THE INFLUENCE OF AUDIT QUALITY, AUDIT OPINION, AND...
Transcript of THE INFLUENCE OF AUDIT QUALITY, AUDIT OPINION, AND...
THE INFLUENCE OF AUDIT QUALITY, AUDIT OPINION, AND SIZE
OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT FIRM ON
AUDIT REPORT LAG
(Empirical Study on Manufacturing Companies Listed in Indonesia Stock
Exchange 2014-2016)
By:
Raisa Rindraidah
1113082100002
ACCOUNTING DEPARTEMENT
INTERNATIONAL CLASS PROGRAM
THE FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2018
ii
The Influence of Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of Public
Accountant Firm on Audit Report Lag
(Empirical Study on Manufacturing Company Listed in Indonesia Stock
Exchange 2014-2016)
Bachelor Thesis
Submitted to Faculty of Economics and Business
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for
The Bachelor of Economics in Accounting
By:
Raisa Rindraidah
ID. 1113082100002
Thesis Advisor
Atiqah, SE., MS.AK
ID. 19820120 2009 12 2 004
INTERNATIONAL CLASS PROGRAM
ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH
JAKARTA
2018
iii
CERTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE EXAM
Today, Friday, July 14th, 2017 we have administered a comprehensive
examination to:
1. Name : Raisa Rindraidah
2. Student ID : 1113082100002
3. Department : Accounting (International Program)
4. Thesis Title : The Influence of Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of
Public Accountant Firm on Audit Report Lag (Empirical Study on
Manufacturing Company Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014-2016)
After careful observation and attention appearance and capabilities relevant for
comprehensive exam process, it was decided that above student passed and given
opportunity to continue to thesis as one of requirement to obtain Bachelor of
Economics in the Faculty of Economics and Business State Islamic University
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Jakarta, July 14th, 2017
Hepi Prayudiawan, SE.,MM.,Ak.,CA ( )
ID 19720516 200901 1 006 Examiner 1
Zuwesty Eka Putri, M.Ak ( )
ID 19800416 200901 2 006 Examiner 2
iv
CERTIFICATION OF THESIS EXAM
Today, Wednesday, May 23th, 2017 has been conducted on the thesis
examination to:
1. Name : Raisa Rindraidah
2. Student ID : 111308210000
3. Department : Accounting (International Program)
4. Thesis Title : The Influence of Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of
Public Accountant Firm on Audit Report Lag (Empirical Study on
Manufacturing Company Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014-2016)
After careful observation and attention appearance and capabilities relevant for
thesis exam process, it was decided that above student passed and the thesis was
accepted as one of requirement to obtain Bachelor of Economics in the Faculty of
Economics and Business State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Jakarta, May 23th, 2018
Hepi Prayudiawan, SE.,MM.,Ak.,CA ( )
ID 19720516 200901 1 006 Head of Examiner
Atiqah,SE.,MS.AK ( )
ID 19800416 200901 2 006 Secretary
Fitri Damayanti,SE.,M.Si ( )
ID 19810731 200604 2 003 Expert Examiner
v
STATEMENET SHEET OF AUTHENTICITY SCIENTIFIC WORKS
Signatures below:
Name : Raisa Rindradah
Student ID : 1113082100002
Faculty : Economics and Business
Department : Accounting
Hereby declare that in the writing of this thesis, I
1. Do not use other people’s ideas without being able to develop an
accountable
2. Do not do plagiarism of other people’s work manuscript
3. Do not use other people’s work without mentioning the original source or
without the owner’s permission.
4. Own work and able to work responsible for this work
If the future, there is demand from the other side of my work and have been
accountably proved, was found evidence that I have violated the above statement,
then i am ready to be sanction according to rules applicable in the Faculty of
Economics and Business State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
This statement truly made with sincere
Raisa Rindraidah
vi
CURRICULUM VITAE
I. PERSONAL IDENTITY
• Name : Raisa Rindraidah
• Place and Date of Birth : Jakarta, November 8th, 1994
• Address : Bojong Depok Baru DK/5.
Bojonggede-Bogor
• Phone : 0857-7261-6315
• Email : [email protected]
II. FORMAL EDUCATION
• State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta (2013-2018)
• SMAN 2 Cibinong (2009-2012)
• SMPN 1 Bojonggede (2006-2009)
• SD Muhammadiyah Bojonggede (2000-2006)
III. INFORMAL EDUCATION
• KAHFI Motivator School (2015)
• Latanza Dorm (2013)
IV. Organization
• Manager of Incoming Program AIESEC UIN Jakarta
V. CONFERENCE AND TRAINING
• Participant of Student Workshop Short Culture, Japan
• Delegate of Asia Pacific Future Leader Conference, Malaysia
vii
• Leadership Training by ESQ Leadership Center
• Seminar by U.S. Embassy Jakarta and FEB UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta, “Future Business Opportunities in the Global
Islamic Economy”
• Training “Forensic Audit to Enhance Accountability in the Public
Sector” by The 16th ATV FEB University of Indonesia.
• Basic Training Sharia Banking Program by Center for Islamic
Economics Studies (C.O.I.N.S)
• Seminar by Pusat Pembinaan Profesi Keuangan (PPPK) Sekretariat
Jenderal KementrianKeuangan and FEB UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta. “Sosialisasi Perkembangan Terkini Profesi di Bidang
Akuntansi dan Ujian Sertifikasi Akuntan (CA) dan Akuntan Publik
(CPA)”
• Seminar Master of Ceremony “Be a Professional Master of
Ceremony”
VI. FAMILY BACKGROUND
1. Father : Hasbi Indra
2. Mother : Siti Zubaedah
3. Child : 2 from 2 siblings
viii
Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Opini Audit, dan Ukuran Kantor Akuntan Publik
pada Audit Report Lag (Studi Empirik pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang
terdaftar pada Bursa Efek Jakarta tahun 2014-2016)
ABSTRAK
Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaruh kualitas audit, opini
audit, dan ukuran kantor akuntan publik pada audit report lag. Penelitian ini
menggunakan kuantitatif dan analisis regresi berganda sebagai metode statistik.
Penelitian ini menggunakan laporan keuangan peusahaan manufaktur tahun 2014-
2016. Variabel bebas kualitas audit diukur dengan menggunakan dengan biaya
audit, audit opini dan ukuran kantor akuntan publik menggunkan variabel dummy,
sedangkan variabel terikat audit report lag menggunakan jumlah hari dari
berakhirnya laporan keuangan sampai auditor mengaudit laporan keuangan. Hasil
dari uji T menunjukkan bahwa kualitas audit dan opini audit berpengaruh pada
audit report lag, sedangkan ukuran kantor akuntan publik tidak berpengaruh pada
audit report lag.
Kata Kunci: Kualitas Audit, Opini Audit, Ukuran Kantor Akuntan Publik,
Audit Report Lag, Perusahaan Manufaktur
ix
The Influence of Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of Public Accountant
Firm on Audit Report Lag (Empirical Study of Manufacturing Company listed
in Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014-2016)
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of audit quality, audit
opinion, and size of public accountant firm on audit report lag. The research used
a quantitative analysis approach and multiple regression as the statistical method.
It examined manufacturing company listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange period
2014-2016. The independent variables Audit Quality was measured by Audit Fee,
Audit Opinion and Size of Public Accountant Firm by dummy variable while the
dependent variable was measured by the number of days from the financial year-
end to the time when auditor sign the report of the firm. The result of T-test showed
that audit quality and audit opinion influenced audit report lag while the size of
public accountant firm did not influence audit report lag.
Keywords: Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, Size of Public Accountant Firm,
Audit Report Lag, Manufacturing Company
x
PREFACE
Alhamdulillahirobbila’lamin,
All praise and gratitude to Allah SWT, the creator of the universe and
mankind because of His blessing, mercy, and guidance the author finally could
finish the thesis with all the efforts the author has been through. The title of this
bachelor thesis is “The Influence of Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of
Public Accountant Firm on Audit Report Lag (Empirical Study on Manufacturing
Company listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014-2016). Shalawat and Salaam to
His Messenger, Prophet Muhammad PBUH who has brought the human from the
darkness to the lightness.
The author also feels grateful for every supports and motivation from all
families, lecturers, and friends, thus this research could be completed:
1. My special thanks to my Dad Hasbi Indra and my Mom Siti Zubaedah who
never stop to support and pray me, motivate me morally and financially.
Then, for my older brother Alvin Rindra Fazrie and my sister Maria Ulfa
who disposed to be the proofreader then to make the structure and grammar
in this research better.
2. The author also give great thanks to all lecturers who already shared their
knowledge and inspiration. Especially to Ms. Atiqah as the thesis advisor
who guided the author during the research, to Mr. Hepi Prayudiawan as
Secretary of Accounting Department, to Mrs. Yessi Fitria as Head of
Accounting Program, to Mr, Arif Mufraini as Dean of Economics and
Business Faculty, to Ms. Wilda Farah, Ms. Zuwesty, Ms. Yulianti, Ms.
Husnul, Mrs. Rikawati, Ms. Rini, and all the lecturers that the author cannot
mention all. Thank you for all dedications.
3. Thanks to Mr. Mufid Suryani and Ms. Nida who teach the author about
SPSS and give support and motivation.
4. Thanks to Mr. Bonix and all academic staffs for always helping me
administrative things.
xi
5. Kahfi Motivator School, Especially to Om Tubagus Wahyudi, Mba Wie, Ka
Mamduh, Ka Icha, Ka Milki, Ka Iyang, Ka Munir, and all seniors that the
author cannot mention all. Thank you for the knowledge. Then, thank you
to my second family B16 Eagle Eyes.
6. Thanks to Ka Fanny, Ka Rini, Ka Aida, Ka Acha, Faizah, Shara, and Mery
who always bring happiness and joy to the author’s life. Then, my IKIK
Family: Fadhlur, Jamal, Uyi, Apip, Ka Ucup, Ka Icank, Vino, and Ka Fuad.
7. Thanks to Irma and Syarah, thank you for being my partner in every
situation I faced. Thank you for your kindness, support, and motivate.
8. Thanks to Wiwid, Tami, Tiara, Opi, Tia, Denis, Lulu, and Latanza Family
who cannot the author mention all. Thank you for the beautiful memories,
support, and motivate.
9. Thanks to my Classmate of International Accounting Program, Ulan,
Banan, Melinda, Fita, (almh) Indri, Ryan, Afri, Aji, Panji, Putra, and Risky.
Thank you for four years we have spent together and have struggled from
the zero to hero. See you on the top.
10. Thanks to all people who cannot be mentioned by the author.
Finally, with all modesty, the author realizes that this research has some
limitations. Hence, the constructive critics and comments are welcome to improve
the quality of the next research. However, the author expects this research will be
useful for those who need it as well as to give the contributions in academic
enrichment.
Raisa Rindraidah
xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certification of Thesis Advisor ............................................................................ii
CERTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE EXAM ...................................... iii
CERTIFICATION OF THESIS EXAM ............................................................ iv
STATEMENET SHEET OF AUTHENTICITY SCIENTIFIC WORKS ....... v
CURRICULUM VITAE ...................................................................................... vi
ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................ viii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... ix
PREFACE .............................................................................................................. x
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... xii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ xv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 1
A. Background ............................................................................................................. 1
B. Problem Formulation .............................................................................................. 9
C. Purposes and Benefits ........................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER II STUDY LITERATURE ............................................................. 12
A. Literature ............................................................................................................... 12
B. Previous Research ................................................................................................. 27
C. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................ 38
A. Scope of Research ................................................................................................. 38
B. Sampling Method .................................................................................................. 38
C. Collection Data Method ........................................................................................ 39
D. Data Analysis Method ........................................................................................... 40
E. Research Variables Operationalization ................................................................. 47
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND ANALYSIS .................................................... 50
A. General Description of Research Object ............................................................... 50
B. Analysis and Discussion ....................................................................................... 51
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND
RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................... 68
xiii
A. Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 68
B. Implications ........................................................................................................... 69
C. Recommendation .................................................................................................. 70
REFFERENCES ................................................................................................. 71
APPENDIXES ..................................................................................................... 79
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
No. Description Page
Table 1.1 List of Companies Laid Off by IDX ....................................................... 6
Table 2.1 Previous Research ............................................................................... 288
Table 3.1 Variable Operationalization .................................................................. 49
Table 4.1 Detail of Research Sample ……………………………………… …... 50
Table 4 2 Descriptive Statistic Analysis 2014-2016 …………………………... 51
Table 4.3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Result ………………………………….. 54
Table 4.4 Multicollinearity Test Result ………………………………….......... 55
Table 4 5 Run Test Result ………………………………………………… ….. 57
Table 4 6 Coefficient of Determination Result ………………………………... 58
Table 4 7 Simultaneous Significant Test Result ………………………………. 59
Table 4 8 Partial Regression Test Result ……………………………………… 60
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Description Page
Figure 2.1 Research Model ................................................................................... 36
Figure 4.1 Normal P-Plot ………………………………………………………. 53
Figure 4.2 Scatterplot Graphic .............................................................................. 56
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
The audited financial statement is the most reliable source and
reference to accounting information available to external users. (Alkhatib
and Marji, 2012). As stated by FASB, concept statement 2, financial
information must be both relevant and reliable. To be relevant to economic
value, the financial information contained in the year-end final statement
should be disclosure in a timely manner and delivered to users as soon as
practicable after the fiscal year-end (Al-Ajmi, 2008: Alkatib and Marji,
2012).
