You are on page 1of 15

THE EFFECT OF GOING CONCERN AUDIT OPINION ON

MARKET REACTION: EVIDENCE FROM INDONESIA


STOCK EXCHANGE
Meita Rahmawati1
meita_rahmawati@unsri.ac.id

Agil Novriansa2
agilnovriansa@unsri.ac.id

Umi Kalsum3
umikalsum@unsri.ac.id
1,2,3
Sriwijaya University

Abstract
Auditor as an independent parties has a responsibility to asses going concern assumption
of company. Going concern audit opinion may be considered as a bad news by investors
because it tends to lead prediction of firm bankruptcy. This study aimed to examine
empirically the effect of going concern audit opinion on market reaction. This study used
abnormal return with 120 days estimation period and 31 days windows period (15 days
before the announcement of going concern audit opinion, 1 day when the announcement
of going concern audit opinion, and 15 days after the announcement of going concern
audit opinion) to test market reaction. The population of this study is 545 listed companies
in Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2012-2016. During the 5 years observation period,
there are 29 companies that received going concern audit opinion. Based on purposive
sampling, 93 going concern audit opinion were analysed to test the hypotheses. The
results of wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there is significant difference statistically
between mean value of abnormal return before and after the announcement of going
concern audit opinion. It means that going concern audit opinion has an effect on market
reaction. The effect of going concern audit opinion on market reaction was negative, it
was indicated by there is a tendency decreasing value of abnormal return in the negative
direction after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. This finding serve as
important external validity evidence on the phenomena associated with going concern
audit opinion and market reaction, especially empirical evidence from Indonesia Stock
Exchange.
Keywords : Audit Opinion, Going Concern Assumption, Indonesia Stock Exchange,
Market Reaction

