Determinants of going-concern audit opinion

This research aims to analyze the influence of financial and non-financial factors on going-concern audit opinion. The variables analyzed in this study were profitability, liquidity, leverage, KAP reputation, previous year’s audit, and audit lag. The sample of this study consisted of 16 manufacturing companies in the consumer goods sector listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange during the period of 2019-2022. The research findings indicate that the previous year’s audit opinion had a positive and significant influence on going-concern audit opinion. Profitability, liquidity, leverage, KAP reputation, and audit lag did not have any influence on going-concern audit opinion.


Introduction
This study analyzed manufacturing companies in the consumer goods industry sector listed on the Indonesian stock exchange from 2019 to 2022.According to Herninta & Rahayu (2021), there was a difference in the share prices of companies in the consumer goods industry sector before and after the first positive case of Covid-19 was confirmed in Indonesia.Researchers suspected some companies experiencing difficulties, which had an impact on the sustainability of their business.On this basis, this study will examine the effect of financial and non-financial factors on going concern audit opinions in manufacturing companies in the consumer goods industry sector.The auditor needs to consider the conditions and events that may cause an entity to cease to continue as going concern reference in his audit opinion.There are many factors to contribute to this condition, including financial and non-financial factors.In terms of financial factors, many researchers highlighted the role of profitability ratios, leverage ratios, and liquidity ratios as factors affecting the emergence of a going concern opinion.However, this study will also consider non-financial factors, such as auditor reputation, previous year's going-concern audit opinion, and audit lag in this research.
Financial reporting is the accounting process in companies to communicate financial information to external parties.Financial report generally contains information about financial performance, financial position, and cash flow for making decisions.One of the parties interested in financial statements is an investor.Even though the going-concern audit opinion on the financial statements remains debatable, providing a going-concern audit opinion has significant impact on users of financial statements in the decision-making of an investment since it may generate considerable impact on the company being audited.However, some company management is of concern that the inclusion of the company's real condition in the notes to financial statements and audit opinion will generate a negative reputation for the company.
To ensure fair result, an independent party may be assigned to evaluate company sustainability.Audited financial statements are extremely crucial for investors in making investment decisions in order to prevent from the issuance of financial reports that conflict with Financial Accounting Standards.After auditing, an independent auditor will provide an opinion based on the financial conditions of the company under audit.A non-going concern audit opinion can be issued when there are no suspicious elements in the financial condition of the company.In contrast, a company with doubtful sustainability will receive a going-concern audit opinion (Khasanah & Nugroho, 2020).
Going-concern is an audit opinion to identify the company sustainability in carrying out its business activities (Ningrum, 2021).Auditors can no longer rely entirely on management's report assuring that everything is free from mistatement.In today's practice, going concern's evaluation is more oriented to ensure the company's sustainability to continue operating within the next 12 months.Hence, auditors need to make a critical evaluation of management plans to determine whether the company has going concern or not.The auditor may treat the company facing serious financial problems differently in order to ease the auditor in dealing with the client (Praptitorini & Januarti, 2011).Conceptually, under the going concern assumption, an entity is viewed as continuing its business for a foreseeable feature in order to prevent from being liquidated in the near future.According to Mardhatillah (2018), the bigger the size of a company, the better it can handle the level of difficulty faced, thereby resulting in the lower probability to obtain a going concern opinion.
The auditor needs to consider the conditions and events that may cause an entity to cease to continue as going concern reference in his audit opinion.There are many factors to contribute to this condition, including financial and non-financial factors.In terms of financial factors, many researchers highlighted the role of profitability ratios, leverage ratios, and liquidity ratios as factors affecting the emergence of a going concern opinion.However, this study will also consider non-financial factors, such as auditor reputation, previous year's going concern audit opinion, and audit lag in this research.
Profitability refers to a company's ability to obtain profits related to sales, its total assets, or its own capital (Sihabudin, 2021).Profitability ratios indicate a company's ability to earn profits and is one of the factors affecting investors in making decisions.According to Retnosari & Apriwenni (2021), profitability had a negative effect on issuance of going concern audit opinion, but Kurniawati & Murti (2017) held that profitability had no effect on issuance of going concern audit opinion.
A liquid company has sufficient assets other than cash that can be quickly converted into cash at an immediate time to fulfill its financial obligations, as indicated by its liquidity ratio.Liquidity refers to the company's ability to meet its short-term obligations with available assets.Kurniawati & Murti (2017) articulated that liquidity had a negative correlation with going concern audit opinion, but Adhityan & Taman (2018) and Kristiani & Lusmeida (2018) stated that liquidity had no effect on going concern audit opinion.
Previous year audit opinion refers to the auditor's opinion given one year prior to the current period.An auditor who gave a going concern opinion in previous year is likely to provide a going concern opinion in the following year.Zulfikar & Syafruddin (2013) revealed that the going concern audit opinion given in the previous year affected the going concern opinion in the year being audited.
Opinions regarding the company's survivability or going concern are considered to have an impact on the KAP's (Public Accounting Firm) reputation.The big four KAPs have created a positive reputation, and thus the audits they carried out are considered to be of good quality and the results will reflect the actual condition of the company.Krissindiastuti & Rasmini (2016) were of the view that the reputation of the Public Accounting Firm (KAP) played a considerable role in determining the going concern audit opinion on the company's financial statements.Big four KAPs are considered to have better audit quality compared to non-big four KAPs.In contrast, the negative correlation between KAP reputation on issuance of going concern audit opinions was revealed by Laksmiati & Atiningsih (2018), while Krissindiastuti & Rasmini (2016) demonstrated that KAP's reputation had a positive influence on issuance of going concern audit opinion, as opposed to Astari & Latrini (2017), who denoted that KAP's reputation has no influence on issuance of going concern audit opinion.Audit lag refers to the time span between the end of a company's fiscal year and the date on which an opinion on audited financial statements is given, as described by Zulfikar & Syafruddin (2013).The agency theory states that managers are responsible for compiling financial reports in a timely manner, so as to avoid delays in issuing audit opinions from auditors which can lead to going concern audit opinions.Previous researches revealed that a delay in issuance of audit opinions is more likely to cause going concern audit opinions.