Based on Ikatan Akuntansi Indonesia (IAI) requires the financial
statement that can be used by users must be understandability, relevance,
reliability, and comparability. The financial statement as information that
must be relevant to decision-making. One of the indicators to measure the
relevancy is timeliness. Timeliness and accuracy are the two criteria
indicating the usefulness of corporate reports. The usefulness of the
information disclosed in the annual report will decrease if the time taken to
complete the auditing process of financial statements increases (Abdulla,
1996). Financial statements are prepared to provide useful information for
making business and economic decisions (Dogan et al., 2007). The
information of financial statement is beneficial for the users to assess the
2
financial condition and performance of related companies. Because of the
limited availability of financial information beyond the financial statements,
the timely release of these financial statements in an emerging market is
vital to ensure a constant flow of capital. However, as required by laws and
regulations. The financial statements can be released by the company after
verification by the external auditor. Consequently, the speed of financial
statements to be released to the public is significantly determined by the
speed of the audit work (Abidin, 2012).
According to Statement of Financial Accounting Standard in 2017
on Kerangka Konseptual Pelaporan Keuangan paragraph 3.29, if there is
undue delay in reporting, the information generated will lose the relevance.
The relevance of financial statement depends on timeliness to deliver the
information that used to take a decision. The information of financial
statement needed by users can be useful if it presented accurately and on
time and otherwise information will lose its benefits if not presented
accurately and on time.
The timeliness of financial reporting depends highly on the
preparation of accounts by company management, the issuance of the
accounts to independent auditors for auditing and the length of time taken
by auditors to complete the audit assignment. The longer the time auditors
devote to complete the audit, the longer the delay in the issuance of the
audited account (Ahmad, 2015). The general purpose of the audited
financial statement is giving the fairly opinion of financial statement in
3
accordance with accounting principles before using by the users. According
to Generally Accepted Auditing Standard (GAAS), there are 10 standards
of Generally Accepted Auditing Standard. These standards were originally
approved by the member of American Institute of Certified Public
Accounting (AICPA). The 10 GAAS which also identifies the three
categories, these are general standard, standards of field work, and standards
of reporting (Boynton, 2006).
Because of that procedure of audit which is done by the auditor for
fulfilling the standards gives the impact of timeliness on the company to
publish the financial statement. The public companies should submit
periodic financial statements, namely annual reports, and mid financial
statements or quarterly financial report which is in Indonesia is every 4
months (divided into quarterly 1, 2, and 3). The annual financial statement
submitted to Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan
(Bapepam-LK) and should be announced to the public. The financial
statement is a tool to deliver financial information regarding the
management’s responsibility for their performance (Novianti, 2012).
In accordance to the regulation in Indonesia, Badan Pengawas
Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK) requires that
company that listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX) should publish the
financial statement on time. Based on Peraturan Badan Pengawas Pasar
Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan (Bapepam-LK) No. KEP-346/BL/2011 and
has been refined No. KEP-431/BL/2012 on submission of the financial
4
statement for the public company that is registered in Indonesian Stock
Exchange (IDX). The company should submit the annual report to
Bapepam-LK at least four months before the book year-end. This regulation
starts on August 1, 2012.
Due to the government regulations from Finance Ministry of
Indonesia No: KEP-346/BL/2012 announced that public company in
Indonesia should report periodic financial statement and annual reports to
Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal (Bapepam) which must be accompanied by
an opinion of public accountants who audited the financial statements.
Auditors with carrying out a series of the audit process, if found any material
misstatement in the financial statement, the auditor have a right to give
justification recommendations. This makes the company requires the
services of a public accountant (auditor).
An auditor provides audit services on the client's financial
statements to provide assurance to users of financial statements that the
financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting
standards so that financial statements can be relied upon in making
decisions. The decision makers, of course, expect the best results of the audit
so as to make them believe the decision they should take. Audit services is
a means of monitoring the possibility of the conflict of interest between the
owner and managers and the shareholders with a number of different
ownership and can reduce the information asymmetry between managers
5
and stakeholders of the company to allow outsiders to check the validity of
financial statements (Jensen and Meckling, 1976).
On the other hand, if the company which cannot submit the financial
statement until due date, the company will get the administrative sanction
in accordance with Governance Regulation No. 45 year 1995 on
Implementation of Operation in Capital Market Chapter XII article 63 letter
E. Public company that listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX) will get
sanction 1.000.000 (one million) IDR for days of delay with the maximum
sanction is 500.000.000 (five hundred million) IDR. To avoid the
administrative sanction, the company need to submit the report before the
due date from Bapepam-LK.
However, many companies in Indonesia cannot fulfill the regulation
of Bapepam-LK. PT Energi Mega Persada Tbk (ENGR) and PT Berau Caol
Energy Tbk (BRAU) have been given a first written warning by the
Indonesian Stock Exchange due to submit an interim financial report as
Mach 31, 2013 have not been audited by the public accountant. Based on
obligation of information delivery the rule number I E, the interim audited
financial statement submitted to Indonesian Stock Exchange (IDX) at least
before than three months after the financial year-end. Then, Provision II.6.2
of Rule Number I – H about sanction that Indonesia Stock Exchange gives
second written warning with the penalty is 50.000.000 (fifty million) IDR if
the company do not publish financial statement from the financial year-end
until three months or more. Previously, The Bakrie Group, PT Bakrie
6
Sumatra Plantation Tbk (UNSP) and Bakrieland Development Tbk (ELTY)
imposed a fine 150 million IDR because of late to publish financial
statement (Harian Ekonomi Neraca, 2013). Meanwhile, there are 52
companies recorded until April 1, 2015 have not submitted the financial
statement period 2014, with seven companies not yet required to submit
because the different of company’s fiscal year (Harian Ekonomi Neraca,
2015). In 2016, IDX had recently suspended or suspended temporary to 14
companies that not fulfill the obligation to submit the interim financial
statement on June 30, 2016 and paid the penalty. One company is suspended
and 13 companies extended their suspension since the first session of the
trade effect by October 31, 2016 (Harian Ekonomi Neraca, 2016). In 2017,
According to Chief of Corporate Assessment Divison I, I Gede Nyoman
Netra, there are 16 companies that had not submitted interim financial report
on March 31, 2017 and have not paid any penalty for delay in submitting
the financial statement (Detikfinance, 2017).
Table 1.1
List of Companies Laid Off by IDX
No Company’s Name
1 PT Borneo Lumbung Energi & Metal Tbk
2 PT Berau Coal Energy Tbk
3 PT Bakrie Telecom Tb
4 PT Energi Muda Persada Tbk
5 PT Eterindo Wahanatama Tbk
6 PT Citra Maharika Nusantara Corpora Tbk
7
7 PT Inovisi Infracom Tbk
8 PT Capitalinc Investment Tbk
9 PT Steady Safe Tbk
10 PT Permata Prima Sakti Tbk
11 PT Skybee Tbk
12 PT Sigmagold Inti Perkasa Tbk
13 PT Evergreen Invesco Tbk
14 PT Garda Tujuh Buana Tbk
15 PT Merck Sharp Dohme Pharma Tbk
16 PT Zebra Nusantara Tbk
finance.detik.com/bursa-dan-valas/d-3580122/bei-suspensi-16-
saham-sekaligus
Due to the obligation, the company should aware of the period to
publish the audited financial statement. There is the number of days from
the accounting year end of a company and the audit report date. As
important information conciliator, the audit report is all the time a focus of
audit firms, companies, regulators and investors and its report lag directly
determines the usefulness of decision making. Inordinate audit report lag
(Dibia, 2013) Delays in reporting financial information will clearly impact
on the effectiveness of reports. The timeliness of audit reports is becoming
an important issue as the timing and delivery of the reports will affect the
relevance of financial statements (Dopuch et al., 1986; Field and Walkins,
1991; Jaggi and Tsui, 1999 in Rusmin 2017). The issue of timeliness of
financial reporting has attracted considerable attention from professional
bodies, researchers, regulatory agencies and users of accounting
8
information as an important qualitative characteristic of financial
accounting information. Timely accounting information will lead to
investor confidence and thus enhance market efficiency (Leventis et al.,
2005).
On the other hand, Nelson and Shukeri (2011) found that the audit
opinion as one of the corporate governance’s characteristic influences audit
delay in Malaysia. Then, Arifa (2013) and Lindasari (2015) explained that
audit opinion influence audit report lag, because companies which get
unqualified opinion can be faster to publish its financial report rather than
qualified opinion. And according to Hariza et al (2010) found an influence
of the size of the public accounting firms on auditing’s quality, the auditor
from Big-4 provides a higher quality than the smaller or non-reputable
auditors do.
Based on those reasons, the researcher conducted a study entitled
“The Influence of Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of Public
Accountant Firm on Audit Report Lag (Empirical Study on Manufacturing
Company Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange 2014-2016).”
This research is an extension of the previous research done by Dibia
(2013), Fadoli (2015), and Rusmin (2017). The differences of this study
with the previous research are as follows:
1. The variable used in previous research is audit quality which
is auditor industry specialization and auditor reputation as
the proxy (Rusmin, 2017); Solvency, profitability, liquidity,
9
firm size, firm age, audit opinion, and classification of
industry (Fadoli, 2015); Firm age, Firm Size, Big 4, and Firm
Switch (Dibia, 2013). Whereas in this research uses audit
fee as a proxy of audit quality and the addition of two
variables, there are audit opinion and size of public
accountant firm.
2. The population of this research is Manufacturing Company
Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange at the period 2014-2016.
Meanwhile, the population before is in Nigeria Company
(Dibia, 2011) and Indonesia (Fadoli, 2015) and Rusmin,
2017).
3. The period of this research is 2014-2016, Meanwhile, the
period before is in the previous before is 2008-2011 (Dibia,
2013), 2008-2013 (Fadoli, 2015), and 2010-2011 (Rusmin,
2017).
B. Problem Formulation
From the background above, the problem formulation that will
identify in this research are:
1. Does audit quality influence audit report lag?
2. Does audit opinion influence audit report lag?
3. Does the size of public accountant firm influence audit report
lag?
10
4. Does audit quality, audit opinion, and size of public
accountant firm simultaneously influence audit report lag?
C. Purposes and Benefits
1. Purposes of Research
Based on the problems formulation above, the purposes of
the research are:
a. To analyze the influence of audit quality on audit
report lag.
b. To analyze the influence of audit opinion on audit
report lag.
c. To analyze the influence of the size of public
accountant firm on audit report lag.
d. To analyze the simultaneous influence of audit
quality, audit opinion, and size of public accountant
firm on audit report lag.
2. Benefits of Research
a. Theoretical Contributions
1) Student Accounting Department, this study is used as
reference material for future research and
comparative increase knowledge.
2) Society, as information facilities about the audit
quality, audit opinion, and size of public accountant
11
firm and also as the addition of knowledge about
auditing which may be useful in the future.
3) Subsequent researchers, as a reference for those
parties who will carry out further research on this
topic.
b. Practical contribution
1) Auditor and Public Accountant Firm, provide
information in order to be able to plan the field work
as well as in order to minimize delays in audited
financial report and improving the accuracy of the
audited financial report.
2) Public, as information about auditing, in particular,
the audit report lag to provide empirical evidence the
influence of audit quality, audit opinion, and size of
accountant firm on audit report lag.
12
CHAPTER II
STUDY LITERATURE
A. Literature
1. Agency Theory
Agency theory is the relationship between shareholder as a
principle and manager as an agency. It holds a central role in the
corporate governance literature. Describing fundamental conflict
between self-interested managers and owners, when the formers
have the control of the firm but the latter bear most of the wealth
effects (Laiho, 2011). Jensen and Meckling (1976) described how
lower managerial stakes lead to increases in non-pecuniary spending
by the managers as they do not fully internalize the costs. Agency
problems of this kind generate agency costs.
Jensen’s and Meckling’s insight had also lead to models,
where the ownership structure matters not only in the sense how
much the company insiders own but also in the sense how
concentrated the holdings of the outside shareholders are. Large
shareholders were argued to monitor the management better than
small shareholders as they internalized larger part of the monitoring
costs and had sufficient voting power to influence corporate
decisions. In addition, a range of other mechanisms that either align
the interests of the managers and owners or limit managerial
13
discretion have been suggested to reduce agency costs (Laiho,
2011).
The model the relationship between owners and managers
similar to one between a principal and an agent was the key insight
of Jensen and Meckling (1976). The owners contract the managers
to perform the controlling tasks of a firm, and as both seek to
maximize their own utility and are self-interested a conflict of
interest arises. Then, Jensen and Meckling (1976) define the costs
caused by the divergence of interests between owners and managers
as agency costs consisting of 1) the monitoring expenditures by the
principal, 2) bonding expenditures by the agent and 3) the residual
loss, on which we will be especially focusing on.
Agency costs arise in any situation involving a cooperative
effort by two or more people even though there is no clear-cut
principal-agent relationship. Viewed in this light it is clear that our
definition of agency costs and their importance to the theory of the
firm bears a close relationship to the problem of shirking and
monitoring of team production. Since the relationship between the
stockholders and the managers of a corporation fits the definition of
a pure agency relationship, it should come as no surprise to discover
that the issues associated with the “separation of ownership and
control” in the modern diffuse ownership corporation are intimately
14
associated with the general problem of agency (Jensen & Meckling,
1976).