INTRODUCTION
Pernyataan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan No. 1 paragraph 25 required
management to make judgments about a company's ability to maintain the continuity of
their business (going concern assumption) when preparing financial statements (DSAK,
2016). Going concern assumption stated that if there is no other evidence to the contrary,
it assumed that a company will continue to run until the time limit is not specified (Wolk,
Dodd, & Różycki, 2013), if companies are having problems with this assumption, then
the company is likely to find difficulty to continue to maintain their business. Auditor as
an independent party is also responsible for assessing the company's ability to maintain
their business (IAPI, 2013), if the auditor has big doubts about the ability of company to
maintain its business, then the auditors should provide a going concern audit opinion after
evaluating the management plan to overcome or reduce the impact of the going concern
issue (IAPI, 2013),
Most researches on the going concern audit opinion in Indonesia has been
more focused on what factors are affecting the going-concern audit opinion. Financial
condition, the audit opinion the previous year, company size, debt default, the client
auditor tenure is the financial factors that infulence the going concern audit opinion
(Januarti 2009; Praptitorini & Januarti 2007; Santosa & Wedari 2007; Setyarno, Januarti,
and Faisal, 2006), Junaidi & Hartono (2010) also showed in their researches non-financial
factors such as tenure, the reputation of public accounting firms, and disclosure
significantly influence the going concern audit opinion.
This study will examine the effect of going concern audit opinion on the
market reaction to abnormal return as a proxy of market reaction. Going concern audit
opinion is one of the important and valuable information for investors (Chen & Church,
1996; Jones, 1996; O'Reilly, 2010). Disclosure of going concern audit opinion can be
regarded as a signal or warning given by an auditor to investors regarding the conditions
of company to maintain its business (O'Reilly, 2010), investors may believe that the
disclosure of going concern audit opinion is useful because the independent auditors have
greater access to information and the management (Jones, 1996). Going concern audit
opinion received by a company may be regarded as bad news by investors because its
tends to lead to the company's bankruptcy prediction. For investors who are rational, of
course this will make them more cautious when making a decision to invest in companies
that receive an going concern audit opinion.
Many previous research on the effect of going concern audit opinion on the
market reaction has been done in outside Indonesia but the research results remain
inconsistent. Research’s result of Firth (1978) indicate that the going concern audit
opinion has a significant influence by the abnormal return. Elliott (1982) examined the
relationship between abnormal return securities with "subject to" audit report. Research
results showed the presence of abnormal return is negative before the date of the
announcement of going concern audit opinion, but he did not manage to find any
significant abnormal return over a one week period of the announcement of audit opinion
going concern, he instead found a positive abnormal return for a few weeks after the
announcement of the going concern audit opinion. Dodd et al. (1984) also examined
whether the announcement of the audit opinion "subject to" influence the stock prices on
companies listed on the New York and American Stock Exchange. Research results
showed that no significant effect on abnormal returns around the date of disclosure of
going concern audit opinion.
Chen & Church (1996) examined the relationship between going concern
audit opinion and market reaction to the bankruptcy filing. Research results show that
companies receiving going concern audit opinion has a negative abnormal returns around
the date of the bankruptcy filing. Jones (1996) assess the information content of the going-
concern evaluation conducted by an independent auditor by testing abnormal returns
around the date of the disclosure of the audit report. Research results showed a negative
abnormal returns around the date of the auditor's report disclosure of firm receiving going
concern audit opinion. Citron, Taffler, and Money (2008) examined whether uncertainty
disclosure of going concern is sensitive price in the London Stock Exchange. Research
results showed a significant reaction to market prices related to the disclosure of going
concern audit opinion.
Their research results were still different related influences of going concern
audit opinion on the reaction of the market and the absence of the results of empirical
testing of the capital market in Indonesia about the effect of going concern audit opinion
on the market reaction to the value of abnormal returns as a proxy of the market reaction,
therefore this research aims to empirically examine the influence of the phenomenon of
going concern audit opinion on the market reaction. This study used sample of all
companies listed (listing) in Indonesia Stock Exchange (BEI) from 2012 to 2016 then it
can reflect better the actual conditions in the Indonesian capital market regarding the
effect of going concern audit opinion on the market reaction. In this study, the market
reaction will be measured by using abnormal return, while the going concern audit
opinion will be measured by using the date of submission of the audited annual financial
statements of the company to the Stock Exchange.
This study is expected to useful both theoretically and practically. The
usefulness of this theoretical research is expected to expand the influence of literature on
the phenomenon of going concern audit opinion on the market reaction. Practical
usefulness of this research is research is expected to provide an overview to investors that
when they will make investment decisions, in addition to considering a variety of
financial analysis, they also have to consider the audit opinion given by the auditor on the
financial statements, in particular the going concern audit opinion. Going concern audit
opinion received by a company can be a signal or bad news given by the auditor to the
investors so that they are more cautious because the opinion lead to the prediction of
company bankruptcy.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Signaling Theory
Signaling theory useful to describe the behavior when two parties (individuals
or organizations) have access to different information (Connelly, Certo, Ireland, &
Reutzel, 2011). Signaling theory originally proposed by Spence (1973) to explain the
behavior of the labor market. Spence (1973) created education signaling models to
explain the behavior of the labor market. In the model, education is seen as a potential
signal that is able to influence the behavior in the labor market. Signaling theory is further
used in the study of accounting and audit which states that management may provide a
signal about the company through the various aspects of the disclosure of financial
information, which can be seen as a signal to investors (Cullinan, Wang, Yang, and
Zhang, 2012),
Disclosure of going concern audit opinion is a signal given by an auditor to
investors regarding the conditions of a company in maintaing its business (O'Reilly,
2010). A signal provided to these investors could be a good news or bad news.
Announcement of going concern audit opinion may be regarded as bad news. Investors
may feel that there are doubts from the auditor about the viability of the company
receiving the opinion. In addition, they also may feel that going concern audit opinion as
a form of early warning of a company's bankruptcy prediction.
Audit Opinion Going Concern
Pernyataan Standar Akuntansi Keuangan No. 1 paragraph 25 stated that
management must make judgments about the company's ability to maintain its business
continuity (going concern) when preparing financial statements (DSAK, 2016). Going
concern is one of the four postulates that the basic concept underlying the historical cost
(Wolk et al., 2013). This postulate is simply stated that if there is no other evidence to the
contrary, it is assumed that a company will continue to run until unspecified time limit
(Wolk et al., 2013). Auditor as an independent party is also responsible for evaluating the
viability of a company (IAPI, 2013),
Based on the audit evidence obtained, the auditor shall conclude whether, in
the auditor's judgment, there is a material uncertainty related to the conditions that can
lead to significant doubt on the company's ability to maintain its business continuity
(IAPI, 2013). If the auditor concludes that the use of the going concern assumption is
appropriate in accordance with the conditions but there is some uncertainty material, the
auditor shall conclude: (1) if adequate disclosures included in the financial statements,
the auditor should express an unmodified opinion and (2) if the disclosure is adequate not
included in the financial statements, the auditor should express a qualified opinion or no
opinion reasonable in the circumstances (IAPI, 2013), If the financial statements have
been prepared on a going concern basis, but according to the auditor's consideration, the
use of the base assumption is not appropriate, the auditor shall express an adverse audit
opinion (IAPI, 2013). Thus, the going concern audit opinion consists of four types namely
unqualified audit opinion going concern unqualified with explanatory paragraph (OGC
WTPDPP), qualified audit opinion going concern (OGC WDP), adverse audit opinion
going concern (OGC TW), and disclaimer audit opinion going concern (OGC TMP).

