INTRODUCTION
In today's globalization era, where industry
competition is so high that many companies are insolvent due to intense
competition, it is very important for companies to predict the financial
distress conditions of companies to predict the early signs of bankruptcy as an
early part of the early warning system for management.
Indonesia's economy is currently facing
challenges such as the global economic slowdown, the weakening rupiah exchange
rate and higher inflation. So that it can have an impact on indonesia's
economic condition and can make business conditions will not be better than
previous years (Kompasiana.com). Not only rivaled by the manufacturing
industry, property and others who are experiencing intense competition but in
companies engaged in transportation are also affected by the high global
competition. Especially in the midst of such intense competition, especially in
companies engaged in transportation will be more vulnerable to financial
difficulties if management mis-manages it properly. At this time the
implementation of good corporate governance is one of the factors that can affect
the company's performance.
The transportation system cannot run
efficiently if it is not supported by good economic development. This happened
in 2008 where economic turmoil in Indonesia had an impact on the transportation
sector. The increase in oil prices in 2008 above US$ 90/barrel contributed
greatly to the increase in the company's operating costs so that they forced
the company to increase its service rates. In addition, sluggish market
conditions due to the rise of a number of goods needs of the community has
affected the purchasing power of the public towards the use of transportation.
Such conditions if not handled will disrupt the company's cash flow which will
ultimately lead to investor distrust of investment in the transportation
sector. Corporate governance itself in Indonesia was officially introduced in
1990 and became widely in 1997.
when the economic crisis hit Indonesia. The
impact of the crisis is the number of companies that went into bankruptcy
because they were unable to survive, poor corporate governance is considered as
one of the causes of the indonesian political
economic crisis that began in 1997 whose effects are still felt today.
Recognizing such situations and conditions, the
Government of Indonesia gives a strong boost to the implementation of corporate
governance in Indonesia. Evidence of the government's concern can be seen from
the making of various regulations governing good corporate governance. Where
the government established a national committee on corporate governance policy
(KNKCG) through the decree of the coordinating minister of equine number:
KEP/31/M.EKUIN/08/1999 on the establishment of KNKCG. This was followed by the
establishment of a national committee on governance policy in lieu of KNKCG
through a decree of the Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs number:
KEP/49/M.EKON/11/2004.
Financial distress is a situation where the
company's financial condition continues to decline every year. If the state of
the company is approaching financial distress, usually the management of the
company takes the decision to close all activities in the company whether it is
production activities or other operational activities before bankruptcy or
often called liquidation (Widyasaputri, 2012).
According to Parker et al, (2002) and Abdullah, (2006), If the company can
carry out corporate governance practices then it can protect the company
against financial distress risks.
The transportation sector is a concern to be
used as an object of research, because transportation companies are service
companies that many people will need such transportation services. So that the
sustainability of the business of transportation companies must be able to
survive continuously. However, the facts in the field show that many
transportation companies make a loss each period This indicates
that the condition of the company can not be said
well. Persistent losses indicate a company will not be able to meet its
obligations. If it is left constantly it will lead to the bankruptcy of a
company. Here are some transportation companies that went bankrupt because they
could not maintain their business continuity. The companies include indonesian airlines Batavia Air, Bouraq
Airlines, Jatayu Airlines, Indonesian Airlines, Sempati Airlines and Adam Air as reported in www.kompas.com
on January 31, 2013. Based on the
background of the problem that has been described, the problem formulation in
this study is as follows:
1.
Does managerial ownership affect financial
distress?
2.
Does Institutional ownership affect financial
distress?
3.
Does the size of the board of commissioners
affect financial distress?
4.
Does the proportion of independent
commissioners affect financial distress?
5.
Does the board of directors have any interest
in financial distress?
6.
Does the audit committee affect financial
distress?
A.
Agency Theory
According to Jensen and
meckling (1976) in Hanifah
(2013) The agency theory explains in an agency relationship, there is a
contract between one party, namely the owner (principal), and the other party,
namely the agent. Under the contract, the agent is bound to provide services
for the owner. Based on the delegation of authority of the owner to the agent,
management as an agent is given the right to make business decisions for the
benefit of the owner. The interests of the two parties are not always in line
so as to cause a conflict of interest between the principal and the agent as
the authorized party to manage the company. Conflicts that occur between agents
and principals are caused by information asymmetry. Information asymmetry
occurs when managers as internal parties have more information than stakeholders
as external parties.