To control and observe management decisions, principals
(owners) tend to pay monitoring costs which may include, among
others, the costs of preparing and auditing accounting statements and
reports. Thus, the provision of audited financial statements is
monitoring mechanisms that help narrow information gap between
the principals (owners) and the agent (management) and assure
shareholders that financial statements prepared by management are
free from material misstatements (Watts and Zimmerman, 1986).
The usefulness of accounting information to diverse financial
statement users depends on the completeness, accuracy, reliability,
and timeliness of this information. Hence, timely reporting might be
viewed as one of the main determinants of financial reporting quality
that enhances the decision-making quality (Hasan, 2006).
2. Auditing
Auditing is an examination of a company’s financial
statement by a firm of independent public accountants. The audit
consists of a searching investigation of the accounting records and
other evidence supporting those financial statements. Through the
study and evaluation of the internal control company’s system, and
by the documents, asset observation, the making of inquiries within
and outside the company, and by other auditing procedures. The
15
auditor will gather the evidence necessary to determine whether the
financial statement provides a fair and reasonably complete picture
of the company’s financial position and its activities during the
period being audited (Meigs et al, 1982). Boyton and Johnson (2006)
provide a definition of auditing as a systematic process to obtain and
evaluate evidence objectively about assertions and economic event,
in order to determine the degree of correspondence between
assertions with predetermined criteria and delivery of the result to
the parties. There are several attributes of auditing:
(i) A systematic process connotes a logical, structured, and organized
series of steps or procedures,
(ii) Objectively obtaining and evaluating evidence means examining
the bases for the assertions and judiciously evaluating the results
without bias or prejudice either for or against the individual (or
entity) making the assertions.
(iii) Assertions about economic actions and events are the
representations made by the entity or individual. They comprise the
subject matter of auditing. Assertions include information contained
in financial statements, internal operating report, and tax returns.
(iv) Degree of correspondence refers to the closeness with which the
assertions can be identified with establish criteria. The expression of
correspondence may be quantified, such as the amount of a shortage
16
in petty cash fund, or it may be qualitative, such as the fairness of
financial statements.
(v) Established criteria are the standard against which the assertions
or representations are judged. Criteria may be specified rules
prescribed by a legislative body, budgets and other measures of
performance set by management. Or generally accepted accounting
principles (GAAP) established by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (PASB) and other authoritative bodies.
(vi) Communicating the result is achieved through a written report
that indicates the degree of correspondence between the assertions
and established criteria.
(vii) Interested users are individuals who use (rely on) the auditor’s
findings. In a business environment, they include stockholder,
management, creditors, governmental agencies, and the public.
a. Auditing Standards
Standards are authoritative rules for measuring the
quality of performance. The existence of generally accepted
auditing standards is evidence that auditors are much concern
Auditing standard determine the quality of performance and
the whole purpose is to be achieved in an audit of financial
statements (Boyton and Johnson, 2006).
17
1. General standard
a. The examination is to be performed by a
person or persons having adequate technical
training and proficiency as an auditor
b. In all matters relating to the assignment,
independence in mental attitude is to be
maintained by the auditor or auditors.
c. Due professional care is to be exercised I the
performance of the must be maintained by the
auditor.
2. Standard of Field Work
a. Works must be planned well and assistants
should be properly supervised.
b. Sufficient understanding on internal control
should be obtained to plan the audit and
determine the nature, timing, and extent of
testing.
c. Sufficient competent audit evidence should
be obtain through audit procedures.
3. Standard of Reporting Work
a. The audit report must state whether the
financial statements are prepared in
18
accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles in Indonesia.
b. The audit report should indicate or declare, if
there are inconsistencies in the application of
accounting principles in the preparation of the
financial statements of the current period
compared with the application of the
accounting principles in the previous period.
c. Informative disclosure in the financial
statements should be considered sufficient,
unless otherwise stated in the audit report.
d. The audit report must include a statement of
opinion on the financial statements as a
whole, or an assertion that such a statement
cannot be given if the overall opinion cannot
be given. The reason must be stated.
The 10 standards set forth by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants includes such intangible and
subjective terms of measurement as adequate planning, proper
evaluation of internal control, sufficient competent evidential
matter, and adequate disclosure (Meigs et al, 1982).
19
3. Audit Quality
DeAngelo (1981) defined quality audit as the probability that
an auditor discovered and reported about the existence of a breach
in the accounting system of its clients. Qualified auditors should
provide proper information, not only wore a higher fee so the choice
was reflected the information contained in the company. Malihi et
al. (2012) provided the further explanation that audit quality could
be a function of the auditor’s ability to detect material misstatements
and reporting the errors. Together with other similar definitions, they
all emphasize on two of the most important aspects of audit quality,
namely auditor ability or auditor effort, and auditor independence.
Therefore, this stream of definitions is mainly about the auditors’
quality. Another stream of defining audit quality focuses on the
accuracy of the information reported by the auditors.
Audit quality is measured by two formative indicators,
namely: (a) auditor's reputation showed that reputation is public
perceptions about auditor past performance regarding to audit
quality and standards of professional conduct that are consistent in
auditing process and (b) industry specialist auditors stated that
auditors are that often assigned to specific industries become very
adept to identify and address the problems of specific industry audit,
resulting in a high-quality audit (Halim et al, 2014). The audit
process is considered a key important element in the structure of
20
financial statements because it tests whether the financial
information is in an independent and objective form, in order to
increase the credibility of this information. The most important
factor of audit quality is the ability of an auditor to detect errors and
other significant misstatements and reducing the level of accounting
information inconsistency between shareholders and management
(Almomani, 2015). On the other hand, the term auditing quality has
different meanings depending on the viewpoint of the recipient or
the provider of the audit service. Users of financial statements state
that good quality auditing occurs when the auditor can give
assurances that there are no material misstatements in the financial
statement. While the auditors’ views are that high-quality auditing
occurs when the auditors work in accordance with the existing
professional standards, are able to assess the audited businesses’
risks with the aim of minimizing the risk of litigation, and to avoid
to the ruin of the auditors’ reputations. Therefore, auditing quality is
an important thing for an auditor during the auditing process (c).
To be able to perform their obligations, there are three
components that must be possessed by auditors, namely
competence, independence and due professional care. In carrying
out their functions, an auditor often experiences conflicts of interest
with the company management. The management might want the
company's operating results, or its performance, to appear to be more
21
successful by depicting using better data, with the intention of
getting an award (e.g. bonus). To achieve these objectives, the
company’s management often compels the auditor to produce
audited financial statements in accordance with their wishes. An
auditor has a strategic position for both the management and the
financial statement’s users. Besides, the users of financial statements
put a lot of faith in the work of auditors. This faith in the audited
financial statements, by their users and in the service that is provided
by the auditors, requires that the auditors pay attention to the quality
of the auditing they conduct (Junaidi, et al, 2016).
According to Deis and Giroux (1992) conducted a study of
four aspects that are considered to have a relationship with an audit’s
quality, namely: (1) Tenure, implying that the longer an auditor
works for the same client, the lower the quality of his/her audits
become, (2) number of clients, hinting at the idea that the greater the
number of clients an auditor has, the better the auditing quality will
be, since an auditor with a large number of clients will try to
maintain his/her good reputation, (3) the financial health of the
client, meaning that the healthier the financial condition of the client
is, the bigger the tendency will be to press the auditor to not follow
the standard procedures and (4) a review by a third party, implying
that the quality of the audit will increase if the auditor knows that
his/her service is going to be reviewed by someone else.
22
Moreover, there are a lot of proxies’ uses to measure the
audit quality. Which is Ahmed (2012) in Almomani (2015) used
audit fees, audit office size, client's retention period, association with
international audit fees and professional qualification of audit office
employees, as features of audit quality. The features of audit quality
that used by Hamdan (2012) in Nawaiseh (2016) include audit office
size, audit fees, client's retention period, audit office specialization
with the industry of the client, and the association between audit
office and the international offices of auditing.
4. Audit Opinion
According to Rena (2016), the opinion of the independent
audit has significant importance in decreasing the information risk
and increasing the reliability of the information submitted in the
financial tables that form the basis of the decisions reached by
financial information users. The end product of an audit of a
business enterprise is a report expressing the auditor’s opinion on
the client’s financial statements. The standard of auditor’s report
consists of only two short paragraphs. The first paragraph is a
concise statement of the scope of the examination and the second
paragraph is an equally concise statement of the auditor’s opinion
base on the examination (Meige, 1982). Auditor’s opinion is very
important for the company or other parties because the auditor’
23
report can add the credibility of the financial statement, thereby
increasing the confidence of investor to invest.
The audit opinion published by the auditor is divided into
five main types, namely:
1. unqualified opinion report
Unqualified opinions are given by the auditor
if the financial statement that presents fairly, in the
financial statement, results of operations, and cash
flow.
2. unqualified opinion reports with explanatory
language
The condition that auditor should add an
explanatory paragraph in the audit report because
there is a certain condition that requires an
explanatory language, but the financial statement still
present fairly.
3. qualified opinion reports
This opinion will be given by the auditor if
the auditor finds:
a. There is insufficient evidence or limitations
to the scope of the material audit.
24
b. There is the aberration in the financial
statements of the applicable accounting
principles that affect the material.
4. adverse opinion reports
The financial statements do not present fairly
of the results of operations and cash flows in
accordance with accounting principles. The auditor
should explain the supporting explanation, the
unreasonable opinion, and the main impact of the
thing that causes the opinion to be given to the
financial statements.
5. disclaimer of opinion reports
This statement is given by the auditor if there
is a limitation of the scope of the audit in material,
either by the client or due to certain conditions. Thus,
it makes the auditor not independent of the client.
5. Size of Public Accountant Firm
The classified of auditor into two different groups, namely
auditors who are affiliated with the big four firms and auditors who
are not affiliated with the big four. When an auditor claims to be an
auditor of good standing, because he/she has connections to the big
four, he/she will strive to maintain his/her good name and avoid
actions that lower his/her standing (Fanny & Saputra, 2005 in Juandi
25
et al, 2016). Big Four auditors affiliated with local firms in Indonesia
include:
1. Auditing Firm of Purwantono, Sarwoko, and
Sandjaja affiliated with Ernest and Young (EY).
2. Auditing Firm of Osman Bing Satrio and Partners
affiliated with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (Deloitte).
3. Auditing Firm of Siddharta and Widjaja affiliated
with Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler (KPMG).
4. Auditing Firm of Haryanto Sahari and Partners
affiliated with Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC).
According to the rules of the Indonesian Institute of Certified
Public Accountants, foreign auditors are allowed to perform service
activities in Indonesia by affiliating with local auditors. For that, the
measurement of the auditor’s reputation is separated into two,
namely auditors affiliated with the big four and those not affiliated
with the big four. Auditors are responsible for providing high-
quality information that is useful for making decisions.
According to Fanny and Saputra (2005) in Juandi et al, 2016
state that the client usually perceives that accountants coming from
the large firms of auditors, who have affiliations with international
auditors, are of a higher quality because the auditors have
characteristics that can be associated with quality, such as training,
international recognition, and experience, as well as their peer’s
26
respect. Auditors who have a good reputation and name can provide
a better quality of audit, in order to maintain their reputation.
6. Audit Report Lag
The auditor report is an independent examination and
expression of opinion on the financial statements of company's
annual reports. The objective of an audit is to independently verify
the contents and the preparation of the company's financial
statements according to the standards, regulations, and
requirements. The timeliness of audited company annual reports is
regarded as to a significant aspect influencing the usefulness of
information available to external users for decision-making process
(Al-Ajmi, 2008)
According to Hossain and Taylor (1998), the delay in the
publication of the company’s financial statement because the
financial statement must be audited prior to publication. The
independent auditor requires a certain amount of time to complete
the audit work resulting in an audit report lag. Audit report lag is
therefore defined as the number of days from the accounting year
end of a company and the audit report date. As important
information conciliator, the audit report is all the time a focus of
audit firms, companies, regulators and investors and its report lag
directly determines the usefulness of decision making. The
inordinate audit, the quality of financial reporting by not providing
27
timely information to investors and prospective investors (Dibia,
2013).
the ARL is important because: (i) the ARL affects the
timeliness of both audit and earnings information and (ii) a better
understanding of what factors drive the ARL is likely to provide
more insights into audit efficiency. As the audit report contains the
auditor’s opinion regarding the credibility of the financial
statements, investors prefer to see the audit report released within a
short period following the end of the fiscal year. Based on previous
research by Dyer and McHugh (1975), the type of reporting lags can
be classified as three: (i) Audit Lag- interval days between the
balance sheet closing date and the signed date of auditor’s report
stated in the corporate annual, (ii) Preliminary lag- interval between
the balance sheet closing date and the date companies are required
to submit their audited financial report to Stock Exchange, (iii) Total
lag- interval of days between the balance sheet closing date and the
date audited financial report distributed to shareholders in General
meeting to shareholder.