Market Reaction
Examining the content of the information can be used to determine whether
there is a market reaction on the announcement. The market's reaction is a form of
response given by the market when there is an event announcement (Hartono, 2016). The
market reaction indicated the existence of the security price changes and can be measured
by using abnormal return (Hartono, 2016). If an event announcement contains
information then the announcement of the event will provide abnormal returns to the
market, but on the contrary, if there is no information content, the publication of such
events announcement will not provide abnormal returns to the market (Hartono, 2016),
Disclosure of going concern audit opinion by the auditor may be regarded as
a signal to investors regarding the conditions of a company’s viability (O'Reilly, 2010),
When investors look at their audit opinion going concern in the audit of financial
statements of the company, then investors will be more cautious in making investment
decisions in the company. This caution is indicated in response to purchase or sell shares
of the company after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. The response from
the investors will then be reflected in the stock price changes (abnormal return) firm
receiving audit opinion going concern.

Hypothesis Development
Signaling theory explained that management may provide a signal about the
company through the various aspects of the disclosure of financial information, which
can be seen as a signal to investors (Cullinan et al., 2012). Auditors as independent
external party is responsible for assessed the company's ability to maintain its business at
the time of the audit of the financial statements of companies (IAPI, 2013), Jones (1996)
states that evaluation regarding company’s continuity (going concern) conducted by an
independent auditor will provide useful information to investors.
O'Reilly (2010) in his research result, stated that investors feel going concern
audit opinion become relevant to determine stock prices. Firth (1978) also concluded that
investors use the information audit opinion going concern to change their opinion on a
security. When the company received a going concern audit opinion, investors will tend
to predict the market reaction is negative (Jones, 1996), Jones (1996) found a negative
abnormal returns around the date of the disclosure of the independent auditor's report for
the firm receiving audit opinion going concern. Chen & Church (1996) also found that
the company that received the going concern audit opinion has a negative abnormal
returns around the date of filing defaults. Citron et al. (2008) also found a significant
market price reactions related to the disclosure of going concern audit opinion, regardless
of when it was first made public opinion, which is the market price reaction shows a
negative abnormal return.
Investors tend to be regarded going concern audit opinion a negative sign
given by the auditor to the market. Disclosure of going concern audit opinion to the
market will lead investors to be more cautious in making investment decisions in the
company. The attitude of caution in response to the disclosure of going concern audit
opinion will be reflected in the market reaction indicated that the changes in stock prices
of securities in the form of changes in the value of the average abnormal stock returns
before and after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. Therefore, the hypothesis
of this study are as follows:
H1 : the going concern audit opinion affect the market reaction, as indicated by the
difference in the value of the average abnormal stock returns are statistically
significant between before and after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion.

Research Model
This study uses the estimation period during the 120 day windows period for
31 days (15 days before the day of the event, one day events, and 15 days after the day of
the event) to test market reaction to the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. The
use of the estimation period of 120 days aiming to get a good quality model of
expectations because of the number of observations increased. According to Hartono
(2016) "The more the number of observations, the better the quality of the model
expectations." The use of the windows period for 31 days because going concern audit
opinion is an information which the economic value is quite difficult to determine, so
investors need a long time to react (Hartono, 2016), Fifteen days before the day of the
event also involved in because of the windows period to determine whether there is
leakage of information, namely whether the market has heard this information before it
is published (Hartono, 2016),

