INTRODUCTION
A
phenomenon linked to the mistake from auditor when giving audits opinions still
often occurs, not only in Indonesia but also in developed countries like USA, which had experienced this. The cases that occurred
were auditors did not provide going concern audit opinion to companies whose
conditions did not allow to continue their business.
Kantor Akuntan Publik (KAP) Satrio, Bing, Eny, and
Partners had neglected the principles of prudence in auditing their clients.
This public accounting firm provided fair opinion without exceptions in the audits
results toward annual financial reports of PT. SNP Finance. In fact, the
inspection results by Otoritas Jasa keuangan (OJK) indicated that PT.SNP
Finance presented financials reports that did not in accordance with the actual
financial conditions which were causing significant loss of many parties
including banking.
This case involved a public accountant
that audited PT. SNP. Considering that the issues occurred in SNP's financial
statements should had been found in the previous audit conducted by this public
accountant since the actual condition of the company was not reflected by the
opinions from the incident. Secondly, the mistake that occurred when providing
opinion impact to the wrong decision by the concerned parties which lead to
business loss. Besides that, it also resulted decrement of public trust toward
the financial services sector due to the quality of the presented financial
reports that have been audited by a public accountant.
Meanwhile, it was the auditor�s
responsibility to evaluate whether the company could survive the going concern (Arens et
al., 2015), revealed several
examples of factors affecting uncertainty about the ability of company to
continue running its business, namely:
1) Recurrent and significant loss of operation
or lack of working capital
2) The company's inability to pay its
obligations when due.
3) Losing a major
customer, occurring a disaster that is not covered by insurance such as an
earthquake or flood, or unusual employment problems.
4) Law court, or other similar things that
have occurred and could jeopardize the ability of the entity to operate.
Following these situations, not beyond one year
from the date, the auditor ought to think about the likelihood
that the company will not be able to advance
its operations nor meet its
obligations as
regards the audited financial statements.
A major guide for decision making is the
auditor's opinion which is is a source of information for parties outside the
company. Furthermore, he must be brave enough to tackle problems of going
concern and must also be responsible for the issued audit opinion, since it
affects the decisions of the users of the financial statements.
Going concern problems can be prevented
and overcome with good corporate governance which requires a thorough mechanism. Furthermore, this mechanism works to ensure that the company's management runs
according to what is proposed
or the direction of the policies that has been ascertained. Code (1992)
defined corporate governance as follows:
"Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and
controlled".
Research regarding going concern audit opinion has often
been conducted, but it has proved different results. Referring to previous
studies which conducted by (Eduk & Nugraeni, 2017; Kristanto & Sihombing, 2014; Parker et
al., 2005)
proved that the independent
commissioner has a significant effect on going concern audit opinion. Varied results were given by the study
research conducted by
Adjani & Rahardja, Iskandar et al, (Untari & Santosa, 2017), in
2013, 2011, and 2017 respectively. The
conclusion was that the independent commissioner had no
effect on going concern audit opinion.
Carcello and Neal (2000)
and Rabiah (2015), proved that the audit committee has
a significant effect on the going concern audit opinion, however the research
conducted by (Byusi & Achyani, 2018; Chandra, 2013; Sulistya & Sukartha, 2013)
showed different results, implying
that the audit had no effect.
Similar research by Bronson et al. (2009); Gallizo and Saladrigues (2016); Jamaluddin, (2018);
Ramadhany (2004) and Santosa and Wedari (2007)
provided evidence that financial
distress has a significant effect on the going concern audit opinion. Yet,
research conducted by Difa and Suryono (2015); Lestari and Prayogi (2017); Werastuti (2013)
showed different results, that
Financial Distress has no effect.
Melania et al. (2019), Mutchler et al. (1997), Nurpratiwi and Rahardjo (2014) and� Vermeer et al. (2013)
proved that the going concern opinion was affected significantly and negatively
by firm size. Similar research was conducted by (Suksesi & Lastanti, 2016), (Kristiana, 2012) and (Wibisono, 2013)
but showed different results.
Sourced from the background of the issues that are
described then the formulation of the issues this research is : Does the
proportion of independent commissioners affect the acceptance of the going
concern audit opinion?, Does the audit committee affect the acceptance of the
going concern audit opinion?, Does financial distress affect the acceptance of
the going concern audit opinion?, Does the size of the company moderate the
effect of the proportion of independent commissioners on the acceptance of the
going concern audit opinion?, Does the size of the company moderate the
influence of the audit committee on the acceptance of the going concern audit
opinion?, Does the size of the company moderate the effect of financial
distress on the acceptance of the going concern audit opinion?
Based on the background of the problem, and the
formulation of the problem, the expected research benefits are: can contribute
to the development of theory in Indonesia academically, especially related to
the going concern audit opinion. in addition, it is expected to be used as a
basis for input and consideration by auditors in considering the provision of
going concern opinions, especially in assessing the financial condition of the
company, as well as the extent to which financial distress and
Corporategovernance affect the provision of going concern audit opinions.�
This research uses stakeholder theory to explain the
existence of a company is strongly influenced by the support provided by
stakeholders to the company because with the involvement of stakeholders, the
company can survive in running its business. The basic premise of stakeholder
theory is that the stronger the corporate relationship, the better the
corporate business.
Ghozali and Chariri (2014)
stated that in Stakeholder Theory, a company is an entity that also provides
benefits for stakeholders rather than only operating for its interest.
Conversely, the
stakeholders provide support and involvement to the company which influences
the existence and going concern of the company, thus ensuring its survival in
business.
The Stakeholder theory is a strategic
management concept to strengthen relationships of corporations with external
groups to develop a competitive advantage. The stronger the corporate
relationship, the better the corporate business will be and vice versa.
Reliable financial reports can be used as
a signal for stakeholders to consider making economic decisions. Purbawati (2016)
stated that one of the important aspects of
stakeholder assessment is through the financial statements of the auditor's
assessment. The diversity of opinions types given by the auditors will have
different impacts on company value in the eyes of stakeholders.
