Keterbatasan Studi dan Saran Penelitian Selanjutnya

V.2 Keterbatasan Studi dan Saran Penelitian Selanjutnya

Studi ini hanya menggunakan data perusahaan publik yang tercatat di Bursa Efek Indonesia dalam kurun waktu terbatas. Dengan demikian, hasil studi tidak dapat digeneralisasi pada seluruh perusahaan di Indonesia. Studi ini menggeneralisasi pengaruh masa penugasan audit terhadap kualitas audit dengan tidak membedakanmengecualikan kondisi di setiap industri. Untuk mengakomodasi karakteristik industri yang berbeda, jenis industri dikontrol dengan menggunakan variabel dummy industri. Dalam studi berikutnya, diharapkan karakteristik industri dapat lebih diakomodasi secara spesifik, sehingga hubungan antara faktor determinan dengan kualitas laba dapat diuji secara terpisah untuk setiap jenis industri. Walaupun penggunaan Earnings Surprise Benchmark sebagai proksi dari kualitas audit dapat dikatakan relatif baru dibandingkan dengan pengukuran lainnya, namun tidak terlepas dari beberapa kelemahan, antara lain: i benchmark untuk kualitas audit diperoleh dari kualitas laba perusahaan klien, sehingga tidak sepenuhnya mencerminkan kualitas audit yang diberikan oleh AP dan KAP; ii nilai benchmark dalam penelitian ini ditentukan dengan menghitung rerata seluruh sampel dalam satuan tahun-perusahaan, termasuk tahun dengan kondisi ekonomi yang berbeda satu sama lain misal: terjadi krisis ekonomi atau pertumbuhan ekonomi yg cepat yang hanya dikontrol dengan menggunakan variabel dummy tahun. Untuk mengurangi kelemahan-kelemahan tersebut, penggunaan Earnings Surprise Benchmark sebagai proksi dari kualitas audit dalam studi selanjutnya perlu disempurnakan penentuan benchmark. Misalnya, dengan menentukan benchmark per-tahun dan per-industri. Dengan demikian, dapat diselidiki apakah pemberlakuan batas maksimum 20 rotasi dapat diberlakukan secara umum atau berbeda untuk setiap tahun ataupun untuk setiap jenis industri. Studi ini hanya memperhitungkan faktor independensi masa penugasan audit, ukuran KAP, regulasi, ukuran perusahaan dan tingkat leverage perusahaan yang dapat mempengaruhi kualitas audit. Studi berikutnya diharapkan dapat memasukkan variabel lain yang secara logis diperkirakan berpengaruh terhadap kualitas audit, seperti: i spesialisasi industri; ii karakeristik kualitas audit seperti fairness dan informativeness; iii kapabilitas auditor yang tercermin dari kapabilitas staff audit; iv faktor-faktor lain yang mempengaruhi independensi auditor selain masa penugasan audit; serta v faktor intern perusahaan klien yang terkait dengan kualitas audit, seperti komite audit. 21 Daftar Pustaka American Institute of Certified Public Accountants AICPA 1998. AICPA Professional Standards. New York. NY: AICPA. Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal 2002. Peraturan Bapepam No. VIII.A.2 Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan 2008. Peraturan Bapepam No. VIII.A.2 Bamber, E.M. Iyer, V.M. 2002. Big 5 Auditors’ Professional and Organizational Identification: Consistency or Conflict? Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory, 21, 2, 21-38 Bamber, E.M. Iyer, V.M. 2005. Auditors’ Identification with Their Clients and Its Effect on Auditors’ Objectivity. Working Paper on SSRN Barbadillo, E.R., Aguilar, N.G. Lopez, E.B. 2006. Long-term Audit Engagements and Opinion Shopping: Spanish Evidence. Accounting Forum, 30, 1, 61-79 Bazerman, M.H., Morgan, K.P. Loewenstein, G.F. 1997. The impossibility of auditor independence. Sloan Management Review 38, 89-94 Bedard, J. Michelene, T.H. 1993. Expertise in Auditing. Journal of Accounting Practice Theory, 12, 21-45 Carcello, J. V. Nagy, A. L. 2004, Audit Firm Tenure and Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory 23, 55-69. Carey, P. Simnett, R. 2006. Audit Partner Tenure and Audit Quality. The Accounting Review 81, 653 Chen, K. Church, B. 1996. Going Concern Opinions and the Market’s Reaction