Figure 1. Research Model


Average Abnormal Return

Estimates Period Window Period

-135 -16 -15 0 +15

Publication audit
opinion going concern
RESEARCH METHODS
Samples
This research is a events. study The samples in this study using purposive
sampling method, judgment sampling type. The number of companies listed on the
Indonesian Stock Exchange by 2016 as many as 545 companies, but the number of
companies listed on the years 2012 to 2016 only about 448 companies. During the 2012-
2016 period there are two companies that have delisted, 1 company mergers, 72
companies do not have the data complete audited financial statements, and 86 companies
did not have a complete stock data so that 161 companies were excluded from the sample.
A total of 287 companies or 1435 audited financial statements examined for concern audit
opinion. The test results showed that there were 29 companies that received a going
concern audit opinion and can be used as the sample in this study. Based on the
classification of the Jakarta Stock Exchange Industrial Classification (JASICA), 29
companies of the sample covered 8 of 9 sector sector companies in the Indonesia Stock
Exchange. This shows that the companies sampled in this study are representative in
representing all types of companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange.
The sample was going concern audit opinion received by the company in the
period 2012-2016. Number of going concern audit opinion received by 29 companies
during the observation period is 5 to know as much as 113 going concern audit opinion.
However, there are 20 going concern audit opinion specified is not worth analyzing
because it has a zero share price during the calculation period abnormal return value so
that the number of samples of the this reserach is 93 going concern audit opinion. Most
of samples of this study is unqualified audit opinion going concern with an explanatory
paragraph (OGC WTPDPP) as many as 88 samples or 95%, while the remaining 5
samples or 5% receive qualified audit opinion going concern (OGC WDP).

Research Variable
This research variable is categorized as two independent variables for this
study to test difference in the average value of abnormal stock returns before and after
the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. The proxy of going concern audit opinion
is the date of the submission of audited financial statements of companies to Indonesia
Stock Exchange as the date of disclosure of going concern audit opinion to the market.
The market's reaction will be measured by abnormal return (Hartono, 2016). Abnormal
return is the difference between its actual returns (actual return) with the expected return
(expected return) on each stock (Hartono, 2016). Abnormal return is calculated by using
the formula:

ARi, t = Ri, t - E (Ri, t)


Information:
A ri, t = abnormal return for the securities of the i-th in the event period to t
Ri, t = actual return for the securities of the i-th in the event period to t
E (Ri, t) = expected returnfor the securities of the i-th in the event period to t

actual return calculated using the following formula:


𝑃𝑖,𝑡 − 𝑃𝑖,𝑡−1
𝑅𝑖,𝑡 =
𝑃𝑖,𝑡−1
Information:
Ri, t = Actual return for the securities i in the event period to t
Pi, t = Share price for the securities i in the event period to t
Pi, t-1 = Share price for the securities i in the event period to t-1

To calculate the expected return value, this study uses a model conformity average (mean-
adjusted model) due to better reflect the capital market in Indonesia. Expected return
formula with an average compliance models, namely:
∑𝑡2
𝑗=𝑡1 𝑅𝑖,𝑗
E [Ri, t] =
𝑇
Information:
E [Ri, t] = Expected return of securities i-th in the event period to t
Ri, j = Actual return securities ith the estimation period to-j
T = Length of the estimation period, namely from t1 to t2

Having obtained the abnormal return value, then calculate the average abnormal return
by using the formula:
∑𝑘
𝑖=1 𝐴𝑅𝑖,𝑡
AAR rt =
𝑘
Information:
AAR t = average abnormal return k-securities on day t
ARit = abnormal return for the securities of the i-th on day t
k = Number of securities affected by the announcement of events

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS


Hypothesis Testing
Figure 2. Normal Probability Plot Graph

Source: Data processed

Normal probability plot graph in Figure 2 above shows that the spread of the
data points away from the direction of the diagonal line and distribution does not follow
the direction of the diagonal line. This means that the data are not normally distributed
residuals. The test results One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) also shows the value
of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistics (KS value) of 0.249 and significant at 0.000
(for p-value = 0.000 less than 0.01), which means that the data residual is not normal
distribution.
Normality test results show that the data are not normally distributed,
therefore test Wilcoxon signed rank test will be used to test hypotheses of this study. Test
Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed by comparing the value of the average
abnormal return before and after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. Software
used to test Wilcoxon signed rank test in this study was IBM SPSS 23. The version of
IBM SPSS Statistics Wilcoxon signed rank test results of this research test are shown in
Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1. Results of the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Rank