Messier et al., (2016)
stated that the audit report typically will express an unqualified opinion but
will include an emphasis off a paragraph to emphasize the auditor's doubt about
the entity's ability to continue as a going concern". Arens et al. (2015)
have a similar opinion indicating that the going concern audit opinion is
unqualified, and which includes a paragraph that stresses on the existence of a
material uncertainty connecting to episodes or states that could affect the
entity's ability to maintain its going concern by causing notable uncertainty.
It is the auditor's responsibility to
assess the entity's ability to survive beyond reasonable doubt and to identify
information about certain conditions that indicate major doubts about the
entity's ability to sustain within a reasonable period (which is not more than
one year from the date of the financial statements that being audited referred
to as an appropriate period) regarding PSA No. 30 (IAI, 2011: 341.6) section
341. The
following are instances of
these conditions and events:
1) Negative tendencies such
as recurring operating losses, inadequate working
capital, negative cash flow from business operations,
below
par essential financial ratios.
2) Other clues about possible financial
difficulties, such as failure to meet debt obligations or similar agreements,
delinquency in dividend payments, refusal by suppliers to submit ordinary
credit purchase requests, debt restructuring, the need to seek new sources of
funding methods, or partial sales size of assets.
3) Internal issues,
such as strikes or other labor relations troubles,
heavy dependence on the achievements
of a
specific project, non-economic
long-term commitments, the requirement
to notably improve operations.
4)
External
issues occurred, such as, complaints from court
proceedings, enacting
laws or other matters that are likely to harm the
ability of the entity to perform,
loss of relevant franchises, licenses or patents, loss of major customers or
suppliers, losses due to major disasters, such as drought, flood,
earthquakes which
are not insured or insured, but with inadequate coverage.
Obtaining sufficient audit evidence regarding the
appropriate use of assumptions and business continuity by management through
the preparation and presentation of financial reports are the responsibilities
of the auditor. It also functions by concluding the presence of material
uncertainty about the entity's ability to maintain business continuity.
According to Otoritas Jasa Keuangan in 2014, the member of
the Commissioner board emerging outside the Issuer or Public Company and
fulfilling the necessary conditions is an Independent Commissioner. The Board
of Commissioners carry out a very crucial part in the company particularly in
the execution of Forum for Corporate Governance as backed by the Forum for
Corporate Governance in Indonesia (FCGI, 2002). According to
Anthony et al. in 2014, "The supervisory board has a lot of importance to
the strategy of the Group". Rusdiyanto & Elan, in 2019, believes that
the board of commissioners is responsible for supervising and providing advice
to the board of directors. Furthermore, it is an oversight mechanism to provide
guidance and direction to the management of the company.
It is the responsibility of the board commissioner to
maintain the long term continuity of the business. The satisfactory execution
of internal control and risk management, attainment of ideal returns for
shareholders shares, equitable preservation of the interests of stakeholders,
and application of a logical sequence of leadership for the sake of management
progression in all aspects of the organization are insights of this
responsibility (KNKG, 2006).
According to Kristanto & Sihombing in 2014, the
independent commissioners and the receipt of going concern audit opinion have a negative correlation. The
bigger the independent commissioners, the higher the supervision of management
performance in managing the company to increase the value and competitiveness
company. Thus, decreasing the possibility of accepting the going concern audit
opinions. This study�s hypothesis is prepared
as follows:
H1:
The receipt of going-concern audit opinion is negatively and notably affected by the independent
commissioners.
According to Otoritas Jasa Keuangan in 2015, �the Audit
Committee is a committee responsible for carrying out the duties and functions
of the Board Commissioner�. It comprises of a minimum of three members from
independent commissioners, and other members outside the issuer or public
company. Anthony et al in 2014, argued that "the audit committee reviewed
the interim and final financial statement of the company, beforethey were
submitted to the supervisoryboard, alsoexamined financialdisclosuresrelease at
the end of the period". According to Rusdiyanto & Elan in 2019, shared
the opinion that �the audit committee is in charge of assisting the board of
commissioners to ensure that financial reports are presented fairly by
generally accepted accounting principles�. Basically, the audit committee has
the role on providing an insight into accounting problems, financial reports
and their explanations.
In FCGI (2002)
it is stated that the Committee Audit has responsibilities in three areas,
which include examination, and evaluation regarding the sufficiency and
productivity of the internal control system, checking that the financial
reports created by management have provided an accurate depiction of
the financial condition, as well as the management of the company according to
the applicable laws and regulations.
An independent committee audit has a notable effect on
going concern audit opinion as verified by the research conducted by (Carcello & Neal, 2000) and (Rabiah, 2015), an independent
audit committee can help reduce management pressure to get an fairly opinion
without exception (unqualified) when the auditor feels right to issue going
concern audit opinion. Therefore, this study shows that the larger the audit
committee will reduce the possibility of receiving a going concern audit
opinion. The study hypothesis is prepared as follows:
H2:
The audit committee has a negative and significant effect on going concern
audit opinion acceptance
According to Fahmi (2012), "Financial
Distress is a stage of deteriorating financial conditions prior to bankruptcy
or liquidation". According to Hanafi and Halim (2016), Financial
Distress can be described from two extreme points, namely short-term to
insolvable liquidity difficulties. From this definition, it can be interpreted
that, Financial Distress or difficulties is the condition of a company in
trouble, crisis or unhealthy conditions that occurred before bankruptcy. This
occurs when the company fails or is no longer able to fulfill obligations and
the debts due to experiencing shortages and insufficient funds to run or
continue the business again.
One way to
predict financial distress to bankruptcy is the Altman's Z-score. Altman in
1968 conducted a study to find a bankruptcy prediction model called Multiple
Discriminant Analysis (MDA) (Altman et al., 2019). This analyst
combines several financial ratios into one model which is used to measure the
health level of a company which consists of five ratios called the Z score.
According to Fahmi (2012), "the bankruptcy prediction
model that is considered popular and widely used in various studies is the
Altman Z-score model". This means that this model is well known and is
often used by researchers to predict the financial condition of a company.
Altman builds a model (Z-Score) for all industries, manufactures and
non-manufacturers. In 1995, this model is known as the Modified Altman model.
In connection with the Z-Score formula, Altman eliminates the X5 variable
(sales / total assets), X5 in non-manufacturing companies is eliminated because
asset turnover in non-manufacturing companies has no significant effect
compared to manufacturing companies.