B. Previous Research
Below are the results from several researches from several
researchers which became the references of this study. The results can be
seen in Table.2.1 below
28
Table 2.1
Previous Research
No Title
(Researcher,
year)
Research Methodology Research
Results Differentiation Similarities
1 Audit Quality
and Audit Report
Lag: Case of
Listed
Companies
(Rusmin and
Evans, 2017)
Proxy on audit
quality. The
addition of two
independent
variables, namely:
audit opinion and
size of public
accountant firm
The object of
research and
variable of audit
report lag
The negative
significant
between audit
industry
specialization and
audit report
timeliness as a
proxy of audit
quality. Then, Big-
4 auditors perform
significantly faster
than nonBig-4
2 The Influence of
Internal and
External on
Audit Report Lag
Empirical Study
on
Manufacturing
and Banking
Listed in IDX
period 2008-
2013
(Imam Fadoli,
2015)
Independent
variables: audit
quality and size
Variable of audit
opinion. Using
purposive
Solvency
influences audit
report lag, while
profitability,
liquidity, firm size,
firm age,
classification of
industry company,
and audit opinion
do not influence
audit report lag
3 The Effect of
Subsidiaries,
Audit
Complexity, and
Audit Opinion on
Audit Report Lag
(Lindasari, Retno
Yuni NS, and
Grace Andani,
2015)
Independent
variables: audit
quality and size of
public accountant
firm. Object of
research
Variable of audit
opinion. Using
purposive
sampling and
regression model
The Subsidiaries,
Audit Complexity,
and Audit
Opinion’s variable
have influence on
audit report lag
4 The Influence
Factors toward
Audit Reposr
Lag on
Manufacturing
Company Listed
Variables of audit
quality and size of
public accountant
firm. The object of
research
Variable of audit
report lag.
Regression model
The company,
leverage, and
auditor industry
specialization
effect on audit
report lag
Continues to the next page
29
No Title
(Researcher,
year)
Research Methodology Research
Results Differentiation Similarities
In IDX 2008-2012
(Alvyra Nesia
Indah Putri, Indira
Januarti, 2014)
5 Characteristics of
the Audit
Committee and
Audit Report Lag
(Nigar Sultana, et
al, 2014)
Variables of audit
quality and size of
public accountant
firm.
Variable of audit
report lag
Audit committee
with financial
expertise
associated with
shorter audit report
lag
6 The Influence
Factors toward
Audit Report Lag in
IDX
(Ivena Tiono and
Julius Jogi, 2013)
Variables of audit
quality and size of
accountant firm.
Variable of audit
opinion. Using
purposive
sampling
Profitability, audit
opinion, type of
firm, size of public
accountant firm,
and audit
reputation effect
on audit report lag.
7 Audit Tenure,
Auditor
Specialization, and
Audit Report Lag
(Mai Dao and
Trung Pham, 2011)
Variables of audit
quality and size of
accountant firm.
Variable of audit
report lag. Using
regression
model.
The auditor
industry
specialization
(regardless of city-
level, national-
level and joint
city- and national-
level industry
specialization)
weakens the
positive
association
between ARL
audit firm tenure.
8 Audit Firm Industry
specialization and
Audit Report Lag
(Ahsan Habib and
Md. Borhan Uddin
Bhuiyan, 2011)
Variables of audit
quality and audit
opinion. The
object of research
Variable of audit
report lag. Using
regression
model.
The company that
audited by auditor
specialization has
shorter lag.
9 Corporate
Governance and
Audit Report
Timeliness:
Evidence from
Malaysia
Variables of audit
quality and size of
public accountant
firm. The object
of research
Variable of audit
report lag. Using
regression
model.
Audit Report
Timeliness is
influenced by audit
committee size,
type of auditor,
opinion audit
opinion, and
profitability.
Continues to the next page
30
No Title
(Researcher,
year)
Research Methodology Research
Results
(Sherliza Puat
Nelson dan Siti
Norwahida Shukeri,
2011)
However, no
association was
found between
board
independence,
audit committee
meetings, audit
committee
members’
qualifications and
audit timeliness
10 The Influence
Factors toward
Audit Report Lag in
IDX
(Meylisa Iskandar
and Estralita
Trisnawati Januar,
2010)
Variable of audit
quality. The
object of research
Variable of audit
opinion and size
of public
accountant firm.
Using purposive
sampling.
Industry
classification,
current year
income (loss), and
size of KAP have
an effect on audit
report lag. But
total assets, audit
opinion, and debt
proportional have
no effect.
C. Conceptual Framework
1. Variable Interrelation
a. Audit Quality and Audit Report Lag
According to DeAngelo (1981), Auditing quality
was defined as the possibility that the auditor will detect
and report material misstatements. The term ‘auditing
quality’ has different meanings depending on the
viewpoint of the recipient or the provider of the audit
service. Users of financial statements state that good
quality auditing occurs when the auditor can give
assurances that there are no material misstatements in the
31
financial statement. While the auditors’ views are that
high-quality auditing occurs when the auditors work in
accordance with the existing professional standards, are
able to assess the audited businesses’ risks with the aim
of minimizing the risk of litigation, and to avoid to the
ruin of the auditors’ reputations. Therefore, auditing
quality is an important thing for an auditor during the
auditing process (Junaidi et al, 2016).
Based on Hay and Davis (2002) audit fee is one
of the factors that influence audit quality besides
reputation of public accountant firm and professionalism
of public accountant firm. Kurniasih and Rohman (2014)
explained that higher costs will improve audit quality,
due to the audit fees gained within a year and the
estimated operational costs required to carry out the
audit process can improve the audit quality. Arisinta
(2013), the audit fee influenced on audit quality because
the high audit fee will produce the high of the audit fee.
Based on the previous research, the researcher uses audit
fee as a proxy of audit quality to determine the influence
of audit quality on audit report lag. Rusmin (2017) have
determined the audit quality and audit report lag. Thus,
the hypothesis is:
32
H1 = audit quality influences audit report lag
b. Audit Opinion and Audit Report Lag
Audit opinion was given the opinion from the auditor
to the company as a result of assessment financial statement.
The auditor’s opinion is the importance of the company or
other parties who need the result of audited financial
statement because it gives the credibility of the financial
statement.
According to Nelson and Shukeri (2011) indicated
that the audit report lag was influenced by the type of auditor,
audit opinion, and profitability. Then, Arifa (2013), and
Lindasari et al (2015), and Hapsari et al (2016) explained that
auditor opinion influences audit report lag. If the company
get unqualified opinion will give the good news for the
company. Thus, the company can publish the financial
statement before the due date.
Based on the explanation above, the auditor opinion
influences audit report lag. If the company receives an
unqualified opinion would be more trustworthy due to the
credibility of the financial statement. Thus, the hypothesis is
as follow:
H2 = audit opinion influences audit report lag
33
c. Size of Public Accountant Firm and Audit Report Lag
According to Afify (2009) and Cohen & Leventis
(2013) postulate that Big 4 accounting firms tend to have a
stronger incentive to finish their audit work more quickly in
order to maintain their reputation or brand name. Likewise,
international affiliated audit firms have more incentives to be
more aggressive by providing a faster service in order to
increase their audit market share (Leventis et al., 2005). In
addition, it is argued that Big 4 audit firms have more
resources (Palmrose, 1986), higher quality and better-trained
staffs (Chan et al., 1993) and advanced audit technology
(William and Dirsmith, 1988) and are able to conduct audit
more efficiently and timely (Gilling, 1977; Hassan, 2016).
The Big 4 audit firms may provide higher audit
quality than those non-Big 4 (DeAngelo, 1981; Watts and
Zimmerman, 1986; Becker et al., 1998; Caneghem, 2004) as
they have strong incentives to provide or maintain a high
audit quality level due to the fact that they have: (1) more
qualified staff, (2) a greater number of clients, (3) more
opportunity to deploy significant resources to auditing
(recruitment, training and technology), and (4) more at risk,
for example, termination of clients and loss of reputation
(Chan et al., 1993 and Chung et al., 2005). Leventis et al.
34
(2005) find that as a result of the use of better qualified and
trained staff together with the use of superior audit
technology, Big 4 accounting firms take less time to conduct
audit engagements. (Rusmin, 2017).
According to Rachmawati (2008) explained the size
of public accountant firm significantly influence audit report
lag, it is also supported by Iskandar and Trisnawati (2010)
explained size of public accountant firm influence audit
report lag. Then the hypothesis is as follow:
H3 = size of public accountant firm influences audit
report lag
d. Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of Public
Accountant Firm and Audit Report Lag
Some research that has been done by many
researchers proved that the audit quality, audit opinion, and
size of public accountant firm influence audit report lag. And
that is also many researchs that done (many of) which. Then
in the opinion of the researcher that maybe there is some
measurement that will be done in this research that can be
proved that audit quality, audit opinion, and size of public
accountant have simultaneous significant on audit report lag.
According to Nelson and Shukei (2011) indicated
that the audit report lag was influenced by the type of auditor,
35
audit opinion, and profitability. Then, Arifa (2013),
Lindasari et al (2015) and Hapsari (2016) explained that
auditor opinion influences audit report lag.
According to Herawaty (2011), services provided by
public accountants consist of assurance services and non-
assurance services. For public accountants, the fee is a source
of income for them. The fee is the cost charged for a given
service, professional payments applied to accounting, taxes
and official employment based on a time / hour. The issue of
the fee is a dilemma problem because the auditor gets a fee
from the company (client) that is audited where in one side
of the auditor should independently furnish his opinion but
on the other hand the auditor also earns rewards from the
client for the work he does.
Then, Chan et al., (1993); Chung et al., (2005);
Leventis et al. (2005) find that as a result of the use of better
qualified and trained staff together with the use of superior
audit technology, Big 4 accounting firms take less time to
conduct audit engagements. Based on Rachmawati (2008)
explained the size of public accountant firm significantly
influence audit report lag, It is also supported by Iskandar
and Trisnawati (2010) explained size of public accountant
36
firm influence audit report lag. Therefore, the hypothesis is
as follows:
H4 = audit quality, audit opinion, and size of public
accountant firm simultaneously influence on audit report lag.
2. Research Model
Figure 2.1
Research Model
Several Factors which influence the delay
Analysis Method: Regression
Multiple Regression
Many Companies get suspension because of
late to submit audited financial statement
Independent Variable
Dependent Variable
Audit Quality (X1)
Audit Opinion (X2)
Audit Report Lag
(Y)
Size of Public Accountant
Firm (X3)
Supporting Theory: Agency Theory
37
Analysis
Conclusion
Multiple Regression
38
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Scope of Research
The purposes of this research to analyze the causality relation
between independent variable, audit quality, audit opinion, and size of
public accountant firm toward dependent variable, audit report lag. The
population of this research is Manufacturing Company listed in Indonesia
Stock Exchange (IDX) 2014-2016.
B. Sampling Method
The method that used in the selection of research sample is the
selection of the sample aiming (purposive sampling), using Slovin
Formulation (Sugiyono, 2013 in Pradana, 2016). The samples of this
research are the audited financial report of the manufacturing company
listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) in period of time 2014-2016. The
criteria of samples for this research are as follows:
1. The manufacturing company is listed on the Indonesia Stock
Exchange.
2. The sample is selected by Slovin’s Formulation
n = 𝑁
1+ 𝑁𝑒2
Explanation:
n = Size of sample
N = Size of population
39
e = leniency due to error (10%)
3. The sample is the company that report financial statements
and annual reports on the time period 2014, 2015, and 2016.
4. The sample fulfill all the criteria
5. The financial statements used are financial statements
audited by independent auditor.
6. The financial statements used are expressed in Rupiahs.
7. The completeness of data needed in a row of 2014-2016.
C. Collection Data Method
In obtaining the data in this study, the researcher used two ways,
library research and documentations research (Kothari, 2004).
1. Library Research
Library Research is conducted by processing the data
that available from previous research, journals, case studies,
library record, online data, company website, and other written
media related to the topic of discussion of this study. The data
obtained in this study are gathered from annual report of
manufacturing company issued in the period of 2014-2016.
2. Documentation Research
The method of data collection by collecting secondary
data used is called Documentation Research. The main data of
this research is secondary data. The data is obtained from the
Indonesia Stock Exchange. This research, which becomes the
subject of research, is the annual report and audited financial
40
statement. This data is obtained by downloading financial
statement on the website www.idx.co.id.
D. Data Analysis Method
The analytical tool used in this research is multiple linear regressions
using SPSS, where the regression equation contains elements of interaction
(Multiplication of two or more independent variables). The variables are
tested by using Descriptive Analysis, Classical Assumption Test, and
Hypothesis Test. To process the data, the researcher uses Statistical Package
the Social Sciences (SPSS) 22.
1. Descriptive Statistic
The descriptive statistic is the statistic used for analyzing
sample data in the way to describe or depict the data already
collected. The descriptive statistic obtains a picture or describes data
from the calculation of sum, minimum, maximum, mean, and
standard deviation (Priyatno, 2017). Descriptive statistic is based on
data that has been collected and then analyzed. This analysis is used
to provide a description of the research variables (audit quality, audit
opinion, and size of public accountant firm, and audit report lag)
which can be seen from the amount of data, maximum, minimum,
average number, range, and standard deviation.
2. Classic Assumption Test
The Classical assumption test aims to determine the
relationship between the variables in the data. Before conducting
41
regression analysis. The classical assumption needs to determine
whether there is a relationship between the variables. There are four
kinds of classical assumption test; normality, multicollinearity,
heteroscedasticity, and autocorrelation test.
a. Normality Test
The test will be conducted to audit quality, audit
opinion, size of public accountant firm, and audit report lag.
According to Priyatno (2017) normality is the essensial
requirement to fulfiil in the parametric analysis. The purpose
of the normality test is to determine whether the regression
model variables are normally distributed or not. The
normality test conducted to determine whether the inferential
statistics to be used is a parametric or nonparametric statistic.
There is two ways to test, the graph analysis and statistical
test.