Agency Theory
Agency theory involves the concept of a contractual relationship between company owners and its managers, in which management acts as an agent responsible for managing the firm and the assets entrusted by the owners (Halim, 2021).When a company has a going concern issue, the agent must produce accountable financial reports for the principal as the decision maker.Shareholders as the company owners will regularly monitor the performance of the company's management.Management performance can be fairly evaluated through an audit by an independent auditor, since generally, management has more information about the company financial condition, which allows them to manipulate financial reports and cause information asymmetry in their favor (Damayanty et al., 2022) The ultimate goal of agency theory is separating the functions between management and shareholders in order to create an effective and efficient work environment.However, on the other hand this separation often generates conflicts and problems due to conflicting opinions between shareholders and management.Nonetheless, since management is employed by the shareholders, they are inevitably must be held responsible to the shareholders.

Audit Opinion
An auditor's opinion is a statement presented by an independent auditor revealing the authenticity of a company's financial statements as a whole and in particular matters, based on the compliance of the financial statements and the generally applicable accounting principles.The audited financial reports are used by the auditor as a means to communicate with stakeholders.The main content of the independent auditor's report is the audit opinion.An audit is carried out through several stages and assessments before making conclusion.The audit report is the final stage of the entire audit process carried out by an auditor (Endiana & Suryandari, 2021).An auditor is mainly tasked with auditing financial statements in order to give an opinion.Their opinion is determined by several factors, including the materiality level of errors in the financial statements, limits set by management, compliance with Financial Accounting Standards (SAK), and auditor independence.
According to Endiana & Suryandari (2021), external auditors are responsible for auditing the financial statements in order to provide an opinion regarding the appropriateness of the financial statements based on financial position, results of operations, changes in equity and cash flow.Auditors may express one of four types of opinions on financial statements.The types of opinions are 1) unqualified opinion 2) unqualified opinion with explanatory language, 3) qualified opinion, 4) adverse opinion and 5) disclaimer of opinion.