B.
Understanding Corporate Governance
According to the
Cadbury committee (1992) defines corporate governance as a system that directs
and controls the company with the aim of achieving a balance between the power
of authority required by the company, to ensure the continuity of its existence
and accountability to srakeholders. This relates to
the authority regulations of owners, directors, managers, shareholders and so
on (Surya and Yustiviadana, 2008:24).
C.
understanding Corporate
Governance
Managerial Ownership
(KM) is a share ownership owned by the management or manager of the company.
Share ownership by managers in the company makes managers have a dual function,
namely as the owner of the company and also the manager of the company (Mayangsari, 2015). With managerial ownership, decision
making related to the company will be carried out with full responsibility
because it is in accordance with the interests of management as one of the
components of the company. Ownership by management will also increase control
over the company's management (Hermawan, 2013). This
variable indicator is measured by:
D. Understanding
Institutional Ownership
Institutional
Ownership (KI) greater than (more than 5%) will provide better ability to
monitor management (Hermawan, 2013). The greater
institutional ownership will be the more efficient the use of company assets so
that the potential financial difficulties can be minimized. This is because the
greater the institutional ownership will be the greater the monitor carried out
against the company (Muharam and Triwahyuningtias,
2012). This variable indicator is measured by:
E. Understanding of the Board
of Commissioners
The Board of Commissioners (DK) is an organ of the
company that performs the monitoring function of the implementation of the
board of directors' policy. The role of the commissioner is expected to
minimize the agency's problems arising between the board of directors and
shareholders, therefore it is expected that the board of commissioners can
supervise the performance of the board of directors so that the resulting
performance is in accordance with the interests of shareholders
(Triwahyuningtias, 2012).
According to KNKG (2006) defines the board of
commissioners as the highest internal control mechanism that is collectively
responsible for conducting supervision and giving input to the board of
directors and prove that the company conducts good corporate governance. This variable indicator
is measured by:
F. Understanding the
Independent Council
In Decisions Ketua Bapepam No. 29/PM/2004, Komisaris
Independen (KI) defined as a member of the that : (i) from outside the issuer
or public company, (ii) does not have direct or indirect shares in the company,
(iii) has no affiliation with the issuer or public company, commissioner,
director, or major shareholder of the issuer or public company, (iv) and has no
business relationship either directly or indirectly related to the business activities
of the issuer or the company. Amirudin (2004) explained, since Indonesia is
mired in economic crisis, corporate governance becomes part of the improvement
of corporate management. An active and independent board is indispensable to
ensure the best standards of corporate governance.. This
variable indicator is measured by:
G.
Understanding the Board of Directors
The
board of directors is one of the corporate governance mechanisms needed to
overcome the agency problems that exist within the company. The larger the board of directors, it is
expected that the better the quality of decisions produced, so that it will
have an impact on the company's performance that can reduce financial distress.
In Purwanto and Hanifah
(2013) stated that the larger the number of directors, the smaller the company
experienced financial distress. The board of directors of a company will
determine the policy to be taken or the company's strategy in the short and
long term (Mayangsari, 2015).This
variable indicator is measured by :
H. Understanding the Audit
Committee
Audit Committee (KA) is a committee formed by and
responsible to the board of commissioners in helping to carry out the duties
and functions of the board of commissioners. The audit committee is chaired by
an independent commissioner. The audit committee consists of at least 3 (three)
members from independent commissioners and outside issuers or public companies.
(Keputusan Ketua Bapepam –LK No. KEP-643/BL/2012). This
variable indicator is measured by:
I. Understanding Financial
Distress
Financial Distress is a situation where the company's
operating cash flow is inadequate to pay off current liabilities (such as trade
payables or interest expenses) and the company is forced to take corrective
measures (Hapsari, 2012). Bankruptcy is a situation where the company has a
lack and inadequacy of funds to run or continue its business, the more serious
consequences of bankruptcy is the closing of the business or liquidation. This variable indicator is measured by:
Score
0= Companies experiencing Financial Distress
Score
1= Companies that do not experience Financial Distress.