N mean Rank Sum of Ranks
AAR_sesudah - negative ranks 53 45.26 2399.00
AAR_sebelum positive ranks 34 42.03 1429.00
ties 6
Total 93
Source: Data processed

Based on Table 1 it can be seen that there are 53 negative data, or by 57%,
which means that 53 samples decreased the average value of abnormal return from the
value prior to the value after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. Mean rank or
average decline in value of the average abnormal stock return 53 samples amounted to
45.26 by the sum of ranks of 2399.00. Table 1 also shows that there are 34 positive data
or by 37%, which means that 34 samples increased the average value of abnormal return
from the value prior to the value after the disclosure of audit opinion going concern. Mean
rank or average increase in value of the average abnormal return 34 samples amounted to
42.03 by the sum of ranks of 1429.00. Table 1 also shows that as many as 6 or 6% of data
is the data ties, meaning that 6 samples have the same value between AAR_sebelum and
AAR_sesudah disclosure of going concern audit opinion.

Table 2. Results of Hypothesis Test of Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test


Information AAR_sesudah – AAR_sebelum
Z -2.053
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0,040
Source: Data processed

The research hypothesis states that the going concern audit opinion affect the
market reaction, as indicated by the difference in the value of the average abnormal stock
returns are statistically significant between before and after the disclosure of going
concern audit opinion. Based on Table 2 can be seen that the value of Z obtained from
the test results Wilcoxon signed rank test (Zhitung) is -2.053, while the value Ztabel with
alpha 5% or 0.05 indicates a value of -1.645. This means that the value Zhitung> Ztabel
is -2.053> -1.645. Table 2 also shows that the value of significance (Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed)) of the test results Wilcoxon signed rank test on AAR_sesudah and AAR_sebelum
value smaller than the significance level of 0.05 is equal to 0.04 (0.04 <0, 05). These
results indicate that this research support or reject H0 and H1 according to predictions at
the 95% confidence level or at alpha 5%.

Discussion
The test results Wilcoxon signed rank test showed the research hypothesis is
supported, which means that the going concern audit opinion affect the market reaction,
as indicated by the difference in the value of the average abnormal stock returns are
statistically significant between before and after the disclosure of going concern audit
opinion. The results of this study are consistent with the results of research conducted by
O'Reilly (2010), Citron et al. (2008), Jones (1996) and Chen & Church (1996).
The results of this study confirms that the disclosure of going concern audit
opinion can be regarded as an event announcement that contains information because the
disclosure of going concern audit opinion is able to provide abnormal returns to the
market. Abnormal return generated after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion
tends to be a negative abnormal return. It can be seen from a 57% sample of this study
showed a decrease in the value of abnormal return from the value prior to the value after
the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. The decreasing of abnormal stock returns
that occurs is also inclined towards impairment of negative abnormal stock returns. This
means that investors consider the disclosure of audit opinion going concern as a negative
signal or the bad news given by the auditor to the market so that investors response with
the negative value of abnormal stock returns after the company gets going concern audit
opinion. Thus, the effect of going concern audit opinion on the market reaction in this
study is shown from the negative market reaction after the disclosure of going concern
audit opinion.
Some previous studies also stated that the disclosure of going concern audit
opinion may cause a negative market reaction that is characterized by the occurrence of
abnormal stock return is negative. O'Reilly (2010) stated that the going concern audit
opinion is useful to investors as a negative signal or bad news about the viability of the
company. Citron et al. (2008) found that their reaction to a significant market prices
related to the disclosure of going concern audit opinion, regardless of when it was first
made public opinion, which is the market price reaction showed a negative abnormal
return. When the company received a going concern audit opinion, investors will tend to
predict the market reaction is negative (Jones, 1996).

COVER
Conclusion
This study aims to examine empirically the effect of audit opinion going
concern on the market reaction. The results of data analysis using Wilcoxon signed rank
test on 93 samples audit opinion going concern companies listed in Indonesia Stock
Exchange in 2012-2016 showed the research hypothesis is supported, which means that
the audit opinion going concern affect the market reaction. The analysis shows that there
are differences in the value of the average abnormal stock returns are statistically
significant between before and after the disclosure of audit opinion going concern. Effect
of going concern audit opinion on the market reaction shown by the negative market
reaction after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. Negative market reaction
characterized by their tendency of declining in value of abnormal stock returns in the
negative direction after the disclosure of going concern audit opinion. Based on the
signaling theory, the results of this study indicate that investors consider the disclosure of
going concern audit opinion as a negative signal or the bad news given by the auditor to
the market.