Ramadhany (2004)
revealed that if the Z-score count is getting smaller, which signfies that the company is in a worsening financial situation or is sick and even has the probability to go bankrupt, then the
possibility of the company acquiring
going concern opinion is becoming
bigger. Sriati (2012) stated that
the bankruptcy discriminant model which is incorporated in a multivariate
analysis where the independent variables of this discriminant model are
acquired from the company's balance sheet and profit loss statement is an advantage of this z-score analysis.
The
auditors tend to sanction
a going concern audit opinion for companies whose financial condition is not
good, (Carcello & Neal, 2000). This reflects
that the company has the chance to get the going concern audit opinion from the
auditors when there is financial upset or strain at the company because the
company has doubts about its business continuity. Therefore, the study
hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H3:
Financial strain
has a pessimistic and notable effect on going concern audit opinion acceptance.
According
to Murdoko Sudarmadji & Sularto in 2007, The Firm size can be determined
and expressed in terms of total assets, sales, and market capitalization.
Furthermore, an increase in these three variables indicates an increase in the
size of the firm because they can represent the firm size.
In
this study, total assets were measured using natural logarithms. It is also
chosen as a proxy for Firm size considering that the asset value is relatively
more stable than the market capitalized value and sales are strongly influenced
by supply and demand.
Large firms have greater attention from investors,
creditors and the public, so they required more capable supervision and
coordination within the firm to protect the interests of shareholders and
convince investors to entrust their investment to the firm, therefore it should
also be counterpoised with the size of the independent board of commissioners
and audit committee that in charge of this matter. Similar research by (Waluyo, 2017), which proved that "The larger the
size of a firm, the better the reporting information system and the more it can
generate various financial information and other information needed by
investors". In conclusion, the larger the size of a Firm, the more it will
pay attention to good corporate governance to protect the interests of
stakeholders, one of which is by presenting proper financial reports in
accordance with generally applied accounting principles which are the duties of
the audit committee in supporting the board of commissioners.
The
study results Suryati (2020) proved firms that implement good
corporate governance and including large firms will ensure high quality of
earnings. Thus, high quality of earnings will reduce the possibility of
receiving a going concern audit opinion. Based on this, the researcher used
firm size as a moderating variable. The study hypothesis is formulated as
follows:
H4: Firm size moderates the effect of
independent commissioners on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion
H5: Firm size
moderates the effect of the audit committee on the acceptance of going-concern
audit opinion
Researchers used Firm
size as a moderating variable, considering the statement Mutchler et al. (1997)
which revealed that going concern audit opinions are more often issued in small
firms because auditors believe that financial difficulties can be resolved in
large firms rather than in the small firm. This means that the size of firm is
able to strengthen or weaken the influence of financial distress on the
acceptance of going concern audit opinion, this is in line with the statement
in Standard on Auditing (SA) 570 (IAPI, 2014), that the size of an entity
might affect its ability to pass through difficult conditions. So, the study
hypothesis is formulated as follows:
H6:
Firm size moderates the effect of Financial Distress on the acceptance of
going-concern audit opinion
METHOD
The populations
of this research include
mining companies registered
on the IDX
in 2014-2019. There were 192 companies as samples, and they were determined
using the purposive sampling method. The data used were secondary data
collected of the annual financial reports of mining companies, accessed and
downloaded through the official website www.idx.co.id.
In the guidelines based on NUMBER 33/POJK/2014, the
minimum number of Independent Commissioners is 30% of all members of the board
of commissioners which can be calculated by calculating the percentage of
members of the independent board of commissioners of all members of the board
of commissioners.
In the guidelines for the establishment of an effective
audit committee, there should be at least three members. And based on circular
letter NUMBER 55 /POJK.04/2015, the Audit Committee consists of at least three
members from Independent Commissioners and Parties from outside the Issuer.
Therefore the audit committee is measured by studying at the number of members
in the audit committee.
This research uses the Altman Z-score model in measuring
financial distress which is the third suitable for all industries, because the
sample in this study is a mining sector company (non-manufacturing) (Altman et
al., 2019). The Z-Score value developed by Altman, namely: Z = 6.56 X1 + 3.26
X2 + 6.72 X3 + 1.05 X4
Information:
Xl
= (current assets - current liabilities) / total assets
X2
= retained earnings / total assets
X3
= Earnings before interest and taxes / Total Assets
X4
= Book value of equity / total book value of debt
Z
= Z-Score Value
The
cut-off value is Z <1.1 companies are categorized as bankrupt, 1.1
<Z-Score <2.6 companies are in the gray area (gray area or zone of
ignorance) or vulnerable areas, and Z> 2.6 companies. not bankrupt.
Similar research
by Hadi and Anggraeni (2008)
concluded that the Altman prediction model is the best among the three
predictors analyzed. They include the Altman Z-score model, the Zmijewski model
and the Springate model.
Research Damayanti et al. (2019)
proved that the Altman Z-Score Model is
more accurate in predicting bankruptcy in the period before bankruptcy when
compared to the Zmijewski model, with an accuracy rate of 86% in the one year
period before the company is released from the stock exchange and 100% in
period two the year before the company was released from the exchange. Research
Purwanti (2016)
concluded that the Z Score Altman model is a more appropriate model to be used
in predicting bankruptcy.
In this research, Firm size is employed as a moderating
variable. Furthermore, it is estimated by the natural logarithm (Ln) of the
firm's total assets. Natural logarithms are used to simplify the nominal
numbers in the data. By using natural logarithms, the value of billions and
even trillions is simplified, without changing the proportion of the original
value
The study data was analyzed using Logistic regression
analysis (by E-views 9 program) because the dependent variable is dichotomous
(companies that get a going concern audit opinion and companies that do not get
an audit opinion). going concern), (Sekaran & Bougie, 2017).
The Hosmer and Lemeshow's Goodness of Fit Test was adopted to ascertain the practicality of the regression model, and this test is adopted to
evaluate the
null hypothesis showing that the empirical data is by the model (the model can
be said to be fit since there
is no difference between the model and the data). The null hypothesis cannot be
rejected if the statistical value of the Host and Lemeshow's Goodness of Fit
Test is higher than 0.05, because
the model can forecast the value of its observations. As it complements the
observation data,� it can be said that
the model is satisfactory
(Ghozali, 2016).