Going Concern
According to Kurnia & Mella (2018), going concern refers to a company's ability to maintain its operations in the long term without experiencing any liquidation in the short term.Going concern is determined by taking into account the internal conditions of a company based on several elements, including level of profitability, liquidity, and investor response to the company.
According to the provisions, a significant material uncertainty regarding the ability of a company to maintain its going concern will require the auditor to include an explanation in the audit report, even though this explanation will not affect the opinion of the auditor who gives an unqualified opinion based on the following points: i.
If the auditor believes there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, he should obtain information about management's plans that are intended to mitigate the effect of such conditions or events, and assess the likelihood that such plans can be effectively implemented. ii.
If management does not have any strategy to overcome the situation, the auditor will tend to give a disclaimer opinion. iii.
If management has a strategy for dealing with the situation, the auditor should assess the effectiveness of the plan.If the auditor concludes that the plan is ineffective, he will provide a disclaimer opinion.If the auditor concludes that the plan is effective and has been disclosed in the notes to the financial statements, he will provide an unqualified opinion with additional explanation (unqualified opinion with explanatory language/emphasis of matter paragraph). iv.
If the auditor concludes that the plan is effective but has not been disclosed in the notes to the financial statements, the auditor may give a qualified/adverse opinion).

Profitability
Profitability refers to the capacity of a business to generate net income or profits from its operations within a certain period of time.
Profitability can be measured through the ratio of profit to sales, total assets, or share capital.Profit is often used as a significant indicator of company performance.The high profitability ratio indicates the efficient company management and the good company performance (Rahmadi et al., 2022).Profitability describes a company's ability to generate revenue from all sources, including sales, number of employees, capital, cash, and company branches.High profitability reflects effective management, and thus, the higher the profitability, the better the auditor's opinion on the continuity of the company's business.

Liquidity
Regina (2021) defined liquidity as a company's ability to meet its short-term financial obligations, or in other words, the company's ability to pay short-term debt according to the payment due date.The liquidity ratio is measured by comparing between the current assets and current liabilities, which produces a current ratio value.The liquidity ratio is significantly crucial for companies to serve as a tool to drive performance improvement.This ratio is also used to assess the company's ability to meet short-term obligations, provide guidance to management in monitoring the efficiency of working capital, and analyze and understand the company's financial position in the short term.

Leverage
The leverage ratio is a method for measuring the extent to which a company finances its assets using debt.In general, companies finance their activities by borrowing money.The leverage ratio measures how much the company is financed by debt.Leverage is used as an indicator to measure a company's ability to meet its financial obligations in the short and long term.Leverage can be calculated using two ratios, namely the debt to asset ratio (DAR) and the debt to equity ratio (DER).The higher the DAR value the worse the company's financial condition, and the more likely it is to be considered as having a going concern issue, which can question the company's survival (Luh et al., 2022).

Reputation Of Public Accounting Firm (Kap)
The reputation of the Public Accounting Firm is considered to lead to the going concern audit opinion.The Big Four KAPs are better recognized for their high quality given their diverse client portfolio and broader experience compared to non-Big Four KAPs.Highly reputable auditors can provide better audit quality, including in disclosing going concern issues to maintain their reputation.The auditor's reputation reflects audit quality as the probability that the auditor finds and reports violations in the client's accounting system.Research shows that large KAPs tend to provide better audit quality than small KAPs (Siahaan & Herawaty, 2022)

Previous Year Audits
The result of previous year's audit can contribute to the reason why an auditor gives a going concern audit opinion.A company that was determined to have a going concern audit opinion in the previous year indicates that the company had problems in maintaining its going concern in the year concerned, which thus is likely to make the auditor provide a going concern audit opinion in the current year, as denoted by Lupita & Muchayatin (2022).Previous-year audit opinion refers to an audit opinion given to a company one year prior to the most recent audit opinion.If a company received a going concern audit opinion in the previous year, there is a tendency that it receives the same audit opinion in the current period.

Audit Lag
Audit Report Lag is the period of time required to complete the audit process on annual financial reports.This time is calculated from the end of the financial year, namely December 31, until the date stated in the independent auditor's report.A delay in submitting financial reports and audit reports indicates a problem in the company's financial statements.According to Astuti (2012), the longer the Audit Report Lag, the more likely the company will encounter problems and receive a going concern audit opinion.