3. Frame of Mind
Where in this study, dependent variables (Y) used are
financial distress, while independent variables (X) are used namely managerial
ownership, institutional ownership, board of commissioners, independent
commissioners, board of directors and audit committee. Based on the description
above can be described the frame of mind as follows:
4. Hypothesis
Based on background, problem formulation and frame of
mind, the action hypotheses used in this study are:
1)
First Hypothesis
H1
: Managerial Ownership affects financial distress
2)
Second Hypothesis
H2
: Institutional ownership affects financial distress
3)
Third Hypothesis
H3
: Board of Commissioners affect financial distress
4)
The Fourth Hypothesis
H4
: Independent Commissioner affects financial distress
5)
The Fifth Hypothesis
H5
: Board of Directors affects financial distress
6)
Sixth Hypothesis
H6
: Audit Committee affects financial distress.
METHOD
The time of
the research was carried out since April 2018 until the research writing limit
that has been listed. This research was conducted in Transportation companies
listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) in the period of research period
2013-2017. Research data obtained from the official website Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI), i.e http://www.idx.co.id.
This type of
research is a kausal research that aims to test
hypotheses about the influence of one or several variables (independent) on
other variables (dependents). To test the influence of Corporate Governance on
the possibility of financial distress. This research uses data collection
method using Literature Research method. In this research, the secondary data type
used is in the form of financial statements from transportation companies
listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in the period 2013-2017. Research data
is data presented in a time series (between times).
Data
analysis is conducted through descriptive statistical test, followed by
regression model feasibility test, Fit Test overall test, determination
coefficient test, and classification matrix.
Logisic regression
analysis is used because the dependent variables used in this study are dummy
variables, namely companies with the possibility of financial distress. The
regression model to be used in this study is as follows::
Y = a + β1X1
+ β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + β5X5 + β6X6 + ε
Where:
Y = Financial Distress
a = konstant
X1 = Managerial
Ownership
X2 = Instutional Ownership
X3 = Board of
Commissioners
X4 = Independent
Commissioner
X5 = Board of Directors
X6 = Audit Committee
ε = Residual
The test
level uses a α (alpha) of 5% and data processing is carried out with SPSS
Version 22 software. Coefficient Test Determination is used to find out how
much bound variable variation is influenced by the free variable variation that
can be seen from the R-square value (R²).
The
coefficient value of determination (Nagelkerke R Square) is a test conducted to
find out how much independent variables are able to explain and affect
dependent variables. Nagelkerke R Square is a modification of the Cox and Snell
coefficient which is a measure that tries to mimic the size of R2 in multiple
regressions. Nagelkerke R Square values vary between 1 (one) and 0 (zero). The
closer the value of 1, the model is considered the betterness of fit while the
closer to 0 then the model is less goodness of fit (Ghozali, 2009).
RESULT AND DISCUSSION Test Assumptions
Descriptive
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistical
test results can be seen in the Table below.
Based on the
results of descriptive statistical testing in the table above, it is known that
the research sample (N) is as much as 135, then it can be explained that the financial
distress variable is measured using dummy variables where the minimum value of
0 means that obtaining profit and a maximum value of 1 means that the company
loses. Meanwhile, the average value (mean) obtained by financial distress
variables is 0.4444 with a standard deviation of 0.49875. Therefore, it can be
concluded that descriptive statistical analysis is used because it meets the
assumption of earning profit.
Regression Model Feasibility Test Results
The
feasibility of the regression model was assessed using Hosmer and Lemeshow's
Goodness of Fit Test. If the significance value of Hosmer and Lemeshow's
goodness of fit statistic > 0.05 means that the model can predict its observation
value or can be said that the model can be accepted because it matches the
observation data, whereas if the significance value of Hosmer and Lemeshow's
goodness of fit statistic < 0.05 means there is a significant difference
between the model and its observation value so that the goodness fit model is
not good because the model cannot be used to predict.
Thus,
it can be concluded that the test results of Hosmer and Lemeshow's Goodnes of
Fit in the Table obtained a significant value of 0.864 > 0.05 (α) which
means the model can predict the observation value or it can be said that the
model is acceptable because it matches the observation data.