To test the overall model (overall model fit). The
logistic regression model is assessed using LR statistics or probability LR
statistics, this test is similar to the F test in multiple linear regression
analysis, (Wati, 2018). The LR test can
be done by comparing prob (LR Statistics) from a significance test level of
0.05, if prob (LR Statistics) <0.05 then H0 is rejected, which means that
all explanatory variables simultaneously (jointly) affect the dependent
variable.
The effect of each independent variable on the dependent was ascertained by testing
with the logistic regression model used in this research. Hypothesis testing
can be done by comparing the probability value against α, if the
probability value <0.05, then H0 is rejected, which indicates that the
independent variable affects the dependent variable, whereas H0 is accepted if the probability value is greater than 0.05, and
this indicates that the independent variable has no effect on the dependent variabl
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Presentation
of a descriptive
analysis is arranged to supply information about the attributes of the research variables.
The results of descriptive statistical analysis of each variable with Eviews
are as follows.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistical
Analysis
|
|
Independent Commissioner
|
Audit Committee
|
Finansial Distress
|
Total assets
|
Audit opinion
|
|
Mean
|
0,41
|
3,1
|
3,6
|
29,29
|
0,14
|
|
Maximum
|
0,75
|
5
|
28,37
|
32,26
|
1
|
|
Minimum
|
0,25
|
2
|
-5,02
|
24,77
|
0
|
|
Observations
|
192
|
192
|
192
|
192
|
192
|
�������������� Source: data processing eviews
2020
The
going conventional audit opinion variable showed that the minimum value was 0
and the maximum was 1, then the mean value was 0,14. The results of the
descriptive statistics showed an average value that is closer to the minimum.
The number of samples in this study were 192 companies, and those that received
going conventional audit opinion were 27 companies, and those who did not
accept going conventional audit opinion were 165 companies.
The
variable proportion of independent commissioners showed the average value
(mean) was 0,41, the minimum value was 0,25 and the maximum was 0,75, the
results of these descriptive statistics showed an average value that was closer
to the minimum value. Out of a total of 192 firms, 137 were close to the
minimum standard and only 55 were close to the maximum.
The
audit committee variable shows the minimum value was 2 and the maximum was 5,
then the average value (mean) was 3,1. Furthermore, the results of these
descriptive statistics indicated that on average the companies sampled have the
number of audit committee members at the minimum standard determined by the
OJK, namely consisting of at least 3 (three) members. Of the total 192
companies, 163 companies were close to the minimum standard and only 29
companies were close to the maximum value.
The
mean value of the Financial Distress variable was 3,6, the minimum value was
-5,02, and the maximum was 28,37, with an average value of 3,6 greater than 2,6
and it shows that the company was in good financial condition. based on the cut
point offaltmanz-score. Therefore, the average company sampled in this study is
in good financial condition or does not experience financial distress.
Therefore it can be interpreted that the companies that are sampled do not
accept going conventional audit opinion. Of the total 192 companies, 89 companies
are in good financial condition, 33 companies were in prone condition (Gray
Area) and 43 companies were in financial condition or bankruptcy.
The
minimum variable value of total asset as measured by total assets is 24,77, and
the maximum value is 32,26, then the mean value is 29,26. The results of the
descriptive statistics indicate that the average value is the highest value,
that is, the companies that are the research sample are more large companies. In
addition, the
fact that the sample companies have good possibilities for a relatively
extended period of time, so that few welcome going concern audit opinion are
further indications.
Out of a total of 192 firms, 91 firms calculated minimum value and 101 firms
served maximum value.
�The null hypothesis is accepted
since the Hosmer
and Lemeshow's test proved that a significant value of 0.7012
is
higher than the α value of 0.05. Therefore, the regression model is satisfactory for use in subsequent analysis because it can
predict observation value or simply, the model is suitable because it tallies with observational data.
Table 2
The Regression Model
Feasibility Test
|
Summary
|
|
Hosmer-Lemeshow
|
0,7012
|
Source:
data processing eviews 2020
The
testing results of the Prob Value (LR statistic) was 0,000 <0.05, the
hypothesis model agreed with the data can be the conclusion. The results can also be
used for testing simultaneously (together) the influence of the independent
variable on the dependent variable which implies that independent
commissioners, audit committee, and financial distress, have a significant
simultaneous effect on ongoing concern audit opinion.
Tabel
3
Overall
Model Test Results
|
Summary
|
|
Prob(LR statistic)
|
0,000
|
���������� Source: data processing reviews 2020
The
test results showed the value McFadden R-squared was 0,3386,
which means the dependent variable (going concern audit opinion) was 33.86% as explained or impacted by
the independent variable (independent commissioner, audit committee, financial
distress,). In comparison, the rest defined by other variables
outside research model was 66.14%.
Tabel 4
Koefisien Determinasi
|
Summary
|
|
McFadden R-squared
|
0,3386
|
���������� Source: data processing reviews 2020
The
results of statistical data processing in the table above showed that the
significance value for the independent commissioner variable was 0,3056. This value is greater than 0,05 which implies
that H1 was not supported/rejected. Therefore, an independent commissioner does
not affect the acceptance of going concern audit opinion. Furthermore, the
audit committee and the Financialdistress variables had significance values of 0,0502 and 0.033, respectively, which were smaller than 0,05
such that H2 and H3 were accepted. This means that the audit committee and
Financial distress had a significant effect on the acceptance of going concern
audit opinion.
The
interaction between the Independent Commissioner and the size of the company,
the significance value is 0,273, which is higher than 0.05, so that H4 is not
supported/ rejected, meaning that the size of the company does not moderate the
effect of the independent commissioner on the acceptance of going concern audit
opinion. The interaction between the Audit Committee and the size of the
company, the significance value is 0,0497, which is smaller than 0.05, so that
H5 is supported/ accepted, meaning that the size of the company moderates the
effect of the audit committee on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion.
the interaction between financial distress and company size, the significance
value is 0,0197, smaller than 0.05, so that H6 is supported/ accepted, meaning
that company size moderates the effect of financial distress on going concern
audit opinion acceptance.
