vol. 6, No.4: 26-37.
Mayangsari, Sekar. 2003. Analisis Pengaruh Independensi, Kualitas Audit, Serta Mekanisme
Corporate Governance Terhadap Integritas Laporan Keuangan. Symposium Nasional
Akuntansi VI. Oktober
Mudrajad Kuncoro. 2004. Metode Kuantitatif : Teori dan Aplikasi untuk Bisnis dan Ekonomi.
Yogyakarta : UPP AMP YKPN.
Mulyadi, 2002. Auditing. Buku 1. Yogyakarta: Salemba Empat.
Munawir S. 2002. Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Yogyakarta: Liberty
Mutchler, Jane F. 1984. Auditors’ Perception of The Going-Concern Opinion Decision. Auditing: A
Journal of Practice and Theory. Vol. 3, No. 2: 17-30.
Natalia, P. 2012. Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengungkapan Corporate
Governance Pada Laporan Tahunan (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar dalam
LQ-45 Bursa Efek Indonesia) (Skripsi, Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis).
Rahman, A. dan Siregar, B. 2012. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kecendrungan Penerimaan
Opini Audit Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XV, hal. 1-37.
Rahman, Abdul Siregar. 2011. Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kecendrungan Penerimaan
Opini Audit Going Concern. Pusat Data Ekonomi Dan Bisnis. Vol. 15.
Ratna Sari dan Wahyuni. 2013 Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Likuiditas
Dan Solvabilitas Terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang
Terdaftar Di Bei Periode 2011-2013
Rudyawan, A. P. dan Bandera, I. D. N. 2009. Opini Audit Going concern: Kajian Berdasarkan
Model Prediksi Kebangkrutan, Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Leverage, dan Reputasi Auditor.
Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi dan Bisnis, 4 (2) hal. 1-17.
Sentosa, Arga Fajar dan Linda K. Wedari. 2007. Analisis Faktor yang Mempengaruhi
Kecendrungan Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern. Jurnal Akuntansi, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.
141-158.
Sari, R. M. dan Soetikno, Idjang. 2012. Analisis Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Auditor Dalam
Memberikan Opini Going concern (Studi pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar di

285
 IJSEGCE
VOL 2, No.3 November 2019
ISSN: 2656- 3037
http://www.journals.segce.com/index.php/IJSEGCE
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1234/ijsegce.v2i3.118

Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2003-2009). Skripsi Akuntansi. Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas
Diponegoro Semarang.
Samantha, Gloria. 2012. Era Digital, Kepustakawanan Harus Berubah.
http://nationalgeographic.co.id/berita/2012/09/era-digital kepustakawanan harussiap-berubah
akses 16 April 2014
Sartono, Agus. 2001. Manajemen Keuangan Teori dan Aplikasi. Edisi Empat. Yogyakarta.
Sawir, Agnes. 2004. Analisis Kinerja Keuangan dan Perencanaan Keuangan Perusahaan.
Jakarta : PT. Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Setyarno, Eko Budi. 2006. Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan, OPini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya,
Variabel Kualitas Audit dan Pertumbuhan Perusahaan Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit
Going Concern. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IX. Padang.
Suhardjanto, D. dan Afni, A.N. (2009). Praktik Corporate Social Disclosure Di Indonesia. Jurnal
Akuntansi. Vol 8.
Sugiyono, 2013, Metodelogi Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif Dan R&D. (Bandung: Alfabeta)
Sugiyono. 2014. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Sugiyono. 2014. Metode Penelitian Bisnis. Bandung: alfabeta.
Sugiyono. 2015. Metode Penelitian Kombinasi (Mix Methods). Bandung: Alfabeta.
Susanto, Y. K. 2009. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern
Pada Perusahaan Publik sektor Manufaktur. Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi, 11 (3), hal. 155-
173.
Utami dan Abriandi. 2018. Pengaruh Kondisi Financial Distress Terhadap Penerimaan Opini
Audit Going Concern Dengan Good Corporate Governance Sebagai Variabel Pemoderasi.
Putranto, Panji. 2018. Faktor-faktor yang Berdampak pada Penerimaan Opini Audit Going
Concern.
Pertiwi, Tri Kartika Dan Ferry Medi Ika Pratama. 2012. Pengaruh kinerja keuangan good
corporate governance terhadap nilai perusahaan food and beverage. Jurnal manajemen dan
kewirausahaan, Vo.14, No.2, September 2012 : 118-127.
Venuti, E.K 2007. The Going Concern Assumption Revisited Assesing a Company’s Future
Viability. The CPA Journal, 74(5), 40-43.
Wardana, A.A. Ngurah Gd. Surya. 2011. Analisis Pengaruh Pertumbuhan Perusahaan, Laverage,
Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern Tahun Sebelumnya, dan Auditor Client Tenure pada
Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern. Skripsi. Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Udayana.
Weston J. Fred dan Thomas E. Copeland. 1992. Manajemen Keuangan Jilid II. Terjemahan
Yohanes Lamarto. Erlangga. Jakarta.
Widyantari, Ayu Putri. 2011. Opini Audit Going Concern dan Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi :
Studi Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Dibursa Efek Indonesia. Tesis. Fakultas Ekonomi
universitas Udayana.

286