1. Graph Analysis
If using the graph analysis, the normality test
can be done by looking the spread of the data (dots)
on the diagonal axis of the graph or by looking at the
histogram from the residual.
a. If the dots spread around the diagonal line and
follow the direction of the diagonal line, the
assumption for the regression model is normal
42
b. If the dots spread away from the diagonal line or
do not follow the direction of the diagonal line, the
assumption for the regression model is not normal.
2. Statistical Test
K-S test done by looking the probability
number under the condition:
1) The distribution is not normal if the
Significant value or probability value is <
0.05.
2) The distribution is normal if the Significant
value or probability value is > 0.05.
b. Multicollinearity Test
The multicollinearity test aims to test whether the
regression model found a linear relation between
independent variables. Good regression model should not
occur correlation between independent variable (Priyatno,
2017)
To test the multicollinearity, can be done by using
Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) test. The Basic for the
decision-making as follow:
1) If VIF (variance inflation factor) is > 10 or
Tolerance < 0.1, there is multicollinearity
43
2) If VIF (variance inflation factor) is < 10 or
Tolerance > 0.1, there is no multicollinearity.
c. Heteroscedasticity Test
The purpose of heteroscedasticity test is to test the
variance disparity from residual observation to another
observation in a regression model. A good regression model
shows there is no heteroscedasticity. Heteroscedasticity test
can be viewed by using the chart Scatterplot between the
predicted value of the dependent variable (ZPRED) and
residual (SRESID). Y-axis becomes the axis that has been
predicated and the X-axis is the residual (Y predicted – Y
actually) that has been in the student zed. Basic for the
decision-making as follow:
1) There is heteroscedasticity if there is a
certain pattern that dots are forming a regular
pattern.
2) There is no heteroscedasticity if there is no
clear pattern that dots spread above and
below zero (0) on the Y-axis.
d. Autocorrelation Test
Autocorrelation test aims to determine whether there
is a correlation between samples members were sorted by
time. A good regression model is the regression that does not
44
have autocorrelation (Priyatno, 2017). The autocorrelation
test is done by using Run Test. The decision-making as
follow:
1) If the value of Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) less than
(<) 0.05. There is autocorrelation.
2) If the value of Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) less than
(>) 0.05. There is no autocorrelation.
3. Coefficient of Determination Test
To test to measure how far the ability of independent
variables (AUQ, OPINI, and SIZE) can contributes toward
dependent variable (ARL). The greater adjusted R² of
independent variable, so the more dominant influence of
independent variable on dependent variable.
The adjusted R² value is between zero and up to one. The R²
value which is close to one means the ability of independent
variables give almost all the information needed to predict the
dependent variable. Then, the value of adjusted R² means
showing the contribution of independent variables’s influence
toward dependent variable.
4. Hypothesis Test
In accordance with the data, the appropriate approach in this
study is a quantitative approach, the approach that emphasizes the
figures in the research. From the data that has been obtained, the
45
number is expected to provide the appropriate conclusions. This
study used samples which are the manufacturing company listed in
Indonesia Stock Exchange that report the audited financial statement
and annual report and published it at Indonesia Stock Exchange In
the period of time 2014-2016.
If a dependent variable depends on more than one
independent variable, the relation between both variable is called
multiple regression analysis. The test results will provide result from
rejection or acceptance of research hypothesis.
Multiple regression method is the analysis method used in
this research. The researcher uses multiple linear regression method
because there are three independent variables and one dependent
variable which means the researcher wants to show that three
variables are through to be systematically by a linear relationship.
According to Kothari (2004) thera are two or more independent
variables, the analysis concerning relationship iss known as multiple
correlation and the equation describing such relationship as the
multiple regerssion. This research uses three independent variables
and one dependent variable. The independent variables are audit
quality, audit opinion, and size of public accountant public while the
dependent variable is audit report lag. The regression is one of
simplest tools and multiple regression is a model with more than one
independent variables. Priyatno (2017) explains about the equation
46
for expressing the functional relationship by a linear equation. The
equation is as follow:
ARL = α + β1AUQ + β2OPINI + β3SIZE + e
Where:
ARL = Audit Report Lag
α = Constant
β1, β2, β3 = each variable coefficient
AUQ = Audit quality
OPINI = Audit Opinion
SIZE = Size of Public Accountant Firm
e = error
a. Simultaneous Significant Test (F-test)
The test used to find out the impact of all
independents variables (AUQ, OPINI, and SIZE) toward
dependent variable (ARL). The level significant is 5 %, the
decision-making:
1. If the significant F is more than 0.05 means the all
variables do not have simultaneously influence.
2. If the significant F is less than 0.05 means the all
variables have simultaneously influence.
47
b. Partial Regression Test (T-test)
The test is to examine the individual influence of
independent variables (AUQ, OPINI, and SIZE) toward
dependent variable (ARL). The level of significant is 5 %,
the decision-making:
1. If the significant T is more than 0.05 means the
independent variable do not influence the dependent
variable.
2. If the significant T is less than 0.05 means the
independent influences the dependent variable.
E. Research Variables Operationalization
In this section will describe the definition of each variable used
along with operations and measures.
1. Audit Report Lag (Dependent Variable)
Using the number of day from the financial year-end
to the time when auditor sign the report of firm (Rusmin,
2017)
2. Audit Quality (Independent Variable)
This variable uses audit fee as the proxy. Audit fee is
the fee received by the auditor of payment by management
(Hartadi, 2012). This research refers to research conducted
by Kurniasih (2013) that data on audit fees proxied by
48
professional fees account contained in the financial
statements at companies listed on the Indonesia Stock
Exchange. This variable is measured using natural logarithm
from the data on the professional fees account.
3. Audit Opinion (Independent Variable)
This variable is measured by dummy variable. The
company which gets unqualified opinion from the auditor
will be given 1. If the opinion is not unqualified will be given
0
4. Size of Public Accountant Firm (Independent Variable)
This variable is measured by dummy variable. The
company that use public accountant from Big-4 will be given
1. If the company that do not use public accountant from Big-
4 will be give 0. Below is the variable operationalization of
this study:
49
Table 3.1
Variable Operationalization
No Variable Type of
Variable
Indicator Measurem
ent Scale
1 Audit Report Lag
(Y)
(Rusmin, 2017)
Dependent The number of day
from the financial
year-end to the time
when auditor sign the
report of firm
Ratio
2 Audit Quality
using audit fee
(X1)
(Kurniasih and
Rohman, 2013),
(Hartadi, 2009)
Independent LN Professional Fee Ratio
3
Audit Opinion
(X2)
(Iskandar, 2010)
Independent Using variable dummy.
The indicator variable
score one (1) if the
auditor opinion is
unqualified; otherwise
score zero (0)
Nominal
4 Size of Public
Accountant Firm
(X3)
(Suginam, 2016)
Independent Using variable dummy.
The indicator variable
score one (1) if the public
accountant firm is form
Big-4; otherwise score
zero (0)
Nominal
50
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND ANALYSIS
A. General Description of Research Object
1. Research Object Description
The population of this research is manufacturing company
listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) 2014-2016.
Manufacturing industry is chosen because in Indonesia,
manufacturing sector is very developing either in construction,
transportations, etc.
Table 4.1
Detail of Research Sample
Manufacturing Companies 144
Manufacturing Companies is selected by Slovin Formulation 60
The amount of companies which is being sample (fulfill the
criteria)
30
The study period (2014-2016) 3
Total company during the study period 90
Sample which identify as outlier (7)
Total sample of observation 83
Source: Processed Data
The table above is present the amount of research sample
which appropriate with predefined criteria. The number of service
companies that being sampled in this research are 30 companies. The
company being sample in this research has been met with predefined
criteria before in previous chapter of this research. The length of the
study period is 3 years, i.e. from 2014-2016. Thus, the total of
sample in this research is 90 sample observations. The focus of this
51
research is to see the influence of audit quality, audit opinion, and
size of public accountant firm on audit report lag on manufacturing
industry. But, the sample used is 83 data and 7 and indicates as
outliers.
B. Analysis and Discussion
1. Descriptive Statistics Analysis
The independent variables used in this study are audit
quality, audit opinion, and size of public accountant firm, while the
dependent variable is the audit report lag. The descriptive statistics
defines the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation for
each variable. It is showed in the table 4.2
Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistic Analysis 2014-2016
Sources Data Process
Based on the Table 4.2, it appears that the manufacturing
companies in Indonesia have relatively long-term process of audit
settlement, which spends approximately 67 to 99 days. According to
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.
Deviation
Audit Report
Lag
Audit Quality
Opinion
Size
Valid N
(listwise)
83
83
83
83
83
67
17
0
0
99
27.3
1
1
80.96
20.92
.73
.43
6.344
2.141
.444
.499
52
Bapepam-LK, the audit of Financial Statement for one-year
financial period -from January to December- must be published no
later than three months – or 90 days- from the latest month of the
financial period. Although some companies exceed this deadline, the
majority of companies studied in this research have complied with
Bapepam regulation. It is shown that the average of companies’
report lag is around 81 days, less than the maximum days -90 days-
enforced by Bapepam. Meanwhile, the average of Audit Quality
reached 20.92; Audit Opinion is 0.73 or 73%; while, size of pulic
accountant firm is 0.43 or 43%.
2. Classic Assumption Test Result
a. Normality Test Result
The normality test is aimed to examine the regression model
of independent variables and dependent variable and to determine
whether the variables have normal distribution or no (Priyatno,
2013). In this regard, the data can be considered a good model of
regression if the data has normal distribution or close to normal.
This research applies the Normal Probability Plot (P-Plot) to
prove the normal distribution of data. It is showed in figure 4.1
53
Figure 4.1
Normal P-Plot
Source: SPSS Output
According to figure 4.1 the the dissemination of data re
around the diagonal line and follow the direction of a diagonal
spread which indicates that the regression model has the
assumption of normality for the distribution of data that tends to
approach the diagonal line.
On the other hand, the normality test also can be analyzed by
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS). Kolmogorov-Smirnov is the
normality test that examines the alingment of data for each
variable in purpose to discover the normal distribution of data
sampling (Priyatno, 2017). Here is the formulation of the
hypothesis to test the normality by Kosmogorov-Smirnov:
54
1) If the Asymp. Sig > 0.05, the data is normal
distribution.
2) If the Asymp. Sig < 0,05, the data is not normal
distribution.
Table 4.3
Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Result
Unstandardized
Residual
N 83
Normal Parametersa,b
Mean ,0000000
Std.
Deviation 5,85283180
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute ,094
Positive ,052
Negative -,094
Test Statistic ,094
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,064c
Source: SPSS Output
Based on table 4.3, the result of Asymp. Sig (2-tailed) on
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test is 0,064 which is greater than 0.05.
Thus, the distribution of data in this research is normal.
b. Multicollinearity Test Results
The multicollinearity test is aimed to examine the correlation
between independent variables. Multicollinearity test is done by
55
using Tolerance value or Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). If the
value of Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is less than 10 and value
of tolerance is more than 0.1, it can be said to be free of
multicollinearity, and the other way around. General Cut Off
value use to show the existence of multicollinearity is tolerance
value < 0.10 or equal to VIF value > 10. If tolerance value is under
0.10 or VIF value above 10 then there is a multicollinearity.
Multicollinearity test result is on the table below.
Table 4.4
Multicollinearity Test Result
Model Collinearity
Statistics
Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant)
Audit Quality
Opinion
Size
.689
.939
.663
1.451
1.066
1.507
Source: SPSS Output
Based on the Table 4.6 above, the result of tolerance value
for each variable, audit quality, audit opinion, and size of public
accountant firm’s variables were 0.689; 0.939; 0.663, while the
value generated for the variable VIF audit quality, audit opinion,
and size of the firm is 1.451; 1.066; and 1.507. All independent
variables have tolerance value more than 0.10 or tolerance value
> 0.10 and all independent variable have VIF value less than 10
or VIF < 10. Thus, it can be concluded that there is no symptom
multicollinearity.
56
c. Heteroscedasticity Test Result
The heteroscedasticity aims to examine whether in
regression model there is an inequality variance of the residual of
one observation to others. This test is conducted through
observing certain chart patterns of scatterplot, if there are points
that spread above and below 0 on the Y-axis and do not constitute
the pattern, this means that heteroscedasticity is not appear.
Scatterplot graphs is showed in figure 4.2
Figure 4.2
Scatterplot Graphic
Source: SPSS Output
From the scatterplot graph above, it can be seen that there
are the points spread randomly distributed either above or below
57
0 (zero) on Y axis and do not form certain pattern dominantly.
This result shows the regression model is not heteroscedasticity.
d. Autocorrelation Test Result
Autocorrelation test is used to determine and detect the
presence of autocorrelation. The autocorrelation test aims to test
whether in the linear regression model there is a correlation
between confounding error in period t and period t-1 (previous
year). A good model is a regression model that is free from
autocorrelation (Priyatno, 2017). Autocorrelation in this research
is using Run Test to see there is an autocorrelation between
residuals.
From the run test result below shows that Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) is 0,225 which is more than 0.05. Its means that regression
model in this research is free from autocorrelation problem or the
other words, there is no autocorrelation. (Janie, 2014).