Table
5
Logistic
Regression Analysis Test Results
|
Variable
|
Coefficient
|
Std. Error
|
z-Statistic
|
Prob.
|
|
independent
commissioner
|
51,16826
|
49,94138
|
1,024566
|
0,3056
|
|
audit
committee
|
-21,48226
|
10,97113
|
-1,958072
|
0,0502
|
|
Financial
Distress
|
5,643446
|
2,650751
|
2,128999
|
0,0333
|
|
Total
Asset
|
-1,059005
|
1,530006
|
-0,692158
|
0,4888
|
|
independent
commissioner *
Total
Asset
|
-1,921697
|
1,753125
|
-1,096155
|
0,273
|
|
audit
committee *
Total
Asset
|
0,745392
|
0,379833
|
1,96242
|
0,0497
|
|
Financial
Distress*
Total
Asset
|
-0,000217
|
9,32E-05
|
-2,331602
|
0,0197
|
|
C
|
31,5113
|
44,04246
|
0,715476
|
0,4743
|
�Source: data processing eviews 2020
The influence of independent commissioners towards going concern audit opinion, The hypothesis concluded that
independent commissioners do not affect the acceptance of going concern audit
opinion. This can be explained because the going concern audit opinion which
had been received was the responsibility of the company�s management that undertakes
business operations while the independent commissioners are only the party that
supervise the performance of the company�s management. Thus the going concern
opinion audit given by the auditor is irrelevant with independent commissioner
who has the duty to supervise the company.
Supported
by descriptive statistics, the findings of researchers in this case proved that
all the samples that had been studied, the proportion of independent
commissioner provided an average value that was close to the minimum value, or
according to the minimum standard that determined by OJK. Based on this,
researcher conclude that this is one of the causes, therefore the proportion of
independent commissioners will not affect the going concern audit opinion.
Similarly,
Adjani and Rahardja (2013), Iskandar et al. (2011), Untari and Santosa (2017), stated that independent
commissioners did not take effect on the going concern audit opinion
acceptance. Setiany et al. (2017) argued that the independent
board commissioner is limited to supervises, but does not improve behavior of
managers in manage finances companies, or increase the quality of earnings.
However,
similar studies conducted by Kristanto and Sihombing (2014), Eduk and Nugraeni (2017), and Parker et al. (2005) provided varied results,
namely that the commissioner independent variable has a notable effect on the going concern
audit opinion acceptance, since
the substantial proportion of independent commissioners lead to the higher
supervision and impact
of the independent commissioner on the management performance in controlling
the company, therefore the possibility of auditors to issue the going concern
audit opinion is getting smaller.
The
influence of the audit committee towards going concern audit opinion, The second hypothesis concludes that the audit committee
has a significant effect on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion
implying that a high number of audit committee members will reduce the probability
of accepting going concern audit opinion. The effect of the audit committee
will increase if the size is increased since it has more resources to deal with
problems encountered by the firm.
In the Forum for Corporate Governance in Indonesia (FCGI, 2002), the responsibility of the Audit Committee is
making sure that the financial reports which are generated by management
provide an actual overview of financial conditions, operations results, plans
and long-term commitments.
The audit committee responsible to support the
Board of Commissioners in carrying out its responsibilities. The function of
the audit committee is to improve the quality of financial reports as well as
the internal and external audit functions. Firms that have an audit committee
usually have more transparent and accountable business management, therefore
GCG principles can be applied properly (Linoputri & Achmad, 2010).
The presence of a firm is firmly impacted by
the support granted by stakeholders to the firm as explained by the stakeholderstheory,
therefore it affects the sustainability of firm (going concern), because with
the involvement of stakeholders, the firm is able to survive in its business.
This
is in line with the audit committee's responsibility in the Corporate
Governance, which is to assure that the firm has been operated under the
prevailing laws and regulations. This means that the responsibility is to
provide trust, transparency of the firm to stakeholders, in order to get
support in performing its business, so that the possibility to receive a going
concern opinion is getting smaller.
This is similar to Carcello and Neal (2000) and Rabiah (2015), which provided results that the audit committee
has a important effect towards going concern audit opinion, because the firm
that has a greater percentage of the independent audit committee will enhance
its supervision and generate the objectivity of financial reports. However,
similar research conducted by Sulistya and
Sukartha (2013), Chandra (2013), Byusi and Achyani (2018) provided different results, that the committee
has no effect towards going concern audit opinion .
The
influence of financial distress towards going concern audit opinion, The
third hypothesis concludes that financial distress has a significant effect on
the acceptance of going concern audit opinion. This indicates that when there
is financial upset or strain, since the company is doubtful of its business
continuity, there is the opportunity to receive a going concern audit opinion
from the auditor. This study supports the premise of Carcillo & Neal in
2000, which says companies when the financial condition of a company is not
good, the auditors lead to issue a going concern audit opinion.
In
line with the opinion Arens et al. (2015), and Messier et al. (2016) going concern audit opinion
is given because there are substantial doubts about the company's ability to
continue going concern, factors that can cause uncertainty regarding the
ability of the company to continue operate its business such as operational
loss or working capital shortage that is recurring and significant as well as
the inability of the company to pay its obligations.
Similar
research was conducted by (Ramadhany, 2004), (Jamaluddin, 2018), (Santosa & Wedari,
2007), (Bronson et al., 2009) and (Gallizo & Saladrigues,
2016), concluded that financial
distress affects. While, Nugroho et al in 2018, argued that when a company
experiences financial distress, it has the opportunity to get a going concern
audit opinion from the auditor since the business sustainability of the company
is doubtful.
However,
research conducted by (Lestari & Prayogi,
2017), (Werastuti, 2013) and (Difa & Suryono, 2015) concluded that financial
conditions using a bankruptcy prediction model Altman Z Score had no effect on
the going concern audit opinion.
The
influence of firm size moderate the effect of independent commissioners on
acceptance of going concern audit opinion, The test show that firm size did not
moderate the effect of independent commissioners on acceptance of going concern
audit opinion. Providing a going concern audit opinion on
the part of the auditor is not based on the firm size. Whether the firm size is
large or small, if it has good management and performance that can increase
value or profit, it will minimize the potential for auditors to present a going
concern audit opinion.