Fit Model Overall Test
The overall
test of this model is calculated from the difference of -2LL values between
models with only consisting of constants and estimated models consisting of
independent constants and variables, -2LL tests follow the chi square
distribution with degrees of freedom. Hypotheses for assessing fit models are:
H0 :
Model hypothesized fit with data
H1 :
The hypothesized model is not fit with the data
Based on the
output of spss, the test results of the overall FIT
model can be shown in the table below
Based
on the table above, is a comparison view of the value -2 Log likelihood
consisting of only constants and -2 Log likelihood consisting of independent constants
and variables. The comparison follows the spread of chi square. Chi square
value of 126,667 with df 6 with Sig value. Model by 0.00 > 0.05 (5%) then it
can be concluded that H0 is accepted that the model hypothesized fit with data.
Determination Coefficient Test
The results
of the determination coefficient test can be seen in the following table:
Based
on the table above, it can be known that the value of Nagelkerke R Square is
0.815 (81.5%). These results showed that independent variables of managerial
ownership, institutional ownership, board of commissioners, independent
commissioners, board of directors and audit committee were able to explain and
influence financial distress by 81.5% and the remaining 19.5% were explained by
other variables outside the research model. The result of the coefficient was
diterminated by 81.5% based on real data of financial statements at
transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period
2013-2017, in addition, the value of the deterrential coefficient of 81.5%
showed that quite a lot of other variables affected financial distress such as
CSR, profitability ratio, liquidity, leverage and others.
Classification Matrix
The results
of the classification matrix can be seen in the following table:
Based
on the Table shows the predictive strength of the regression model to predict
the probability of financial distress receipts is 90.0%. This means that by
using the proposed regression model, it is predicted that there are 60 data
from 27 samples (90.0%) used to see predictions that will experience financial
distress. While the model that does not experience financial distress is 92.0%,
which means that with the proposed regression model is predicted there are 75 data
from 27 sample companies (92.0%) predicted will not experience financial
distress. Overall, 91.1% can be precisely predicted by this logistic regression
model.
Logistic Regression Analysis
The results
of logistic regression test that formed can be seen in the following table by
using computer software calculation namely SPSS (Statistical Package for Social
Science) version 22:
Based on the
table above, the regression equation can be created as follows.
FD
= 25.969 – 23,861 KEM – 3,789 KEI – 1,779 DK – 12,028 KOI -1,695 DD – 1,808 KA + e(0,05)
Based
on the results of the logistics regression test above, it can be explained that
of the six corporate governance variables tested, it is proven that the six
variables (all) namely managerial ownership, institutional ownership of the
board of commissioners, independent commissioners, board of directors and audit
committee have a significant influence on financial distress on transportation
companies registered with idx.
Hypothesis Test
Hypothetical
tests are conducted to determine the influence of each independent variable on
its dependent variables. Basic decision making based on significance value, if
the value is significantly less than the error rate of 5% (sig. < 0.05) then
Ho is rejected. Test results can be briefly viewed in the following Table.
First Hypothesis (H1)
The first
hypothesis tests the influence of managerial ownership on financial distress on
transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period
2013-2017. So the hypotheses juked in this study are
as follows:
Ha1 = Managerial
ownership affects financial distress
Ho1 = Managerial
ownership has no effect on financial distress
Based on the
test results in the Table of significance obtained managerial ownership variable
of 0.003 < 0.05 and regression coefficient value of -23.861. Thus Ho1 was rejected and Ha1 accepted. The results of the
first hypothesis show that managerial ownership variables have a significant
negative effect and are related to financial distress to transportation
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017.
Second Hypothesis (H2)
The
second hypothesis tests the influence of institutional ownership on financial
distress on transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for
the period 2013-2017. So the hypotheses juked in this study are as follows:
Ha2 = Institutional
ownership affects financial distress
Ho2 = Institutional
ownership has no effect on financial distress
Based
on the test results in the Table of significance obtained institutional
ownership variable of 0.0035 < 0.05 and regression coefficient value of
-3,789 Thus Ho2 is rejected and Ha2 is accepted. The results of the second
hypothesis show that institutional ownership variables have a significant
negative effect and are related to financial distress to transportation
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017.