Table 4.5
Run Test Result
Unstandardiz
ed Residual
Test Valuea ,79721
Cases < Test Value 41
Cases >= Test Value 42
Total Cases 83
Number of Runs 37
Z -1,214
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,225
Source: SPSS Output
58
3. Hypothesis Test Result
a. Coefficient of Determination Test Result
The coefficient of determination (R²) essentially measures
how far the model’s ability to explain the variation of dependent
variable. The value of coefficient of determination is between
zero and one. The R² value which is close to one means the
ability of independent variables give almost all the information
needed to predict the dependent variable. Then, the value of
adjusted R² means showing the contribution of independent
variables’s influence toward dependent variable.
Table 4.6
Coefficient of Determination Result
Source: SPSS Output
The table above is known Adjusted R square value is 0.116,
this means 11.6%. This indicates that the variable quality audit,
audit opinion, and size of the firm is 11.6%, while the remaining
0.884 or 88.4% (100%-11.6%) is explained by other factors that
are not included in this research model, such as profitability
(Fadoli, 2015) and (Nelson and Shukeri, 2011); investment
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1 ,386a ,149 ,116 5,963
a. Predictors: (Constant), Size, Opinion, Audit Quality
b. Dependent Variable: Audit Report Lag
59
opportunities set (Dao and Brown, 2014); Characteristics of the
Audit Committee (Sultana, et al, 2014); Corporate Governance
(Nelson and Shukeri, 2011).
b. Simultaneous Significant Test (F-Test) Result
F test is used to determine the influence of independent
variables which are included in the regression model together on
the dependent variable that is tested at the 0.05 level. If the
probability of F value more than 0.05, the data is not
simultaneous, and the other way around.
Table 4.7
Simultaneous Significant Test Result
The result from Table 4.7 shows the results of F-test with a
significance level of 0.005. The significance level less than 0.05.
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 491,062 3 163,687 4,604 ,005b
Residual 2808,962 79 35,556
Total 3300,024 82
a. Dependent Variable: Audit Report Lag
b. Predictors: (Constant), Size, Opinion, Audit Quality
Source: SPSS Output
60
Thus, it can be said that the audit quality, audit opinion, and size
of public accountant firm simultaneously influence the audit
report lag.
c. Partial Regression Test (T-test) Result
T-test uses to indicate the level of significance of each
independent variables on dependent variable tested at the 0.05
level. If the probability of T value is more than 0.05, the data is
not significant, and the other way around.
Table 4.8
Partial Regression Test Result
Source: SPSS Output
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 64,396 /7,666 8,400 ,000
Audit
Quality ,959 ,370 ,324 2,588 ,011
Opinion -3,068 1,531 -,215 -2,004 ,048
Size -3,125 1,622 -,246 -1,927 ,058
a. Dependent Variable: Audit Report Lag
61
1) Influence of Audit Quality on Audit Report Lag
Source: SPSS Output
According to table 4.8, the first hypothesis test results
defines that audit quality variable is significant. The result of
significant number is 0.11 (p-value <0.05) and the regression
coefficients with the positive direction of 2.588. That means that
the first hypothesis is accepted so that it can be said that the audit
opinion in a positive significant influence on audit report lag. Due
to the audit quality variable has a significant level of less than
0.05.
This result is supported by Rusmin’s research (2107) which
significantly influences audit quality to the audit report lag.
However, the Rusmin’s research (2017) explain that audit quality
negatively influenced by the auditor industry specialization as a
proxy while in this research uses proxy audit fee. According to
research conducted by Kurniasih and Rohman (2014) the high
cost that company spends will improve the quality of audit
because the cost of an audit which earns in one year and estimates
operational cost needed for processing audit can improve the
Model
Unstandardized
Coeffients
Standardized
Coefficients T Sig
B Std.
Error
Beta
(Constant)
Audit Quality
64.396
.959
7.666
.370
.324
8.400
2.588
.000
.011
62
quality of the audit. Then, based on Hartadi (2009) and Tarigan
(2013), the higher of auditor's audit cost will influence the higher
of audit quality.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that
increasing audit quality, it can influence the issuance of the audit
report of a company. If the company can be much faster to
publish an annual report that has done audited at a specific time
is not more than 90 days, the company can avoid penalties for
late and suspension of Bapepam-LK. It can be a good news for
the company because the company has a good reputation.
2) Influence of Audit Opinion on Audit Report Lag
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients T Sig
B Std.
Error
Beta
(Constant)
Opinion
64.396
-3.068
7.666
1.531
-.215
8.400
-2.004
.000
.048
Source: SPSS Output
Based on table 4.8, the second hypothesis test results the audit
opinion variable has a significance level of 0.048 (p-value <0.05)
and the regression coefficient of -2,004 negative directions. It
means that the second hypothesis is accepted, and it can be said
that the audit opinion has a negative significant influence on the
audit report lag with the variable level of significance audit
opinion is less than 0.05.
63
It supports with the results of research conducted by Shukeri
Nelson (2011), Arifa (2013), Lindrianasari et al (2015), and
Hapsari et al (2016) who found a significant influence between
audit opinion and audit report lag. It means that the company that
does not receive an unqualified opinion will occur a delay of audit
or audit report lag because company thinks that is bad opinion
and it can affect the company slowly to publish the financial
report. Moreover, the opinion indicates the conflict between the
auditor and the company. The provision of an unqualified opinion
in addition to potentially involving the negotiation process with
the client, consulting with senior audit partner or the technical
staff and the expansion of the scope of the audit will take some
more time (Kartika, 2011).
However, this result is not supported by the opinion of Fadoli
(2015), Rustiarini and Sugiarti (2013) and Tiono and Jogi (2013)
explained that the auditor opinion does not influence the audit
report lag because the opinion that given by auditors did not affect
the length of time to complete the audit. In addition, to determine
the reasonableness and issued an unqualified opinion, the auditor
would have to collect the complete evidence and its accuracy.
Thus, the process of auditing financial statement’s client would
need more time.
64
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded that the
audit opinion significant influences to the audit report lag because
if the company received an unqualified opinion from the auditor
is a good signal from the company to the public, especially for the
investors. It can show that the company has been operating the
business activity well and disclose financial information is
credible and comprehensive. Thus, the company can be faster to
publish audited financial statements to the public. In contrary, if
the company does not receive unqualified opinions, it indicates
that the company operates limit the scope of the audit to the
auditor that the auditor was unable to obtain pieces of evidence
that are sufficient. Indications of getting beside unqualified
opinion, companies tend to negotiate with the auditors. Because
of that, to publish the audited financial statements need more
time.
Moreover, a good audit opinion should argue that audited
financial statements are in accordance with the provisions of
financial accounting standards and there is no material deviation
that may affect the decisionmaking. Audit opinion is also used as
a basis for consideration of decision making by the users of
financial statements both external parties and internal parties
(Arifuddin et al, 2017).
65
3) Influence of Size of Public Accountant Firm on Audit
Report Lag
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients T Sig
B Std.
Error
Beta
(Constant)
Size
64.396
-3.125
7.666
1.622
-.246
8.400
-1.927
.000
.058
Source: SPSS Output
According to table 4.8, the third hypothesis test results the
size of public accountant firm has a significance level of 0.058
(p-value <0.05) and the regression coefficient of -1.927 negative
direction. This means that the third hypothesis is rejected. Thus,
it can be said that the size of public accountant firm does not
influence the audit report lag due to the variable level of
significance size of public accountant firm is greater than 0.05.
This research is supported by the result of research
conducted by Suginam (2016) and Hossain and Taylor (1998)
explained the size of public accountant firm has no significant
effect on audit report lag because it was external factor that did
not affect the audit report lag and the high quality of audit firm is
shown by the high quality of service result, which in turn will
impact on audit completion period. Timeliness is one way that
audit firm to maintain its reputation. In contrary, this result is not
supported with the results of research by Iskandar and Trisnawati
66
(2010) and Subekti and Widiyanti (2004) explained the size of
public accountant firm influenced the audit report lag because the
auditor who has a good reputation will provide the quality of audit
work effectively and efficiently. The Big-4 firm obtains a higher
incentive to complete the audit work faster than another public
accountant firm. It is also supported by the quality and quantity
of human resources.
Based on the explanation above, it can be concluded the size
of public accountant firm do not influence the audit report lag
because not only Big 4 but also non-Big 4 (second tier) that can
provide the good performance. It is supported by Boone (2010)
found weak evidence that the Big 4 have a higher propensity to
issue going concern audit opinions for distressed companies.
However, the level of performance-adjusted abnormal accruals
for Big 4 and Second-tier audit firm clients appears to be similar.
Collectively, second-tier auditors can as an alternative to the Big
4. It means accountant firm which not include of Big-4 still shows
the good performance of the auditor. On the other hand, the
choice between Big 4 and second-tier auditors is not primarily a
quality based but by cost. From the perspective of public policy,
the ability to choose between Big 4 and Second-tier audit firms is
beneficial because it allows firms to enhance economic efficiency
(by matching marginal costs and benefits) while still obtaining
67
largely similar audit quality. Then, the competition between
public accountant firms are really massive. Thus, every public
accountant firm should keep its performance well to keep its
existence.
68
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Conclusions
This research aims to know the influence of audit quality, audit opinion,
and size of public accountant firm on manufacturing company listed in
Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) period 2014-2016. Based on collected
data and tests that have been done to the problems by using multiple
regression. Thus, can be concluded as follows:
1. Audit quality influences audit report lag. This result is supported by
previous research by Rusmin (2017) that audit quality influences the
audit report lag. This research used audit fee as a proxy.
2. Audit opinion influences audit report lag. This result is supported by
Nelson and Shukeri (2011), Arifa (2013), and Lindrianasari et al
(2015) found that audit opinion influence audit report lag. In
contrary, this result is no correlation with the previous research by
Fadoli (2105), Rustiarini and Sugiarti (2013), and Tiono and Jodi
(2013) found that audit opinion does not influence audit report lag.
3. Size of public accountant firm does not influence. This result is
supported by Suginam (2016) explained the size of public
accountant firm does not influence audit report lag and Boone
(2010) found weak evidence that the Big 4 have a higher propensity
to issue going concern audit opinions for distressed companies. In
contrary, the result is no correlation with the results of research
69
Iskandar and Trisnawati (2010) and Subekti and Widiyanti (2004)
explained that the size of public accountant firm influences the audit
report lag.
4. Audit Quality, Audit Opinion, and Size of Public Accountant Firm
simultaneously influence on Audit Report Lag.
B. Implications
Therefore, these things need to be a concern for all parties, namely:
1. For the company, audit report lag is one of commitment for the
company to obey publishing its financial statement appropriate with
the time that arranges by BAPEPAM-LK and the audit opinion
influence the audit report lag for the company.
2. For auditors, they should improve their professional skill and
provide the quality of audit work effectively and efficiently. The
company will choose the accountant firm which provides the
capability to audit financial report faster. Thus, the company can
avoid the suspension from BAPEPAM-LK.
3. For external parties, such as shareholder and investors, audit report
lag is one of the criteria for the investor to choose the company.
Companies that publish their financial report before the due date, it
has a good reputation.
70
C. Recommendation
1. For future research, it is expected to add research variables such as
Characteristics of the Audit Committee, Corporate Governance,
audit firm industry specialization, etc.
2. For future research, it is expected to add the period of observation,
using another company such as service, construction, transportation,
etc. And, using another model of analysis such as PLS.
71
REFFERENCES
Abdulla, J. Y. A. (1996). “The Timeliness of Bahrain Annual Reports”. Journal of
Advances in International Accounting, 9, 73-88.
Abidin, Shamharir, and Zaluki, Nurwati A.A (2012). “Auditor Industry Specialism
and Reporting Timeliness”. Procedia- Social and Behaviour Sciences 65
(2012) 873-878
Afify, H. A. E. (2009). "Determinants of audit report lag: Does implementing
corporate governance have any impact? Emperical evidence from Egypt".
Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 56-86.
Ahmad, Maslina, Mohamed, Hamidah, Nelson, Shelriza Puat. (2015). “The
association between industry specialist auditor and financial reporting
timeliness-post MFRS Period”. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences
219 (2016) 55-62
Alkhatib, K., and Marji, Q. (2012). "Audit reports timeliness: Emperical evidence
from Jordan", Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 62 No., pp. 1342-1349.
Al-Ajmi, J. (2008). "Audit and reporting delays: Evidence from an emerging
market", Advances in Accounting, incorporating Advances in International
Accounting, Vol. 24 No., pp. 217-226.
Aljabr, Y. (2011). “The Role of Non-Executive Members of the Board of Directors
in the Auditor Choice: Evidence from Saudi Arabia”. Journal of King Saud
University- Business Administration, Vol.22 No.1, pp. 19-28.
72
Almomani, M.A. (2015). “The Impact of Audit Quality Features on Enhancing
Earnings Quality: The Evidence of Listed Manufacturing Firms at Amman
Stock Exchange”. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting, Vol.7, No.2.
Arifa, Alvina Noor. (2013). “Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi Audit Delay
(Pengembangan Model Audit Delay dengan Audit Report Lag dan Total
Lag serta Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhinya)”, Accounting Analysis
Journal, Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Alvyra Nesia Indah Putri. (2014) “Faktor-faktor Yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Audit
Report Lag Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia Periode Tahun 2008 – 2012”, Vol. 3 No. 2, 1-10, Universitas
Diponegoro, Semarang.