Limitation
Interpretation of the results of this study need to consider the limitations in
this study, most of the samples in this study were unqualified audit opinion going concern
explanatory paragraph (OGC WTPDPP). That type of going concern audit opinion is a
going concern audit opinion in that category quite well.
Suggestion

This study has several suggestions for further research development. First,
future studies should use the sample in the form of qualified going concern audit opinion
(OGC WDP), going concern adverse audit opinion (OGC TW), and going concern
disclaimer audit opinion (OGC TMP). The third type of audit opinion can be obtained by
extending the observation period. The third type of concern audit opinion is a category of
a bad audit opinion that the market reaction to be generated over the disclosure of that
opinion would likely provide a more robust results. Second, further research can use an
additional form of survey research methods to the investors to know the perception of
investors' concern audit opinion that will further strengthen these results.

Reference

Chen, K. C. W., & Church, B. K. (1996). Going concern opinions and the market’s
reaction to bankruptcy filings. Accounting Review, 71(1), 117–128.
https://doi.org/Article

Citron, D. B., Taffler, R. J., & Uang, J. Y. (2008). Delays in reporting price-sensitive
information: The case of going concern. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,
27(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2007.11.003

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling Theory :
A Review and Assessment. Journal of Management, 37(1), 39–67.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419

Cullinan, C. P., Wang, F., Yang, B., & Zhang, J. (2012). Audit opinion improvement and
the timing of disclosure. Advances in Accounting, 28(2), 333–343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2012.09.010

Dodd, P., Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R., & Leftwich, R. (1984). Qualified Audit Opinions
and Stock Prices: Information Content , Announcement Dates , and Concurrent
Disclosures. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 6, 3–38.

DSAK. (2016). Standar Akuntansi Keuangan Efektif per 1 Januari 2017. Jakarta: Ikatan
Akuntan Indonesia.

Elliott, J. A. (1982). “Subject to” Audit Opinions and Abnormal Security Returns
Outcomes and Ambiguities. Journal of Accounting Research, 20(2), 617–638.

Firth, M. (1978). Qualified Audit Reports: Their Impact on Investment Decisions. The
Accounting Review, 53(3), 642. Retrieved from
http://www.lib.lsu.edu/apps/onoffcampus.php?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/logi
n.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=4485345&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Hartono, J. (2016). Teori Portofolio dan Analisis Investasi (10th ed.). Yogyakarta: BPFE.
IAPI. (2013). Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik: Standar Audit 570 Kelangsungan
Usaha. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Januarti, I. (2009). Analisis Pengaruh Faktor Perusahaan , Kualitas Auditor , Kepemilikan


Perusahaan Terhadap Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern ( Perusahaan
Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia ). Jurnal Universitas
Diponegoro, 1–26.

Jones, F. L. (1996). The information content of the auditor’s going concern evaluation.
Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 15(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-
4254(95)00062-3

Junaidi, & Hartono, J. (2010). Faktor Non Keuangan Pada Opini Going Concern.
Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XIII, Purwokerto, 1–23.

O’Reilly, D. M. (2010). Do Investors Perceive The Going-Concern Opinion as Useful for


Pricing Stocks? Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(1), 4–16.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02686901011007270

Praptitorini, M., & Januarti, I. (2007). Analisis Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Debt Default
dan Opinion Shopping terhadap Penerimaan Opini Going Concern. Simposium
Nasional Akuntansi X, Makasar, 1–25.

Santosa, A. F., & Wedari, L. K. (2007). Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi


Kecenderungan Penerimaan Opini Audit Going Concern. JAAI, 11(2), 141–158.

Setyarno, E. B., Januarti, I., & Faisal. (2006). Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Kondisi
Keuangan Perusahaan, Opini Audit Tahun Sebelumnya, Pertumbuhan Perusahaan
Terhadap Opini Audit Going Concern. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IX, 1–25.

Spence, M. (1973). Job Market Signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3),
355–374.

Wolk, H. I., Dodd, J. L., & Rozycki, J. J. (2013). Accounting Theory: Conceptual Issues
in a Political and Economic Environment (Eight Edit). London: SAGE.