Third Hypothesis (H3)
The
third hypothesis tests the influence of the board of commissioners on financial
distress on transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for
the period 2013-2017. So the hypotheses juked in this study are as follows:
Ha3
= Board of Commissioners affects financial distress
Ho3
= Board of Commissioners has no effect on financial distress
Based
on the test results, the significance value obtained by the board of
commissioners variable is 0.000 < 0.05 and the regression coefficient value
is -1,779. Thus Ha3 was accepted and Ho3 rejected. The results of the third hypothesis
show that the variables of the board of commissioners have a significant
negative effect on financial distress to transportation companies listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017.
Fourth Hypothesis (H4)
The
fourth hypothesis tests the influence of independent commissioners on financial
distress on transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for
the period 2013-2017. So the hypotheses juked in this study are as follows:
Ha4 = Independent
commissioner affects financial distress
Ho4 = Independent
commissioner has no effect on financial distress
Based
on the test results of significance value obtained by independent commissioner
variables of 0.002 < 0.05 and regression coefficient value of -12.028. Thus
Ha4 was accepted and Ho4 rejected. The results of the fourth hypothesis show
that independent commissioner variables have a significant negative effect on
financial distress to transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock
Exchange for the period 2013-2017.
Fifth Hypothesis (H5)
The
fifth hypothesis tests the influence of the board of directors on financial
distress on transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for
the period 2013-2017. So the hypotheses juked in this study are as follows:
Ha5 = Board of
Directors affects financial distress
Ho5 = The board of
directors has no effect on financial distress
Based
on the test results in Table 4.10 the significance value obtained by the board
variable is 0.000 < 0.05 and the regression coefficient value is -1.695.
Thus Ha5 was accepted and Ho5 rejected. The results of the fifth hypothesis
show that the variables of the board of directors have a significant negative
effect on financial distress to transportation companies listed on the Indonesia
Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017.
Sixth Hypothesis (H6)
The
sixth hypothesis tests the influence of the audit committee on financial
distress on transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for
the period 2013-2017. So the hypotheses juked in this study are as follows:
Ha6 = Audit
committee affects financial distress
Ho6 = Audit
committee has no effect on financial distress
Based
on the test results, the significance value obtained by the audit committee
variable was 0.021 < 0.05 and the regression coefficient value was -1,808.
Thus Ha6 was accepted and Ho6 rejected. The results of the sixth hypothesis
show that audit committee variables have a significant negative effect on
financial distress to transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock
Exchange for the period 2013-2017.
Discussion of Research Results
Based on the
results of logistics regression analysis conducted shows that partially the
variables of managerial ownership and ownership have a significant effect on financial
distress. Meanwhile, the board of commissioners, independent commissioners, and
audit committee have no significant effect on financial distress. Meanwhile,
the board of directors has no effect on financial distress. Here is a table
that summarizes the relationships that occur in independent variables to their
dependent variables.
Based on the
table above, the research results can be analyzed as follows:
1. The results showed that managerial ownership has a significant effect on
financial distress
This means that the
higher the level of managerial ownership in the company, the possibility of
financial distress decreases. The ability of managerial ownership in predicting
financial distress can be caused by the ownership of shares by the management will
provide additional incentives to management in supervising the policies that
have been set. With these additional incentives, it will reduce management's
opportunistic behaviors and can align interests with other shareholders.
2. Institutional ownership is proven to have a significant influence on
financial distress
The results of this
study indicate that companies that have more institutional ownership can reduce
the possibility of financial distress. With the greater share ownership by
institutions, supervision of management performance will be greater. This means
that management will perform their duties and make decisions with more care
that avoids the possibility of financial distress.
3. The Board of Commissioners is proven to have a significant negative influence
with the direction of negative relations to financial distress.
This is because the
increasing number of commissioners, it is likely that the decision-making will
be effective, appropriate and fast and act independently in the sense that it
has no interest that can interfere with its ability to carry out its duties
independently and critically in relations with each other and to the board of
directors will be difficult to materialize so that this will increase the
potential for financial distress.
4. Independent commissioners are shown to have a significant negative
influence on financial distress
In agency theory,
independent commissioners are corporate governance mechanisms that can reduce
problems in agency theory. Independent commissioners serve as examiners and
balancers in improving the effectiveness of the board of commissioners which
means that with the presence of independent commissioners, in addition to the supervision
of management decision making by the board of directors, supervision is also
carried out by independent external parties so that the decisions taken are
appropriate.