Independent commissioner is only the party who
supervises the firm's operational activities, the feasibility of achieving
targets and the feasibility of using the budget and does not have the authority
to utilize assets. Therefore, there is no relationship between going concern audit
opinion given by the auditor with the independent commissioner who has the duty
to supervise the firm, because the going concern audit opinion is the
responsibility of the firm management that carry out the firm's operations.
It can be
concluded, the reason of firm size does not moderate the effect of independent
commissioners towards going concern audit opinion due to firm size (total
assets), is the responsibility of the whole management not independent
commissioners.
The
research performed by (Sherly,
2015)
stated that firm size is unable to moderate the effect of the proportion of
independent commissioners on acceptance of going concern audit opinion which agrees with the results of this study.
Because, big or small firms do not have guarantee that they have an adequate
GCG mechanism to support the business sustainability.
The
influence of firm size moderates the
effect of the audit committee on the acceptance of going-concern audit opinion,
The test show that the size of the
firm influences the effect of the audit committee on the acceptance of
going-concern audit opinion. Furthermore, the greater the size of the firm
(total assets), the more the attention allocated to the control and supervision
of the firm's management to improve performance. This is to provide added value
to the firm so that it can survive in running its business and the reducing the
possibility of receiving a going concern audit opinion.
Large
firms have greater attention from investors, creditors and the public, so they
required more capable supervision and coordination within the firm to protect
the interests of shareholders and convince investors to entrust their
investment to the firm, therefore it should also be counterpoised with the size
of the independent board of commissioners and audit committee that in charge of
this matter. The results of the study (Suryati, 2020) proved firms with good corporate governance implementation and including large firms, will ensure high quality of
earnings. Thus, high quality of earnings will decrease the possibility of
receiving a going concern audit opinion.
Stakeholder
theory explains that the presence of a Firm is strongly affected by the support
provided by stakeholders to the firm. Therefore it affects the sustainability of
firm (going concern), because with the involvement of stakeholders, the firm is
able to survive in its business. This
is in line with the audit committee's responsibility in corporate governance,
namely to assure that the firm has been run under applicable laws and
regulations in maintaining business continuity. �������
Large
firms have greater attention from investors, creditors and the public, so they
required more capable supervision and coordination within the firm to protect
the interests of shareholders and convince investors to entrust their
investment to the firm, therefore it should also be counterpoised with the size
of the independent board of commissioners and audit committee that in charge of
this matter. Furthermore (Suryati, 2020) proved firms with good corporate governance and
including large firms will ensure high quality of earnings. Thus, high quality
of earnings will decrease the possibility of receiving a going concern audit
opinion.
The
influence of firm size moderate the effect of Financial Distress on acceptance of going concern audit opinion,
The test show that the size of the
firm� moderates the effect of financial
distress on going-concern audit opinion. The greater the firm's size, the more
it will help the firm solve financial problems; therefore, the firm can continue
its business and decrease the possibility of receiving a going concern audit
opinion.
Firms with high total assets indicate that the firm
has good prospects in a relatively long period of time. Therefore, it is
expected that the larger the firm, it will reduce the firm in receiving going concern
audit opinion.
Mutchler et al. (1997) revealed that going concern audit opinion is more
often issued for small firms because auditors believe that financial
difficulties in large firms can be resolved better than small firms. This means
that the size of the firm is able to strengthen or weaken the influence of
financial distress on the acceptance of going concern audit opinion, this is in
line with what is stated in the standard on auditing (SA) 570 (IAPI,
2014),
that the size of an entity can affect its ability to pass through difficult
conditions.
CONCLUSION
This research was conducted
with the aim to know the influence of corporate governance and financial
distress on the acceptance of audit opinion going concern with the size of the
company as a moderating variable, From the results of the research obtained, we
draw the following conclusions.
Independent commissioners do not affect the acceptance of
going concern audit opinion. This can be explained because the going concern
audit opinion which had been received was the responsibility of the company�s
management that undertakes business operations while the independent
commissioners are only the party that supervise the performance of the
company�s management.
Audit
committee has a significant effect on the acceptance of going concern audit
opinion implying that a high number of audit committee members will reduce the
probability of accepting going concern audit opinion. The effect of the audit
committee will increase if the size is increased since it has more resources to
deal with problems encountered by the firm.
Financial
distress has a significant effect on the acceptance of going concern audit
opinion. This indicates that when there is financial upset or strain, since the
company is doubtful of its business continuity, there is the opportunity to
receive a going concern audit opinion from the auditor. This study supports the
premise of Carcillo & Neal in 2000, which says companies when the financial
condition of a company is not good, the auditors lead to issue a going concern
audit opinion.
Firm
size did not moderate the effect of independent commissioners on acceptance of
going concern audit opinion. Providing a going concern audit opinion on the
part of the auditor is not based on the firm size. Whether the firm size is
large or small, if it has good management and performance that can increase
value or profit, it will minimize the potential for auditors to present a going
concern audit opinion.
Size of the firm influences the effect of the audit
committee on the acceptance of going-concern audit opinion. Furthermore, the
greater the size of the firm (total assets), the more the attention allocated
to the control and supervision of the firm's management to improve performance.
This is to provide added value to the firm so that it can survive in running
its business and the reducing the possibility of receiving a going concern
audit opinion.
The size of the firm� moderates the effect of financial distress on
going-concern audit opinion. The greater the firm's size, the more it will help
the firm solve financial problems; therefore, the firm can continue its
business and decrease the possibility of receiving a going concern audit
opinion.
The implication of this study for companies is that the
existence of independent commissioners and audit committees should not only be
observed from the number or regulations fulfillment, but also notice or
consider their expertise such as education or experience, and their involvement
within the company. Thus, it is expected that the existence of a commissioner
independent and committee audit has an impact on improving the company's
performance.
Investors should
not only consider the implementation of Good Corporate Governance (GCG) and
audit opinion on the company's financial statements in making their investment
decisions. Investors can pay attention to other things such as economic and
political conditions that may affect the company's operations which have an
impact on the company's survival, and seek information related to company
issues. In addition, it can consider the level of profit and the level of risk
that can be borne before investing.