Empirical Review and Hypothesis Development
Profitability ratios reflect the company's success in carrying out policies and making decisions.Profitability ratios are used to evaluate the company's performance in generating profits over a certain period.According to Yuliyani & Erawati (2017), Profitability ratios are used to evaluate a company's ability to generate profits, taking into account factors such as sales, assets and share capital.This ratio provides an overview of the company's efficiency and effectiveness in managing resources and generating profits.Companies with high profitability ratios are considered to be capable of maintaining their survival without having any concern about having going-concern audit opinion in their financial statements.Profitability ratios help show management's ability to provide financial benefits to shareholders effectively.Research by Retnosari & Apriwenni (2021) disclosed that profitability has a negative influence on the going concern audit opinion.On this basis, this study proposed the first hypothesis as follows: H1: Profitability Has a Negative Effect on Going Concern Audit Opinion Liquidity is an indicator to measure a company's ability to meet its short-term obligations.In order to fulfill these obligations, the company needs to have sufficient current assets to pay these obligations.One indicator of liquidity is the current ratio.The higher the company's liquidity level, the lower the possibility of the company to receive a going concern audit opinion.Research by Damayanty et al., (2022) found that liquidity had a negative effect on going concern audit opinion.Therefore, the second hypothesis in this study is formulated as follows.

H2: Liquidity Has a Negative Effect on Going Concern Audit Opinion
Leverage serves as a tool to measure a company's ability to meet both short-term and long-term obligations.One of the methods to calculate leverage is through the debt to asset ratio (DAR), which compares all of a company's debt to all of its assets.When the company's debt is greater than its total assets, the condition is likely to cause a bad situation because the company may not be able to pay its debts.The higher the debt to asset ratio (DAR), the worse the company's performance and the more likely the company is to get a going concern audit opinion.This finding is consistent with the research of Firdaus et al., (2017) which stated that a positive correlation between DAR and going concern audit opinions of companies.On this basis, the third hypothesis in this study is as follows.
H3: There is a positive correlation between debt to asset ratio and going concern audit opinion.
According to Andini & Mulya (2015), auditors generally pay more attention to the previous year audit opinion in the decision-making process.A company receiving a going concern audit opinion in the previous year is highly likely to receive another going concern audit opinion in the year being audited.This is mainly triggered by indications that the company may find it difficult to improve its financial conditions, internal problems, and other problems within one year.As a result, there is a high possibility that the auditor will give another going concern opinion in the year concerned.Hence, the fourth hypothesis in this study is as follows: H4: The previous year's audit opinion had a positive effect on the issuance of the going concern audit opinion.
A study by Elmawati et al., (2014) stated that Big Four KAPs had a higher level of experience, a wider client network, and are more effective and efficient when compared to non-Big Four KAPs.In addition, the Big Four KAPs also have a better reputation in the public perspective in terms of auditing services related to company financial statements compared to non-Big Four KAPs.Auditors working in large KAPs are considered to be more thorough and have more diverse experiences, so that their opinions are believed to have higher compliance with the conditions of the company.Krissindiastuti & Rasmini (2016) stated a good reputation of a KAP has a positive correlation with the possibility of an auditor providing a going concern audit opinion.This is because the reputable auditors from KAPs are considered to be firmer in providing opinions that reflect the actual condition of the company, and have more experience with various clients, thereby allowing them to assess the company's condition better.On this basis, the following hypothesis is formulated as follows: H5: KAP reputation has a positive effect on issuance of the Going Concern audit opinion.
Audit report lag refers to the time interval between the end of a company's financial year and the release date of the opinion on the audited financial statements.The longer the audit report lag, the less the relevance of the information in the financial reports because timely accuracy is essential in increasing the relevance of financial reports.In addition, delays in the publication of financial reports can have a negative impact on investors because they can strengthen information gaps in the market, trigger insider trading practices, and give rise to rumors that create market uncertainty, which ultimately can have a detrimental impact on the company's business continuity.Therefore, auditors have a significant responsibility in completing audits on time and in accordance with relevant regulations.Research by Ibrahim & Raharja (2014) found that audit lag has a positive effect on going concern audit opinion.On this basis, the sixth hypothesis is formulated as follows: H6: Audit lag has a positive effect on Going Concern audit opinion