5. The board of directors proved to have a significant negative influence on
financial distress
The board of
directors of a company will determine the policies or strategies that will be
taken both short-term and long-term. The board of directors in a company plays
a more emphasis on the monitoring function of the policy implementation.
6. The audit committee proved to have a significant negative influence on
financial distress.
The audit committee
is a corporate governance mechanism that is assumed to reduce agency problems
that arise in a company. The audit committee is tasked to assist the board of
commissioners in order to supervise the responsibilities of the company's
management in the management of the company through information obtained from
internal auditors.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of data processing of all
variables of managerial ownership, institutional ownership, board of
commissioners, independent commissioners, board of directors and audit
committee on financial distress at Transportation companies Listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange Period 2013-2017, can be concluded as follows:
First, managerial ownership has a significant
negative effect on financial distress to transportation companies listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017. The results of this study
are in line with Hanafi and Breliastiti (2016) who
said that managerial ownership has an influence on the occurrence of financial
distress.
Second, institutional ownership has a
significant effect on financial distress in transportation companies listed on
the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017. The results of this
study are in line with radifan and Yuyetta research (2015) which also found the influence and
significant influence of institutional ownership on the company's financial
distress.
Third, the Board of Commissioners has a
significant influence on financial distress to transportation companies listed
on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017. The results of this
study are contrary to the research of Deviacita and
Achmad (2012) which stated that the size of the board of commissioners proved
to have no effect on financial distress.
Fourth, independent Commissioners have a
significant influence on financial distress in transportation companies listed
on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017. The results of this
study are different from the research of Putri and Merkusiwati
(2014) which found that independent commissioners have no significant effect on
financial distress.
Fifth, the Board of Directors has a significant
influence on financial distress to transportation companies listed on the
Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017. The results of this study
are different from cinantya and Merkusiwati
research (2015) which stated that the number of board of directors has no
influence on financial distress.
Sixth, the
Audit Committee has a significant influence on financial distress to
transportation companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period
2013-2017. The results of this study are different from Radifan
and Yuyetta's research (2015) which stated that the
size of the audit committee is not significant to the possibility of financial
distress.
REFERENCE
Al-Matari E.M, Al-Swidi A. K, Bt Fadzil F.H. (2014) “The
Measurements of Firm Performance’s Dimensions”, Asian Journal of Finance &
Accounting, 6 (1), 24-49.
Almilia, L. dan Kristijadi, E. 2003. Analisis Rasio
Keuangan untuk Memprediksi Kondisi Financial Distress Perusahaan Manufaktur
yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis Vol. XII. No.
1, Maret 2006.
Amrullah, Khania Vissiani, “Prediksi Fincancial Distress
Perusahaan (Studi Empirik Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar di BEI)
Periode 2001-2008”. Skripsi Jurusan Manajemen, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2010.
Anggraini, T. V. 2010. Pengaruh Karakteristik Komite
Audit Terhadap Financial Distress (Studi Empiris pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar
di Bursa Efek). Skripsi. Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Diponegoro.
Artikel financetoday, Indrajit, 06 April 2011, 10:27 WIB
Baldwin, C.Y. dan Scott P. M. (1983) “The resolution of
claims in financial distress: The case of Massey-Ferguson”. Journal of
Finance. 38, (2), 505-516.
Brancato, C.K. & Gaughan, P. (1991) Institutional
Investors and Capi- tal Markets: 1991
Update (Columbia Law School Institu- tional Investor Project, New York, New
York).
Brigham, Eugene F. dan Gapenski, Louis C. 1997. Financial
Management Theory and Practice. Orlando: The Dryden Pres.
Brigham, E.F., & Daves, P.R. (2003). Intermediate
Financial Management with Thomson One. United States of America: Cengage
South-Western.
Cadbury Committee, 1992. Report of The Financial Aspects
of Corporate Governance, London, Gee.
Christiawan, Y. J. dan J. Tarigan. 2007. Kepemilikan
Manajerial: Kebijakan Hutang, Kinerja dan Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Akuntansi
dan Keuangan. Vol.1. Mei 2007. Hal: 1-8.