This study has of limitations, among others are, The result of the determination
coefficient test shows that the McFadden R-squared value was 0,3386, which
indicates that the dependent variable (going concern audit opinion) which is
influenced by the independent variable and other variables outside the research
model are 33.86%, and 66.14%, respectively.
This study used
the proportion independent commissioner and the number of members audit
committee to measure the effectiveness of its performance. This is based on the
assumption that a company that has a greater proportion of independent
commissioners and audit committes members is a company that has better
governance company, however this may contain bias in interpreting the number or
quantity as effectiveness performance, therefore it becomes a limitation in
this study.
Based on the results of research that has been performed,
the authors provide the following suggestions, Therefore, it is recommended that
further study be undertaken to add or use other variables or factors that are
the basis for auditors in providing an opinion, not only financial problems but
also from the company's operational side.
It is recommended that further sudy be undertaken in order
to find other indicators that are more precise to measure the effectiveness
level of the performance from independent commissioners and audit committee.
REFERENCES
Adjani, E., & Rahardja, S. (2013). Analisis Pengaruh
Corporate Governance Terhadap Kemungkinan Pemberian Opini Audit Going Concern
Oleh Auditor Independen (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang
Terdaftar Di Bei Tahun 2009-2011). Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 2(2),
220�230. Google Scholar
Altman, E. I., Hotchkiss, E., & Wang, W. (2019). Corporate
financial distress, restructuring, and bankruptcy: analyze leveraged finance,
distressed debt, and bankruptcy. John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar
Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2015).
Auditing & Jasa Assurance Pendekatan Terintegrasi. Edisi Kelimabelas.
Erlangga. Jakarta. Google Scholar
Bronson, S. N., Carcello, J. V., Hollingsworth, C. W., &
Neal, T. L. (2009). Are fully independent audit committees really necessary? Journal
of Accounting and Public Policy, 28(4), 265�280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.06.001 Elsevier
Byusi, H., & Achyani, F. (2018). Determinan Opini Audit
Going Concern (Studi Empiris Pada Perusahaan Real Estate dan Property yang
Terdaftar di BEI Tahun 2013-2015). Riset Akuntansi Dan Keuangan Indonesia,
3(1), 13�28. https://doi.org/10.23917/reaksi.v3i1.5552 Google Scholar
Cadbury code. (1992). The financial aspects of corporate
governance. In London: The Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate
Governance and Gee and Co. Ltd. Google Scholar
Carcello, J. V, & Neal, T. L. (2000). Auditor Reporting. The
Accounting Review, 75(4), 453�467. Google Scholar
Chandra, F. L. (2013). Pengaruh Penerapan Good Corporate
Governance Terhadap Opini Audit Mengenai Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Yang
Terdaftar Dalam Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2010-2011. Jurnal Ilmiah
Mahasiswa Universitas Surabaya, 2(1), 1�12. Google Scholar
Damayanti, N. A., Nurhayati, N., & Prasetyaningtyas, S.
(2019). Analisis Perbandingan Model Prediksi Kebangkrutan Altman Z-Score dan
Zmijewski di BEI Periode 2011-2015. E-Journal Ekonomi Bisnis Dan Akuntansi,
6(2), 171�174. Google Scholar
Difa, R. A., & Suryono, B. (2015). Pengaruh Keuangan,
Kualitas Auditor, Kepemilikan Perusahaan Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going
Concern. Jurnal Ilmu & Riset Akuntansi, 4(8), 1�20. Google Scholar
Eduk, K. D., & Nugraeni, N. (2017). Pengaruh Mekanisme
Corporate Governance Terhadap Pemberian Opini Audit Going Concern (Studi
Empiris pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun
2011 � 2013). Jurnal Riset Akuntansi Mercu Buana, 1(1), 61�75.
https://doi.org/10.26486/jramb.v1i1.11 Google Scholar
Fahmi, I. (2012). Analisis Laporan Keuangan. Bandung:
Alfabeta. Google Scholar
FCGI. (2002). Peranan Dewan Komisaris dan Komite Audit
dalam Pelaksanaan Corporate Governance (Tata Kelola Perusahaan): Vol. II. Forum
for Corporate Governance in Indonesia
Gallizo, J. L., & Saladrigues, R. (2016). An analysis of
determinants of going concern audit opinion: Evidence from Spain stock
exchange. Intangible Capital, 12(1), 1�16.
https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.683 Google Scholar
Ghozali, I. (2016). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan
Program IBM SPSS 23, Edisi Kedelapan. In Semarang: Penerbit Undip. Google Scholar
Ghozali, I., & Anis Chariri. (2014). Teori
Akuntansi : International Financial Reporting System (IFRS). Edisi 4.
UNDIP. Google Scholar
Hadi, S., & Anggraeni, A. (2008). Pemilihan Prediktor
Delisting Terbaik (Perbandingan Antara The Zmijewski Model, The Altman Model,
dan The Springate Model). Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Auditing Indonesia, 12(2).
Google Scholar
Hanafi, M. M., & Halim, A. (2016). Analisis Laporan
Keuangan, Edisi Kelima. In Yogyakarta: Upp Stim Ykpn. Google Scholar
Iskandar, T. M., Rahmat, M. M., Noor, N. M., Saleh, N. M.,
& Ali, M. J. (2011). Corporate governance and going concern problems:
evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Corporate Governance, 2(2),
119. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijcg.2011.041151 Google Scholar
Jamaluddin, M. (2018). The Effect Of Financial Distress And
Disclosure On Going Concern Opinion Of The Banking Company Listing In
Indonesian Stock Exchange. International Journal of Scientific Research and
Management, 6(01), 64�70. https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v6i1.em10 Google Scholar
KNKG. (2006). Pedoman umum good corporate governance
Indonesia. In Jakarta: Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance.
Kristanto, S. B., & Sihombing, N. F. (2014). Dampak
Mekanisme Good Corporate Governance Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern.