Arifuddin, Hanafi, Kartini, Usman, Asri. (2017). “Company Size, Profitability, and
Auditor Opinion influence to Audit Report Lag on Registered
Manufacturing Compay in Indonesia Stock Exchange”. International
Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research
Arisinta, Octaviana. (2013). “Pengaruh Kompetensi Independensi, Time Budget
Pressure, dan Audit Fee Terhadap Kualitas Audit Pada Kantor Akuntan
Publik di Surabaya”. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis
Boone, Jeff P, Khurana, Inder K, Raman, K.K. (2010). “Do the Big 4 and the
Second-tier Firms Provide Audits of Similar Quality?”.
Boyton, William C and Johnson, Raymond N (2006). “Modern Auditing”. 8th edition
Chan, P., Ezzamel, M., and Gwilliam, D. (1993a). "Determinants of audit fees for
quoted UK companies", Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol.
22 No., pp. 323-344.
73
Chung, R., Firth, M., and Kim, J. B. (2005). "Earnings management, surplus free
cash flow, and external monitoring", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58
No. 6, pp. 766-776
Cohen, S., and Leventis, S. (2013). "Effects of municipal, auditing and political
factors on audit delay", Accounting Forum, Vol. 37 No., pp. 40-53.
Dao, Mai and Pham, Trung. (2011). “Audit Tenure, Auditor Specialization, and
Audit Report Lag”.
Deis, Ronald R and Giroux, Gary A. (1992) “Determinants of Audit Quality in
Public Sector”. Accounting Review, Vo. 67, No. 3
Dibia, N.O and Onwuchekwa, J.C. (2013). “An Examination of The Audit Report
Lag of Companies Quoted in The Nigeria Stock Exchange”.
Dogan, M., Coskun, E. & Celik, O. (2007). “Is Timing of Financial Reporting
Related to Firm Performance? – An Examination on Ise Listed Companies”.
International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 12, 220–233.
Dopuch, N., Holthausen, R., and Leftwich, R. (1986). "Abnormal stock returns
associated with media disclosures of "subject to" qualified audit opinions",
Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 8 No., pp. 93-117.
Dyer, James C and McHugh, Arthur J. (1975). “The Timeliness of The Australian
Annual Report. Journal of Accounting Research
Fadoli, Imam. (2015). “Pengaruh Faktor Internal dan Eksternal Terhadap Audit
Report Lag.”
74
Fanny, Margaretta, and Sylvia Saputra, 2005. “Going concern audit opinion: A
study based on the bankruptcy prediction model, the company's growth and
reputation of public accounting firms (studies on the listed companies in
Jakarta Stock Exchange)”. Proceeding, Simposium Nasional Akuntansi ke-
VIII, Solo, Indonesia
Field, L. C., and Walkins, M. (1991). "The information content of withdrawn audit
qualifications: New evidence on the value of "subject to" opinion".
Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, Vol. Fall No., pp. 62-69.
Habib, A. and Bhuiyan, M.B.U. “Audit Firm Industry Specialization and The Audit
Report Lag”. Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation,
20, 32-44, 2011.
Halim, Abdul, T, Sutrisno, Achsin, M. (2014).”Effect of Competence and Auditor
Independence on Audit Quality with Audit Time Budget and Professional
Commitment as a Moderation Variable”. International Journal of Business
and Management Invention.
Hamdan, Abu Ijela. (2012). “Auditing quality in jordan and its impact on earnings
management and earnings quality”. Arab Journal of Accounting. 2012;158-
184.
Hapsari, Adina Nindra, Putri, Negina Kencono, Arofah, Triana. (2016). “The
Influence of Profitability, Solvency, and Auditor’s Opinion to Audit Report
Lag”. Binus Business Review
Hariza, Ja’far Aziza, Wahyuni, Nining Ika, W, Sri Maria. (2010). “Faktor-faktor
yang Berpengaruh Terhadap Audit Report Lag (Studi Empiris Pada Emiten
Industi Keuangan di BEI”.
75
Hassan, Yousef Mohammed. (2006). “Determinants of Audit Report Lag: Evidence
from Palestine”.
Hay, David dan David Davis. (2002). “The Voluntary Choice of an Audit of Any
Level of Quality”. New Zealand, February
Hossain, M.A. and Taylor, P.J. “An Examination of Audit Delay: Evidence from
Pakistan”. Journal, http://www.hicbusiness.org/.
Ikatan Akuntan Indonesia. “Standar Akuntansi Keuangan”, Salemba Empat,
Jakarta, 2017.
Iskandar, Meylisa Januar dan Trisnawati, Estralita. (2010). “Faktor-faktor yang
Mempengaruhi Audit Report Lag Pada Perusahaan yang Terdaftar di Bursa
Efek Jakarta”. Jurnal Bisnis dan Akuntansi
Jaggi, B., and Tsui, J. S. L. (1999). "Determinants of audit report lag: Further
evidence from Hong Kong". Accounting and Business Research, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Jensen, Michael C & Meckling, William H. "Theory of The Firm: Managerial
Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure". Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 3 No.4, October, pp 305-360, 1976.
Junaidi, Khasanah, Novia Nurul, Nurdiono. (2016). “The Effect of Company Size,
Company Risk, and Auditor’s Reputation on Tenure: An Artificial Rotation
Testing”. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business
Kothari, C.R. (2004). “Research Methodology”. Second Revisied Edision
Kerangka Koseptual Pelaporan Keuangan
76
Kurniasih, Margi and Abdul Rohman. (2014). “Pengaruh Fee Audit, Audit Tenure,
dan Rotasi Audit terhadap Kualitas Audit”. Diponegoro Journal of
Accounting, Vol.03 No.3, hal. 1-10, Semarang.
Leventis, S., Weetman, P., and Caramis, C. (2005). "Determinants of audit report
lag: Some evidence from the Athens Stock Exchange". International
Journal of Auditing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-58.
Lindrianasari, Retno Yuni N. S., and Grace Andani. “Pengaruh Subsidiaries, Audit
Complexity, dan Opini Auditor Independen terhadap Audit Report Lag”.
Jurusan Akuntansi Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis Universitas Lampung,
2015.
Malihi, Sayyed Ali, Mahdavikhou, Mahdi, Khotanlou (2012). “An Investigation
into the Relationship between Audit Committee and Audit Quality”.
Autralian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 409-416
Meigs, Walter B, Whittingtion, O.Ray, Meigs, Robert (1982). “Principles of
Auditing, 7th edition.
Nabhani, Ahmad. (2013). “Dua Emiten Grup Bakrie Terima Denda-Telat Laporan
Keuangan”. Harian Berita Neraca.
______________. (2015). “Payah, 52 Emten Telat Laporkan Keuangan”. Harian
Berita Neraca.
______________. (2016). “Telat Laporkan Keuangan, BEI Suspensi 14 Emiten”.
Harian Berita Neraca.
Naweish, Mohammad Ebrahim. (2016). “Impact of External Audit Quality on
Earnings Management by Banking Firms: Evidence from Jordan”. British
77
Journal of Applied Science and Technology
Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 45 Tahun 1999 Tentang
Penyelenggaraan Pasar Modal
Palmrose, Z. V. (1986). "Audit fees and auditor size: Further evidence". Journal
of Accounting Research, Vol. Spring No., pp. 97-110.
Pradana, Mahir and Reventlary, Avian. (2016). “Pengaruh Atribut Produk Terhadap
Keputusan Pembelian Sepatu Merek Customade”
Priyatno, Dwi. (2017). “Panduan Praktis Olah Data Menggunakan SPSS”.
Rachmawati, Sistya. (2008). “Pengaruh Faktor Internal dan Eksternal Perusahaan
Terhadap Audit Delay dan Timeliness”.
Rena, Basak Erdem, Genc, Elif Guneren, Ozkul, Fatma Ulucan. (2016). “The
Impact of the Opinions of the Independent Auditors on the Investor
Decisions in Banking Sector: An Empirical Study on the Banks Operating
in Turkry”.
Rusmin. (2017). “Audit Quality and Audit Report Lag: Case of Indonesian Listed
Companies” Asian Review of Accounting, Vol. 25 iss 2 pp.
Salinan Keputusan Ketua Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan
Nomor: Kep-431/Bl/2012 tentang Penyampaian Laporan Tahunan Emiten
atau Perusahaan Publik.
Salinan Keputusan Ketua Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan
Nomor: Kep/346/BL/2011 tentang Penyampaian Laporan Keuangan
Berkala Emiten atau Perusahaan Publik.
78
Subekti, Imam and Widiyanti, Novi Wulandari. (2004). “Faktor-Faktor yang
Berpengaruh Terhadap Audit Delay di Indonesia”.
Suginam. (2016). “Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Audit Report Lag pada
Perusahaan Sektor Perdagangan Jasa dan Investasi yang Terdaftar di Bursa
Efek Jakarta”. Majalah Ilmiah Informasi dan Teknologi ilmiah.
Sultana, Nigar, Singh, Harjinder, Mitchell, J.L.W (2014). “Audit Committee
Characteristics and Audit Report Lag”. International Journal of Auditing
Sugianto, Danang. (2017). “BEI Suspensi 16 Saham Sekaligus”. Detikfinance.
Tiono, Ivena and Jogi, Yulius (2013). “Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Audit
Report Lag di Bursa Efek Jakarta”.
William, D. D., and Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). "The effect of audit technology on
audit efficiency: Auditing and the timeliness of client earnings
announcements", Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp.
487-508.
Watts, R. L., and Zimmerman, J. L. (1986). Positive accounting theory, ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Inc.EnglewoodCliffs, U.S.
79
APPENDIXES
A. Sample Description
1. Details of Sample
Manufacturing Companies 144
Manufacturing Companies is selected by slovin formulation 60
The amount of companies which is being sample (fulfill the
criteria)
30
The study period (2014-2016) 3
Total company during the study period 90
Sample which identify as outlier (7)
Total sample of observation 83
2. Research Sample Name
No Company Name Code
1 Akasha Wira International Tbk ADES
2 Alakasa Industrindo Tbk ALKA
3 Betonjaya Manunggal Tbk BTON
4 Charoen Pokphand Tbk CPIN
5 Daya Varia LaboratoriaTbk DVLA
6 Ekadharma International Tbk EKAD
7 Gudang Garam Tbk GGRM
8 Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk HMSP
9 Champion Pacific Indonesia Tbk IGAR
10 Indomobil Sukses Internasional Tbk IMAS
11 Intan Wijaya Internasional Tbk INCI
12 Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk INDF
13 Jembo Cable Company Tbk JECC
14 Kabelindo Murni Tbk KBLM
15 Kertas Basuki Rachmat Tbk KBRI
16 Kedaung Indah CAN Tbk KICI
17 Lion Metal Works Tbk LION
18 Lionmesh Prima Tbk LMSH
19 Nippon Indosari Corpindo Tbk ROTI
20 Industri Jamu dan Farmasi Sido Muncul Tbk SIDO
21 Sierad Produce Tbk SIPD
22 Holcim Indonesia Tbk SMCB
23 Semen Indonesia Tbk SMGR
24 Selamat Sempurna Tbk SMSM
Continue on the next page
80
25 Suparma Tbk SPMA
26 Indo Acidatama Tbk SRSN
27 Tirta Mahakam Resources Tbk TIRT
28 Surya Toto Indonesia Tbk TOTO
29 Trias Sentosa Tbk TRST
30 Tempo Scan Pacific Tbk TSPC
B. Raw Data Description
1. Audit Quality (X1)
Code 2013 2014 2015
LNFEE LNFEE LNFEE
ADES 18,6 19,5 20,0
ALKA 21,4 20,4 20,2
BTON 18,7 18,6 19,3
CPIN 23,7 24,1 24,4
DVLA 20,2 22,6 22,6
EKAD 20,7 21,2 21,2
GGRM 24,9 27,3 25,2
HMSP 22,6 25,6 22,9
IGAR 19,9 20,5 21,7
IMAS 22,5 22,6 22,5
INCI 19,3 19,3 18,9
INDF 19,7 25,2 18,1
JECC 21,0 19.8 21,0
KBLM 19,5 19,4 20,3
KBRI 18,5 18,7 25,1
KICI 18,8 19,3 19,4
LION 19,1 19,2 18,3
LMSH 20,5 20,3 20,3
ROTI 17,1 23,2 17,6
SIDO 19,3 19,9 20,7
SIPD 20,8 21,9 21,8
SMCB 23,4 22,8 22,9
SMGR 17,0 23,0 24,0
SMSM 21,3 22,3 22,3
SPMA 19,2 22,2 22,8
SRSN 18,7 18,5 18,5
TIRT 20,4 20,0 19,7
TOTO 20,6 20,7 20,7
TRST 21,4 21,5 21,3
TSPC 22,2 22,9 23,1
81
2. Audit Opinion (X2)
Code Year Name of Company Explanation Code ADES 2014 Akasha Wira International Tbk MUO 0
ALKA 2014 Alakasa Industrindo Tbk UO 1
BTON 2014 Betonjaya Manunggal Tbk UO 1
CPIN 2014 Charoen Pokphand Tbk UO 1
DVLA 2014 Daya Varia LaboratoriaTbk UO 1
EKAD 2014 Ekadharma International Tbk UO 1
GGRM 2014 Gudang Garam Tbk UO 1
HMSP 2014 Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk UO 1