Deviacita, A.W. dan Achmad, T. 2012. “Analisis Pengaruh
Mekanisme Corporate Governance Terhadap Financial Distress”. Diponegoro Journal
of Accounting, Vol.I, No.2.
E. Altman. 1983. Financial Ratios, Diskriminant Analysis
and the Prediction of Corporate Bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting.
Effendi, Muh. Arief. 2009. The Power of Good Corporate
Governance. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Elloumi, Fathi and Jean-Pierre Gueyie, 2001. Financial
Distress and Corporate Governance: an Empirical Analysis. Corporate Governance.
Bedford: 1(1): 15-23.
Fachrudin, Amalia Khoira. 2008. Kesulitan Keuangan
Perusahaan dan Personal. Ejournal Universitas Negeri Surabaya.
Fachrudin, Khaira Amalia. 2008. Kesulitan Keuangan
Perusahaan dan Personal. Medan: USU Press.
Fuad, Andhika Yudha, 2014. Analisis Pengaruh Penerapan
Mekanisme Corporate Governance Terhadap Kemungkinan Perusahaan Mengalami
Financial Distress. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, Vol.3.No.4.
Ghozali, Imam, 2006. Aplikasi Analisis Multavariat dengan
Program SPSS. Edisi Keempat, Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang.
Ghozali, Imam. 2009. Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate
dengan Program SPSS. Edisi 4. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.
Hanifah, Oktita E. (2013). Pengaruh Struktur Corporate Governance
Dan Financial Indicators Terhadap Kondisi Financial Distress.Skripsi Ilmiah
Universitas Diponegoro.
Hanifah, O. E. dan Purwanto, A. 2013. Pengaruh Struktur
Corporate Governance dan Financial Distress terhadap Kondisi Financial
Distress. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting 2 (2): 2337-3806.
Hermawan, Sigit dan Maharis Budi Wahyuaji. 2013. Analisis
Pengaruh Intellectual Capital Terhadap Kemampulabaan Perusahaan Manufaktur
Cunsomer Good Di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Jurnal Pendidikan Akuntansi. Hal. 271-282.
Hofer, C. W. (1980) “Turnaround Strategies”, Journal of
Business Strategy. 1, 19-31.
https://www.idnfinancials.com/id/CPGT/PT-Citra-Maharlika-Nusantara-Corpora-Tbk
https://news.detik.com/berita-jawa-barat/d-3560871/tuntut-hak-eks-karyawan-pt-cipaganti-geruduk-pul-travel-di-bandung
Jensen, M. C dan W.H Meckling, 1976. “Theory of The Firm:
Managerial Behaviour, Agency Cost and Ownership Structure”. Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol 3, pp 305-360
Kaihatu, Thomas S, “Good Corporate Governance dan Penerapanya
di Indonesia”, Jurnal Menajemen dan Kewirausahaan. Vol.8 No.1, Maret.
Universitas Kristen Petra Surabaya, 2006.
KNKG. (2006). Pedoman Umum Good Corporate Governance Indonesia.
Komite Nasional Kebijakan Governance. Komite Nasional Kebijakan Corporate Governance.
(2001). Pedoman Umum Good Corporate Governance Indonesia. Jakarta.
Kusumawati, Diyah. 2008. Pengaruh Mekanisme Corporate
Governance Terhadap Peringkat Obligasi dan Yield Obligasi. Skripsi Jurusan
Manajemen, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Ilmu Sosial, Universitas Islam Negri Syarif
Hidayatullah, Jakarta.
Li, Hong Xia, Zong Jun Wang dan Xiao Lan Deng, 2008,
“Ownership, Independent Directors, Agency Costs and Financial Distress:
Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies”, Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 Iss: 5 pp
622-636.
Mahoney, L., Fauzi, H., and Rahman. 2007. Institutional
Ownership and Corporate Social Performance: Empirical Evidence from Indonesian
Companies. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting Vol. 1, No. 2 December
2007 Pp 334-347.
Mayangsari, Lillananda Putri. 2015. Pengaruh Good
Corporate Governance dan Kinerja Keuangan Terhadap Financial Distress. Jurnal
Ilmu dan Riset Akuntansi, Vol.4, No: 4.