Simposium Riset Ekonomi, 51�66. Google Scholar
Kristiana, I. (2012). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan,
Profitabilitas, Likuiditas, Pertumbuhanperusahaan Terhadap Opini Audit Going
Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia
(BEI). Berkala Ilmiah Mahasiswa Akuntansi, 1(1). Google Scholar
Lestari, P., & Prayogi, B. (2017). Pengaruh Finacial
Distress, Disclosure, dan Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya Terhadap Opini Audit
Going Concern (Studi Kasus Pada Perushaan Manufaktur Sektor Aneka Industri dan
Industri Barang Konsumsi di. Profita, 10(3), 1�11. Google Scholar
Linoputri, F. P., & Achmad, H. T. (2010). Pengaruh
corporate governance terhadap penerimaan opini audit going concern.
Perpustakaan FE UNDIP. Google Scholar
Melania, S., Andini, R., & Arifati, R. (2019). Analisis
Pengaruh Kualitas Auditor, Likuiditas, Profitabilitas, Solvabilitas dan Ukuran
Perusahaan terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang
Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling, 53(9), 1689�1699. Google Scholar
Messier, W. F., Glover, S. M., & Prawitt, D. F. (2016). Auditing
and Assurance Services: A Systematic Approach 10th. Google Scholar
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, 35(2),
295�310. Google Scholar
Nurpratiwi, V., & Rahardjo, S. N. (2014). Profitabilitas
, Dan Rasio Aktivitas Terhadap. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, 3(3),
643�657. Google Scholar
Parker, S., Peters, G. F., & Turetsky, H. F. (2005).
Corporate Governance Factors and Auditor Going Concern Assessments. Review
of Accounting and Finance, 4(3), 5�29.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb043428 Google Scholar
Purbawati, D. (2016). Pengaruh opini audit dan luas
pengungkapan sukarela terhadap perubahan harga saham (studi empiris pada
perusahaan go public di Indonesia tahun 2013-2015). Jurnal Administrasi
Bisnis, 5(1), 6�12. Google Scholar
Purwanti, E. (2016). Analisis Perbedaan Model Altman Z Score
Dan Model Springate Dalam Memprediksi Kebangkrutan Pada Perusahaan Pertambangan
Di Indonesia. Jurnal STIE Semarang, 8(2), 131639. Google Scholar
Rabiah, S. S. (2015). Pengaruh Dewan Direksi, Dewan
Komisaris, Komite Audit Dan Kepemilikan Institusional Terhadap Opini Audit
Asumsi Going Concern. Jurnal Online Mahasiswa Fakultas Ekonomi, 2(2). Google Scholar
Ramadhany, A. (2004). Analisis Faktor-Faktor Yang
Mempengaruhi Penerimaan Opini Going Concern Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang
Mengalami Financial Distress Di Bursa Efek Jakarta. In Maksi (Vol. 4). Google Scholar
Santosa, A. F., & Wedari, L. K. (2007). Analisis
faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi kecenderungan penerimaan opini audit going
concern. Jurnal Akuntansi Dan Auditing Indonesia, 11(2), 141�158.
Google Scholar
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2017). Metode penelitian untuk
bisnis buku 2. In Jakarta: Salemba Empat. Salemba Empat. Google Scholar
Setiany, E., Suhardjanto, D., Lukviarman, N., & Hartoko,
S. (2017). Board Independence, Voluntary Disclosure, and the Cost of Equity
Capital. Review of Integrative Business & Economics Research, 6(4),
389�399. Google Scholar
Sherly, S. (2015). Pengaruh Mekanisme Good Corporate Governance
Dan Kondisi Keuangan Perusahaan Terhadap Pemberian Opini Audit Going Concern
Dengan Ukuran Perusahaan Sebagai Variabel Moderating. Jurnal Magister
Akuntansi Trisakti, 2(2), 161�182. Google Scholar
Suksesi, G. W., & Lastanti, H. S. (2016). Pengaruh Opini
Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Reputasi Auditor, Ukuran Perusahaan, Profitabilitas,
Likuiditas, dan Solvabilitasterhadap Pemberian Opini Audit Going Concern. Prosiding
Seminar Nasional Cendekiawan, 10�11. Google Scholar
Sulistya, A. ., & Sukartha, P. D. Y. (2013). Pengaru
Prior Opinion , Pertumbuhan Dan Mekanisme Corporate Governance Pada Pemberian
Opini Audit. E-Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Udayana, 1, 17�32. Google Scholar
Suryati, A. (2020). Pengaruh Good Corporate Governance
Terhadap Kualitas Laba Dengan Ukuran Perusahaan Sebagai Variabel Moderasi. Jurnal
Kajian Ilmiah, 20(3), 281�290.
https://doi.org/10.31599/jki.v20i3.316 Google Scholar
Untari, D. R., & Santosa, S. (2017). The Effect of
Corporate Governance Mechanism, Company�s Growth and Company Performance toward
Going Concern Audit Opinion in Non-Financial Service Companies for The Period
of 2012-2015. Journal of Applied Accounting and Finance, 1(2),
91�108. Google Scholar
Vermeer, T. E., Raghunandan, K., & Forgione, D. A.
(2013). Going-concern modified audit opinions for non-profit organizations. Journal
of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management. Google Scholar
Waluyo, W. (2017). Firm size, firm age, and firm growth on
corporate social responsibility in Indonesia: The case of real estate
companies. European Research Studies Journal, XX(4A), 360�369. Google Scholar
Wati, L. N. (2018). Metodologi Penelitian Terapan: Aplikasi
SPSS, EVIEWS, Smart PLS dan AMOS. In Edisi Kedua. Bekasi: Pustaka Amri. Google Scholar
Werastuti, D. N. S. (2013). Pengaruh Auditor Client Tenure,
Debt Default, Reputasi Auditor, Ukuran Klien dan Kondisi Keuangan Terhadap
Kualitas Audit Melalui Opini Audit Going Concern. VOKASI Jurnal Riset
Akuntansi, 2(1), 99�116. Google Scholar
Wibisono, E. A. (2013). Prediksi Kebangkrutan, Leverage,
Audit Sebelumnya, Ukuran Perusahaan Terhadap Opini Going Concern Perusahaan
Manufaktur BEI. Jurnal EMBA: Jurnal Riset Ekonomi, Manajemen, Bisnis Dan
Akuntansi, 1(4). Google Scholar
THE INFLUENCE FACTORS OF GOING
CONCERN AUDIT OPINION ACCEPTANCE USING FIRM SIZE AS A MODERATING VARIABLE