to Bankruptcy Filings. The Accounting Review, 71, 1, 117-128 Chen, C. Y., C. J. Lin. Y. C. Lin. 2004. Audit partner tenure, audit firm tenure and discretionary accruals; does long auditor tenure impair earning quality? Working paper, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Chi, W. Huang, H. 2005. Discretionary accruals, audit-firm tenure and audit-partner tenure: Empirical evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Contemporary Accounting and Economics 1, 65-92 22 DeAngelo. L.E. 1981. Auditor independence, “low balling” and disclosure regulation. Journal of Accounting and Economics 3, 113-127 Departemen Keuangan 1997. Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No. 43KMK.0171997 tentang Jasa Akuntan Publik Departemen Keuangan 1999. Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No. 470KMK.0171999 tentang Perubahan Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No. 43KMK.0171997 tentang Jasa Akuntan Publik Departemen Keuangan 2002. Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No. 423KMK.062002 tentang Jasa Akuntan Publik Departemen Keuangan 2003. Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No. 359KMK.062003 tentang Perubahan Keputusan Menteri Keuangan No. 423KMK.062002 tentang Jasa Akuntan Publik Departemen Keuangan 2006. Draft Rancangan Undang Undang tentang Akuntan Publik. Jakarta Departemen Keuangan 2008. Peraturan Menteri Keuangan No. 17PMK.012008 tentang Jasa Akuntan Publik Doogar, R. Easley, R.F. 1998. Concentration without Differentiation: A New Look at the Determinants of Audit Market Concentration. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 25, 3, 235-253 Dopuch, N. D. Simunic. 1982. Competition in auditing research: an assessment. Paper read at the 4th symposium on auditing research, University of Illinois Dopuch, N., King, R.R. Schwartz, R. 2003. Independence in appearance and in fact: An experimental investigation. Contemporary Accounting Research 20, 79-114 Francis, J.R. 2004. What do we know about audit quality?. The British Accounting Review 26, 345-368 Firth, M. Liau Tan, C.K. 1998. Auditor Quality, Signaling, and the Valuation of Initial Public Offerings. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 25, 145-165 Gavious, I. 2007, Alternative perspectives to deal with auditors’ agency problem, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 18, 451-467 Geiger, M. Raghunandan, K. 2002. Auditor tenure and audit reporting failures. Auditing: A Journal of Practice Theory 21, 67-78 23 Ghazali, I. 2006. Analisa Multivariate Lanjutan Ghosh, A.A. Moon, D.C. 2005. Auditor Tenure and Perceptions of Audit Quality. The Accounting Review 80, 2, 585-612 Gunny, K., Krishnan, G. Zhang, T. 2007. Is audit quality associated with auditor tenure, industry expertise, and fees? Evidence from PCAOB opinions, Working Paper on SSRN Healy, P. Lys, T. 1986. Auditor Changes Following Big Eight Takeovers of Non Big Eight Firms. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy Winter, 251-265 Hoyle, J. 1978. Mandatory Auditor Rotation: The Arguments and an Alternative. The Journal of Accountancy, 145, 69-78 dalam Carey, P. Simnett, R. 2006. Audit Partner Tenure and Audit Quality. The Accounting Review 81, 653 Independence Standards Board ISB 2000. Statement of Independence Standards: A Conceptual Framework for Auditor Independence Exposure Draft. New York, NY: ISB November 2000 Institute for Economic and Financial Research 2000-2007. Indonesia Capital Market Directory 2000-2007 Institut Akuntan Indonesia 2001. Standar Profesional Akuntan Publik. Salemba Empat. Jakarta Jensen, M. Meckling, W. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 4, 305-360 Joanna, L.H. 1994. The Effect of Experience on Concensus of Going Concern Judgments. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6, 160-172 Johnson, V.E., Khurana, I.K. Reynolds, J.K. 2002. Audit firm tenure and the quality of financial reports. Contemporary Accounting Research 19, 637-660 Koh, H.C. Tan, S.S. 1999. A Neural Network Approach to the Prediction of Going Concern Status. Accounting and Business Research, 21, 211-216 LaSalle, R.E. Anandarajan, A. 1996. Auditor View on the Type of Audit Report Issued to Entities with Going Concern Uncertainties. Accounting Horizons, 10, 51-72 Levitt, A. 1998. Legal Penalties and Audit Quality: An Experimental Investigation. Contemporary Accounting Winter, 685-710 24 Libby, R., Bloomfield, R. Nelson, M.W. 2002. Experimental Research in Financial Accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27, 8, 775-810 Li Dang 2004. Assessing Actual Audit Quality. Thesis in Drexel University Lord, A.T. DeZoort, F.T. 2001. The Impact of Commitment and Moral Reasoning on Auditors’ Responses to Social Influence Pressure. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 215-235 Mautz, R.K. Sharaf, H.A. 1961. The Philosophy of Auditing. Sarasota, FL: American Accounting Association Mayangsari, S. 2003. Pengaruh Kualitas Audit, Independensi terhadap Integritas Laporan Keuangan. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi VI. Surabaya McLaren, N.L. 1958. Rotation of Auditors. The Journal of Accountancy, July, 41-44 dalam Carey, P. Simnett, R. 2006. Audit Partner Tenure and Audit Quality. The Accounting Review 81, 653 Menon, K. Williams, D.D. 2004. Former audit partners and abnormal accruals. The Accounting Review 79, 1095-1118 Metcalf Committee US Senate, 1976, p. 21 dalam Belkoui A.R. 2004. Accounting Theory 5th Edition, Mutchler, J.F., Hopwood, W. McKeown, J.C. 1997. The Influence of Contrary Information and Mitigating Factors on Audit Report Decisions on Bankrupt Companies. Journal of Accounting Research Autumn, 295-310 Myers, J., Myers, A. Omer, T.C. 2003. Exploring the term of the auditor-client relationship and the quality of earnings: A case for mandatory auditor rotation? The Accounting Review 78, 779-800 O’Keefe, T.B., Simunic, D. Stein, M.T. 1994. The Production of Audit Services: Evidence form a Major Public Accounting Firm. Journal of Accounting Research, 32, 2, 241-261 Palmrose, Z. 1984. The Demand for Quality Differentiated Audit Services in an Agency Cost Setting: An Empirical Investigation. 1984 Auditing Research Symposium, 229- 252 Ponemon, L.A. 1992. Ethical Reasoning and Selection Socialitazion in Accounting. Accounting Organizations and Society, 17, 239-258 25 Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002. Pub.L. 107-204 , 116 Stat. 745, enacted July 30, 2002, also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act in the Senate and Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act in the House and commonly called Sarbanes-Oxley, Sarbox or SOX, is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002. Schilit, H.M. 2002. Financial Shenanigans: How to Detect Accounting Gimnicks Fraud in Financial Reports, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Shockley, R.A. 1981. Perceptions of Auditors’ Independence: An Empirical Analysis. The Accounting Review, 55, 4, 785-800 dalam Carey, P. Simnett, R. 2006. Audit Partner Tenure and Audit Quality. The Accounting Review 81, 653 Sikka, P., Willmott, H. C. 1995. Illuminating the state-profession relationship. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 5, 341-369 Solomon, I.M., Shields, M. Whittington, O.R. 1999. What Do Industry Auditors Know? Journal of Accounting Research, 37, 1, 191-208 St. Pierre, K. J. Anderson 1984. An analysis of factors associated with lawsuits against public accountants. The Accounting Review 59 1: 242-263 Venuti, E.K. 2004. The Going Concern Assumption Revisited: Assessing a Company’s Future Viability. The CPA Journal, 74, 5, 40-43 Watts, R. Zimmerman, J. 1986. Positive Accounting Theory. New York, NY: Prentice Hall. 26 LAMPIRAN I Formulasi Model Empiris, Definisi Variabel serta Operasionalisasi Variabel