Nur DP, E. 2007. Analisis Pengaruh Praktek Tata Kelolah
Perusahaan (Corporate Governance) terhadap Kesulitan Keuangan Perusahaan
(Financial Distress: Suatu kajian empiris). Jurnal Bisnis dan akuntansi 9 (1),
PP: 84–108.
Parker, S., Peters, G.F. and Turetsky, H.F. (2002)
“Corporate Governance and Corporate Failure: A Survival Analysis”, Corporate Governance:
International Journal of Business in Society, 2 (2), 4-12
Parkinson, J.E. 1994. Corporate Power and Responsibility.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Platt, H. D. dan Platt, M.B. (2002) “Predicting Corporate
Financial Distress: Reflections on Choice-based Sample Bias, Journal of Economics
and Finance, 26, 184-199.
Purnajaya dan Merkusiwati. 2014. Analisis Komparasi
Potensi Kebangkrutan Dengan Metode Z-score Altman, Springate, dan Zmijewski
pada Industri Kosmetik yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Dalam E-Jurnal
Akuntansi Universitas Udayana 7.1 (2014):48-63. ISSN: 2302- 8556
Putri, N.W.K.A dan Merkusiwati, N.K.L.A. 2014. “Pengaruh
Mekanisme Corporate Governance, Likuiditas, Leverage, dan Ukuran Perusahaan
Pada Financial Distress”. E-Jurnal Akuntansi
Universitas Udayana, 7.1.
Rezaee, Zabihollah. (2007). “Corporate Governance
Post-Sarbanes Oxley”. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Ross, Stephen A, Westerfield and Jaffe, 1999. Corporate
Finance, Irwin Mc Graw Hill.
Sastriana, Dian, dan Fuad. 2013. “Pengaruh Corporate
Governance dan Firm Size Terhadap Perusahaan yang Mengalami Kesulitan Keuangan
(Financial Distress)”. Diponegoro Journal of Accounting, Vol.2, No.3.
Sekaran, U., 2003, Research Methods for Business:
Metodologi Penelitian Untuk Bisnis, Jakarta, Salemba Empat.
Shleifer, A. Dan R. Vishny. 1997.’A survey of corporate
governance ‘, journal of finance vol. 52, hal. 737-783.
Solomon, J.2007. Corporate Governance And Accountability.
2 Ed.The Atrium, West Sussex: John Willey Sons, Ltd.
Sugiyono, 2011. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif
dan R&D. Bandung: Afabeta.
Sujarweni, V. Wiratna. 2014. Metode Penelitian: Lengkap,
Praktis, dan Mudah Dipahami. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Baru Press.
Surya, Indra dan Ivan Yustiviandana, “Penerapan Good Corporate
Govenance Mengesampingkan Hak Istimewa Demi Kelangsungan Usaha”. Edisi 1.
Jakarta: Kencana Prenanda Media Group, 2008.
Tjager, I.N., et al. 2003. Corporate Governance:
Tantangan dan Kesempatan bagi Komunitas Bisnis Indonesia, Serial Mastering Good
Corporate Governance. Jakarta: Prenhanllindo.
Triwahyuningtias, Meilinda dan Muharam, Harjum. 2012.
Analisis Pengaruh Struktur Kepemilikan, Ukuran Dewan, Komisaris Independen,
Likuiditas dan Leverage terhadap Terjadinya Kondisi Finacial Distress (Studi Pada
Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun
2008-2010).JurnalManajemen,Vol. 1, No.1, h.1-14.
Wardhani, Ratna. 2006. Mekanisme Corporate Governance
Dalam Perusahaan Yang Mengalami Permasalahan Keuangan. Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi IX.
Warsono, Sony dkk, 2009, Corporate Governance Concept and
Model, Yogyakarta: Center Of Good Corporate Governance.
Whitaker, R. B. 1999. "The Early Stages of Financial
Distress". Journal of Economics and Finance, 23: 123-133.
Widyasaputri, Erlinda. (2012). Analasis Mekanisme
Corpporate Governance pada Perusahaan yang Mengalami Kondisi Financial
Distress.Accounting Analysis Journal.Vol. 1, No. 2, Halaman 1–8
The Influence of Corporate
Governance on Potential Financial Distress on Transportation Companies listed
on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2013-2017