Research and Methodology
In this research, the study population consisted of manufacturing companies in the consumer goods sector listed on the IDX for the 2019 -2022 period.Samples were selected using the purposive sampling based on the following criteria in determining the sample of transportation companies: i.
Manufacturing companies in the consumer goods sector were listed on the IDX for the period 2019 -2022.ii.
Manufacturing companies in the consumer goods sector reporting company finances from 2019 to 2022.iii.
The company experienced negative net profit after tax for at least one financial reporting period during the observation period.iv.
The company published financial statements that have been audited by independent auditors from 2019-2022.v.
The information needed related to research variables is presented in full.
The data were collected using documentation by searching for data available on the company website, be it in the form of annual reports or financial reports of manufacturing companies in the consumer goods sector listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) for the period 2019 -2022 on the official BEI website, namely www.idx.co.id.
The dependent variable of this study is the going concern audit opinion based on the material doubt about the company's ability to continue its business activities or a significant uncertainty regarding the company's survival.This variable is binary (dummy), with a value of 1 for companies that receive going concern audit opinions, and a value of 0 for companies that receive non-going concern audit opinions.
Profitability using Return on Assets (ROA) ratio indicates the company's ability to generate profits from the total assets owned by the company, according to (Ningrum, 2021).The formula for measuring ROA value is: Liquidity uses the Current ratio to assess the company's ability to meet short-term debt obligations or payments that must be made in the near future as a whole.The formula to measure the current ratio value according to Retnosari & Apriwenni (2021) is as follows:

𝐶𝑅 (𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜) = 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝐶𝑢𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠
Leverage ratio describes the company's ability in allocating its debt to company operational activities and company assets (Ardi et al., 2020).In this study, leverage was calculated using the Debt to Asset Ratio formula as described in the following:

𝐷𝐴𝑅 (𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜) = 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑏𝑡 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠
Previous-year audit opinion refers to the opinion given to the company in the previous year.The company receiving a going concern audit opinion in the previous year may have a problem in sustaining the continuity of its operations, thus resulting in a higher probability to receive another going concern audit opinion in the current year.To measure this variable, a dummy variable is used, where 1 indicates that the previous year's audit opinion was of going concern, while 0 indicates that the opinion was non going concern.
To measure the reputation of the KAP, a dummy variable is used with a value determined based on the type of KAP conducting the audit.If the company is audited by the big four KAPs, the dummy variable will have a value of one (1).Conversely, if the company is audited by a non-big four KAP, the dummy variable will be zero (0).Audit lag refers to the time period between the end of the accounting period (ie December 31) and the audit report publication date, as described by (Praptitorini & Januarti, 2011).To measure this variable, the number of days is counted from the book closing date (December 31) to the audit report release date.
The following framework describes the correlation between the dependent and independent variables in this study.AUDIT LAG

Findings and Discussions
The following table presents the data collection of this research.The number of companies obtaining going concern audit opinions and those otherwise is presented in the following table:

Logistic Regression Analysis
Overall model testing aims to evaluate the suitability of the proposed model to the available data.This test will examine the effect of the independent variables profitability, liquidity, leverage, previous year's audit opinion, KAP reputation, and audit lag on going concern audit opinion.Tables 7 and 8, insinuate a decrease in the number from -2 Log Likelihood Block Number = 0 to -2 Log Likelihood Block Number = 1 of 22.426 (from 71.979 to 49.553).This decrease shows the improved regression model being tested or in other words, the model is more compatible with the observed data.