IGAR 2014 Champion Pacific Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
IMAS 2014 Indomobil Sukses Internasional Tbk UO 1
INCI 2014 Intan Wijaya Internasional Tbk UO 1
INDF 2014 Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk UO 1
JECC 2014 Jembo Cable Company Tbk MUO 0
KBLM 2014 Kabelindo Murni Tbk UO 1
KBRI 2014 Kertas Basuki Rachmat Tbk MUO 0
KICI 2014 Kedaung Indah CAN Tbk UO 1
LION 2014 Lion Metal Works Tbk UO 1
LMSH 2014 Lionmesh Prima Tbk UO 1
ROTI 2014 Nippon Indosari Corpindo Tbk UO 1
SIDO 2014 Industri Jamu dan Farmasi Sido Muncul Tbk MUO 0
SIPD 2014 Sierad Produce Tbk UO 1
SMCB 2014 Holcim Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
SMGR 2014 Semen Indonesia Tbk UO 1
SMSM 2014 Selamat Sempurna Tbk MUO 0
SPMA 2014 Suparma Tbk UO 1
SRSN 2014 Indo Acidatama Tbk UO 1
TIRT 2014 Tirta Mahakam Resources Tbk UO 1
TOTO 2014 Surya Toto Indonesia Tbk UO 1
TRST 2014 Trias Sentosa Tbk UO 1
TSPC 2014 Tempo Scan Pacific Tbk UO 1
ADES 2015 Akasha Wira International Tbk UO 1
ALKA 2015 Alakasa Industrindo Tbk UO 1
BTON 2015 Betonjaya Manunggal Tbk MUO 0
CPIN 2015 Charoen Pokphand Tbk UO 1
DVLA 2015 Daya Varia LaboratoriaTbk UO 1
EKAD 2015 Ekadharma International Tbk MUO 0
GGRM 2015 Gudang Garam Tbk UO 1
HMSP 2015 Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk UO 1
IGAR 2015 Champion Pacific Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
IMAS 2015 Indomobil Sukses Internasional Tbk UO 1
INCI 2015 Intan Wijaya Internasional Tbk MUO 0
INDF 2015 Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk UO 1
JECC 2015 Jembo Cable Company Tbk MUO 0
KBLM 2015 Kabelindo Murni Tbk UO 1
KBRI 2015 Kertas Basuki Rachmat Tbk MUO 0
KICI 2015 Kedaung Indah CAN Tbk MUO 0
LION 2015 Lion Metal Works Tbk UO 1
Continue on the next page
82
Code Year Name of Company Explanation Code LMSH 2015 Lionmesh Prima Tbk UO 1
ROTI 2015 Nippon Indosari Corpindo Tbk UO 1
SIDO
2015 Industri Jamu dan Farmasi Sido Muncul
Tbk MUO 0
SIPD 2015 Sierad Produce Tbk UO 1
SMCB 2015 Holcim Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
SMGR 2015 Semen Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
SMSM 2015 Selamat Sempurna Tbk MUO 0
SPMA 2015 Suparma Tbk MUO 0
SRSN 2015 Indo Acidatama Tbk UO 1
TIRT 2015 Tirta Mahakam Resources Tbk UO 1
TOTO 2015 Surya Toto Indonesia Tbk UO 1
TRST 2015 Trias Sentosa Tbk UO 1
TSPC 2015 Tempo Scan Pacific Tbk UO 1
ADES 2016 Akasha Wira International Tbk UO 1
ALKA 2016 Alakasa Industrindo Tbk UO 1
BTON 2016 Betonjaya Manunggal Tbk UO 1
CPIN 2016 Charoen Pokphand Tbk MUO 0
DVLA 2016 Daya Varia LaboratoriaTbk UO 1
EKAD 2016 Ekadharma International Tbk MUO 0
GGRM 2016 Gudang Garam Tbk UO 1
HMSP 2016 Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk UO 1
IGAR 2016 Champion Pacific Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
IMAS 2016 Indomobil Sukses Internasional Tbk UO 1
INCI 2016 Intan Wijaya Internasional Tbk UO 1
INDF 2016 Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk UO 1
JECC 2016 Jembo Cable Company Tbk MUO 0
KBLM 2016 Kabelindo Murni Tbk MUO 0
KBRI 2016 Kertas Basuki Rachmat Tbk MUO 0
KICI 2016 Kedaung Indah CAN Tbk UO 1
LION 2016 Lion Metal Works Tbk MUO 0
LMSH 2016 Lionmesh Prima Tbk UO 1
ROTI 2016 Nippon Indosari Corpindo Tbk UO 1
SIDO
2016 Industri Jamu dan Farmasi Sido Muncul
Tbk UO 1
SIPD 2016 Sierad Produce Tbk UO 1
SMCB 2016 Holcim Indonesia Tbk MUO 0
SMGR 2016 Semen Indonesia Tbk UO 1
SMSM 2016 Selamat Sempurna Tbk UO 1
SPMA 2016 Suparma Tbk MUO 0
SRSN 2016 Indo Acidatama Tbk UO 1
TIRT 2016 Tirta Mahakam Resources Tbk MUO 0
TOTO 2016 Surya Toto Indonesia Tbk UO 1
TRST 2016 Trias Sentosa Tbk UO 1
TSPC 2016 Tempo Scan Pacific Tbk UO 1
83
3. Size of Public Accountant Firm
Code Year Public Accountant Firm Code ADES 2014 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
ALKA 2014 Johannes Juara & Rekan 0
BTON 2014 Aryanto, Amir Jusuf, Mawar & Saptoto 0
CPIN 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
DVLA 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
EKAD 2014 Teramiharja,Pradhono, &Chandra 0
GGRM 2014 Siddharta & Widjaja (KPMG) 1
HMSP 2014 Tanudiredja, Wibisana & Rekan (PWC) 1
IGAR 2014 Hertanto, Grace, Karunawa 0
IMAS 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
INCI 2014 Hananta Budianto & Rekan 0
INDF 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
JECC 2014 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
KBLM 2014 Doli, Bambang, Sulistiyanto, Dadang, Ali 0
KBRI 2014 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
KICI 2014 Paul Hadiwinata & Rekan (PKF) 0
LION 2014 Kosasih, Nurdiyaman, Tjahjo & Rekan 0
LMSH 2014 Kosasih, Nurdiyaman, Tjahjo & Rekan 0
ROTI 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SIDO 2014 Anwar, Sugiharto, & Rekan 0
SIPD 2014 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
SMCB 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SMGR 2014 Osman Bing Satrio & Eny (Deloitte) 1
SMSM 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SPMA 2014 Hadori Sugiarto Adi & Rekan 0
SRSN 2014 Aryanto, Amir Jusuf, Mawar & Saptoto 0
TIRT 2014 Pieter, Uways & Rekan 0
TOTO 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
TRST 2014 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
TSPC 2014 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
ADES 2015 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
ALKA 2015 Johannes Juara & Rekan 0
BTON 2015 Amir Jusuf, Aryanto, Mawar & Rekan 0
CPIN 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
DVLA 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
EKAD 2015 Budiman,Wawan, Pamudji &Rekan 0
GGRM 2015 Siddharta & Widjaja (KPMG) 1
HMSP 2015 Tanudiredja, Wibisana & Rekan (PWC) 1
IGAR 2015 Hertanto, Grace, Karunawa 0
IMAS 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
INCI 2015 Hendrawinata Eddy Siddharta & Tanzil 0
INDF 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
JECC 2015 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
KBLM 2015 Doli, Bambang, Sulistiyanto, Dadang, Ali 0
KBRI 2015 Hendrawinata Eddy Siddharta & Tanzil 0
KICI 2015 Paul Hadiwinata & Rekan (PKF) 0
LION 2015 Kosasih, Nurdiyaman, Tjahjo & Rekan 0
LMSH 2015 Kosasih, Nurdiyaman, Tjahjo & Rekan 0
84
ROTI 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
Continue on the next page
Code Year Audit Accountant Firm Code SIDO 2015 Anwar & Rekan 0
SIPD 2015 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
SMCB 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SMGR 2015 Osman Bing Satrio & Eny (Deloitte) 1
SMSM 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SPMA 2015 Paul Hadiwinata & Rekan (PKF) 0
SRSN 2015 Amir Jusuf, Aryanto, Mawar & Rekan 0
TIRT 2015 Pieter, Uways & Rekan 0
TOTO 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
TRST 2015 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
TSPC 2015 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
ADES 2016 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
ALKA 2016 Johannes Juara & Rekan 0
BTON 2016 Amir Jusuf, Aryanto, Mawar & Rekan 0
CPIN 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
DVLA 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
EKAD 2016 Hendrawinata, Eddy Siddharta & Tanzil 0
GGRM 2016 Siddharta & Widjaja (KPMG) 1
HMSP 2016 Tanudiredja, Wibisana & Rekan (PWC) 1
IGAR 2016 Hertanto, Grace, Karunawa 0
IMAS 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
INCI 2016 Hendrawinata Eddy Siddharta & Tanzil 0
INDF 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
JECC 2016 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
KBLM 2016 Anwar & Rekan 0
KBRI 2016 Hendrawinata Eddy Siddharta & Tanzil 0
KICI 2016 Paul Hadiwinata & Rekan (PKF) 0
LION 2016 Kosasih, Nurdiyaman, Tjahjo & Rekan 0
LMSH 2016 Kosasih, Nurdiyaman, Tjahjo & Rekan 0
ROTI 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SIDO 2016 Anwar & Rekan 0
SIPD 2016 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
SMCB 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SMGR 2016 Osman Bing Satrio & Eny (Deloitte) 1
SMSM 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
SPMA 2016 Hadori Sugiarto Adi & Rekan 0
SRSN 2016 Amir Jusuf, Aryanto, Mawar & Rekan 0
TIRT 2016 S.Mannan,Ardiansyah & Rekan 0
TOTO 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
TRST 2016 Purwantono, Suherman, & Surja (E&Y) 1
TSPC 2016 Tanubrata Sutanto Fahmi & Rekan 0
85
4. Audit Report Lag (Y)
Code
Company Audit Report Lag
2014 2015 2016 ADES Akasha Wira International Tbk 83 89 88
ALKA Alakasa Industrindo Tbk 86 87 87
BTON Betonjaya Manunggal Tbk 84 83 83
CPIN Charoen Pokphand Tbk 86 88 89
DVLA Daya Varia LaboratoriaTbk 77 67 69
EKAD Ekadharma International Tbk 79 77 77
GGRM Gudang Garam Tbk 83 77 82
HMSP Hanjaya Mandala Sampoerna Tbk 77 99 69
IGAR Champion Pacific Indonesia Tbk 76 78 86
IMAS Indomobil Sukses Internasional Tbk 82 83 83
INCI Intan Wijaya Internasional Tbk 83 70 84
INDF Indofood Sukses Makmur Tbk 71 82 80
JECC Jembo Cable Company Tbk 83 83 87
KBLM Kabelindo Murni Tbk 86 87 84
KBRI Kertas Basuki Rachmat Tbk 82 87 90
KICI Kedaung Indah CAN Tbk 77 87 69
LION Lion Metal Works Tbk 75 73 75
LMSH Lionmesh Prima Tbk 70 73 75
ROTI Nippon Indosari Corpindo Tbk 79 83 68
SIDO Industri Jamu dan Farmasi Sido Muncul Tbk 90 82 73
SIPD Sierad Produce Tbk 82 85 77
SMCB Holcim Indonesia Tbk 78 81 80
SMGR Semen Indonesia Tbk 79 83 78
SMSM Selamat Sempurna Tbk 84 88 89
SPMA Suparma Tbk 89 86 89
SRSN Indo Acidatama Tbk 86 70 77
TIRT Tirta Mahakam Resources Tbk 84 82 83
TOTO Surya Toto Indonesia Tbk 84 88 87
TRST Trias Sentosa Tbk 75 73 77
TSPC Tempo Scan Pacific Tbk 78 77 75
86
C. Results of Research
Normality Test Result using K-S Test
Normality Test using Histogram Graphic
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Unstandardiz
ed Residual
N 83
Normal Parametersa,b Mean ,0000000
Std.
Deviation 5,85283180
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute ,094
Positive ,052
Negative -,094
Test Statistic ,094
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,064c
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction.
87
Normality Test using P-Plot Graphic
Multicollonearity Test Result
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B Std. Error Beta
Toleranc
e VIF
1 (Constant) 64,396 7,666 8,400 ,000
Audit
Quality ,959 ,370 ,324 2,588 ,011 ,689 1,451
Opini -3,068 1,531 -,215 -2,004 ,048 ,939 1,066
Size -3,125 1,622 -,246 -1,927 ,058 ,663 1,507
a. Dependent Variable: Audit Report Lag
88
Heterocedasticity Test
Autocorrelation Test using Run
Test
Runs Test
Unstandardiz
ed Residual
Test Valuea ,79721
Cases < Test Value 41
Cases >= Test Value 42
Total Cases 83
Number of Runs 37
Z -1,214
Asymp. Sig. (2-
tailed) ,225
a. Median
89
Coefficient of Determination Test Results
Model Summaryb
Model R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 ,386a ,149 ,116 5,963
a. Predictors: (Constant), Size, Opinion, Audit Quality
Simultaneous Significant Test
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 491,062 3 163,687 4,604 ,005b
Residual 2808,962 79 35,556
Total 3300,024 82
a. Dependent Variable: Audit Report Lag
b. Predictors: (Constant), Size, Opinion, Audit Quality
90
Partial Regression Test Result
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig. B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 64,396 7,666 8,400 ,000
Audit Quality ,959 ,370 ,324 2,588 ,011
Opinion -3,068 1,531 -,215 -2,004 ,048
Size -3,125 1,622 -,246 -1,927 ,058
a. Dependent Variable: Audit Report Lag