Assessing the Feasibility of Regression Model Testing
Hosmer & Lemeshow's Goodness of Fit Test values were used to determine the suitability of the regression model.The Hosmer & Lemeshow's Goodness of Fit Test is used to evaluate whether the empirical data matches the model being tested or there is no significant difference between the model and the empirical data.The first hypothesis in this research is that profitability has a negative effect on Going Concern's audit opinion.The coefficient value of the profitability variable was 0.504 and the significance value was 0.651.Because the significance level was 0.651 > 0.05, the first hypothesis was rejected, and thus, the research hypothesis highlighting a negative correlation between profitability and going concern audit opinion is not proven.The test results showed no correlation between profitability and going concern audit opinion.In other words, Return on Assets (ROA) has no effect on the auditor's opinion regarding the continuity of a company's business.ROA indicates the percentage of profits generated from the use of company assets.However, a low ROA does not necessarily indicate poor performance.If the company makes investments causing a decrease in ROA, the auditor needs to evaluate the risk management steps taken by the company to overcome this uncertainty.If management planning has been well established and succeeded in reducing risks in the early stages of the project, the company still has the potential to develop its assets and achieve profits.This finding is in line with research conducted by Yuliyani & Erawati (2017), which also proved that profitability had no significant effect on the issuance of audit opinion regarding business continuity.However, the result of this study contradicted with the result revealed by Khasanah & Nugroho (2020), which obtained evidence that profitability has a negative influence on going concern audit opinion.
The second hypothesis in this study is that liquidity has a negative effect on going Concern audit opinion.The coefficient value of the liquidity variable was -0.031 and a significance value was 0.910.Because the significance level was 0.910 > 0.05, the second hypothesis is rejected, and thus the research hypothesis indicating a negative correlation between liquidity and going concern audit opinion is not proven.The test results show no correlation between liquidity and going concern audit opinion.In other words, there is no evidence that liquidity has an influence on the audit opinion regarding business continuity.Even though a company with a low liquidity ratio may raise doubts about its business continuity in the future, it does not mean that the company will automatically receive an audit opinion regarding business continuity.The auditor not only considers the company's ability to fulfill its short-term obligations in providing an audit opinion regarding business continuity, but also pays attention to the company's ability to pay all of its obligations as a whole.This finding is in line with research conducted by Khasanah & Nugroho (2020), which also highlighted that the liquidity ratio had no effect on the issuance of going concern audit opinions.
The third hypothesis in this study is that leverage has a positive effect on going concern audit opinion.The leverage variable coefficient value was 0.173 and a significance value was 0.877.Because the significance level was 0.877 > 0.05, this hypothesis is rejected.Thus, the research hypothesis which highlighted a positive correlation between leverage and going concern audit opinion is not proven.The test results indicated no correlation between leverage and going concern audit opinion.In other words, this can be attributed to the fact that the companies in this research sample are efficient in managing their assets and has sales growth every year, thus making them have ample source of funds to pay their obligations.The auditor not only focuses on the leverage ratio in determining an audit opinion, but also pays attention to other ratios, such as liquidity, activity, and other factors, such as frequent operational losses or the influence of national economic conditions in the company's location.This finding is in line with research conducted by Raharja (2014), which also proved that leverage had no effect on the issuance of going concern audit opinion.
The fourth hypothesis in this study is that KAP's reputation has a positive effect on going concern audit opinion.The coefficient value of the KAP reputation variable was -19.216 and a significance value was of 0.999.Because the significance level was 0.999 > 0.05, this hypothesis is rejected.Therefore, the research hypothesis denoting a positive correlation between KAP reputation and going concern audit opinion is not proven.The test results implied no correlation between KAP reputation and going concern audit opinion.This means that companies either audited by the Big Four KAP or audited by non-Big Four are still likely to receive an audit opinion regarding business continuity.This is due to the factor that auditors, both from the Big Four and those from non-Big Four KAPs, always act objectively in giving their audit opinions to the companies they work on with the aim of maintaining their reputation.This finding is in line with research conducted by Laura et al., (2021), which also proved that KAP reputation had no influence on issuance of going concern audit opinions.Similarly, research conducted by Khasanah & Nugroho (2020) and Siahaan & Herawaty (2022) also stated that KAP reputation had no effect on going concern audit opinion.
The fifth hypothesis in this research is that the previous year's audit has a positive effect on going concern's audit opinion.The coefficient value of the previous year's audit variable was 3.066 and the significance value was 0.001.Because the significance level was 0.001 <0.05 and the coefficient value was 3.066, this hypothesis fails to be rejected.Therefore, the research hypothesis stating a positive correlation between the previous year's audit on going concern audit opinion is proven.The test results indicated a positive correlation between the previous year's audit and going concern audit opinion.In other words, the previous year's audit opinion had an influence on the audit opinion regarding business continuity.The positive relationship between the previous year's audit opinion and the going concern audit opinion indicates that the auditor considers the previous year's audit opinion in determining the current year's audit opinion.The auditee or client receiving a going concern in the previous year must have a problem in the going concern of their company.Therefore, there is a high possibility that the auditor will provide another going concern audit opinion in the following year.This was caused by the negative impacts experienced by companies that received opinions regarding business continuity in the previous period, such as a decrease in share prices, difficulties in obtaining loan capital, loss of trust from investors, creditors, customers and employees.Companies receiving going concern opinions regarding their business continuity will experience a financial decline and have a dwindling public trust.The previous year's audit opinion has a significant influence on the issuance of the audit opinion regarding business continuity.This finding is in line with research conducted by Sussanto & Aquariza (2013), which also revealed that the previous year's audit was positively correlated with the issuance of a going concern audit opinion.This research, however, is not in line with the research conducted by Khasanah and Nugroho (2020), which stated that they were unrelated.
The sixth hypothesis in this study is that audit lag has a positive effect on going concern audit opinion.The coefficient value of the audit lag variable was 0.003 and a significance value was 0.825.Because the significance level was 0.825 > 0.05, the hypothesis is rejected, and thus the research hypothesis highlighting a positive correlation between audit lag on going concern audit opinion is not proven.The test results indicated no correlation between audit lag on going concern audit opinion.This means that audit delays had no effect on the audit opinion regarding business continuity.The test results failed to support the proposed hypothesis, which shows that the length or shortness of the audit period will not affect the auditor's consideration in providing a going concern audit opinion.This is because audits that take place over a long period of time, if supported by good quality reports and financial performance, do not directly reflect the company's poor condition.These findings are in accordance with research by Syahputra & Yahya (2017) and by Clara & Purwasih (2023) denoting that audit lag has no influence on the issuance of going concern audit opinions.

Conclusions
The research analysis obtained evidence that profitability, liquidity, leverage, KAP reputation and audit lag had no effect on going concern audit opinion, but the previous year's audit had a positive effect on going concern audit opinion.From the data analysis, only 1 variable, namely the previous year's audit, which supported the agency theory, where the investor as the company owner assigns an independent auditor to audit management performance, as an agent entrusted to manage the funds invested in the company, and the result of which is reflected in the auditor's considerations in providing his opinion.In addition, it is also evident that the auditor's opinion not only considers financial factors but also considers non-financial factors.This fact is supported by the evident that financial factors, namely the level of profitability, liquidity and leverage had no effect on going concern audit opinion.
The results of this study are expected to serve as an evaluation material for company managers regarding the influence of nonfinancial factors as a consideration in the issuance of auditor's opinion.Another noteworthy point for future researchers in this topic is the need to include the impact of Covid-19, because observations on the consumer goods industry sector experienced an unusual spike during the pandemic.This point needs to be considered in relation to researches on going concern audit opinion, which is underpinned by the suspicion of the company's inability to continue its business or the auditor's doubts about the sustainability of a company's business.

Table 1 :
Company Sample

Table 2 :
Variable of Going Concern Audit Opinion

Table 5 :
Previous Year Audit

Table 6 :
Going Concern Audit Opinion

Table 7 :
Initial Model Overall Test

Table 8 :
The Final Model Overall Test

Table 7
presents the overall test results by taking into account the numbers at -2 Log Likelihood Block Number = 0.In the table, the initial number -2 Log Likelihood Block Number = 0 is 71.979.Meanwhile, Table 8 depicts the overall test results by taking into account the numbers in -2 Log Likelihood Block Number = 1.In the table, the number -2 Log Likelihood Block Number = 1 is 49.553.

Table 9 :
Model Feasibility Test Results Fit Test statistical value is greater than 0.05, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected.Table9indicates that the Hosmer & Lemeshow's Fit Test statistical value is 8.245 with a significance level of 0.410.Therefore, the null hypothesis in this study cannot be rejected, since the model has the ability to predict the observed values.In other words, the model is acceptable because it is in accordance with the observation data.

Table 10 :
Coefficient of Determination Test

Table 10
demonstrates that the Nagelkerke's R Square value is 0.438 or 43.8%.This result indicates that the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable of 43.8%, while the remaining 56.2% is explained by other factors outside the research model.

Table 11 .
clearly depicts the level of accuracy of the regression model in predicting the possibility of a company receiving a going concern opinion from an auditor with 56.3%.It can be interpreted that of the 16 samples receiving a going concern audit opinion, 9 samples were predicted to be appropriate by the regression model.Meanwhile, the model's accuracy level in companies predicted to receive non-going concern audit opinions is 95.8%.Using the same regression model, 46 samples are predicted to be appropriate out of a total of 48 samples that receive non-going concern audit opinions.

Table 12 :
Research Result