ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI

Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271

Effect of Liquidity, Profitability, Firm Size on Firm Value with

Capital Structure as Intervening Variable
Andini Nurwulandari 1* Yudi Wibowo 2 Hasanudin 3

1,
Faculty of Economics, Universitas Nasional, Jakarta, South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Email
*
[email protected]

Received: July 06, 2021 Revised: August 17, 2021 Accepted: August 18, 2021

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze and obtain empirical evidence of the effect of liquidity, profitability, firm size
on firm value with capital structure as an intervening variable. The population in this study were manufacturing
companies in the primary industry and chemical subsectors listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for 2014-2019,
with a sample size of 19 companies and using the purposive sampling method. Furthermore, the data were collected
quantitatively using multiple regression using the SmartPLS v.3.2.8. This study indicates that liquidity, profitability,
and firm size directly have a negative and significant effect on capital structure; liquidity directly has a negative and
insignificant influence on firm value. Profitability and firm size directly have a positive and not significant impact
on firm value. Capital structure has a negative and significant effect directly. And then, the capital structure can
mediate the effect of liquidity, profitability, company size on company value.

Keywords: Liquidity; Profitability; Firm Size; Capital Structure; Firm Value

DOI : https://doi.org/10.33096/atestasi.v4i2.835
p-ISSN : 2621-1963
e-ISSN : 2621-1505
ⓒ Copyright: ATESTASI: Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi (2021)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Site Using OJS 3 PKP Optimized.

1. Introduction

Every beginning of the company's establishment will not be separated from the goal to create and
increase its value for its owners, namely by maximizing shareholder wealth (Ahmad et al., 2018). The
higher the company value ratio, the more prosperous the owner will be (Arsyad et al., 2021). The value of
the company can be reflected in the price of shares owned by the company. According to the opinion
Brigham & Houston (2014), the higher the stock price, the higher the firm value. So that the higher the
value of the company, the higher the shareholder wealth will be. According to Salvator, (2005) the primary
goal of companies that have gone public is to increase the company's value. Therefore, the company's
value will be significant because it will reflect the company's performance which can affect the perceptions
and perspectives of investors towards the target company to be addressed. According to Brigham &
Houston, (2014) financial performance will affect firm value and capital structure. When the company's
financial performance improves, it will impact increasing the company's value. Financial statement
analysis can assess economic performance, which can be seen in the company's financial statements.
Financial statement analysis usually uses financial ratio analysis, namely by comparing one account to
another. According to some expert literature, the company's value can describe the condition of the
company's state and the company's performance. The company's performance in the market is also
influenced by regional and global stock exchange conditions (Nurwulandari et al., 2020). With the better

257
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
company value, the company's performance will be seen as good by potential investors and the increasing
share value if the company's value increases. The value of the company increases, which is indicated by a
high rate of return on investment to shareholders. In its business activity, the company generates profits
consisting of several industries: service companies, trading companies, and manufacturing companies.
According to the Minister of Industry, the industry's contribution to GDP can be more than 20 percent.
One factor applies in Indonesia by encouraging the manufacturing sector. Table 1 will be the object of
research that has been processed; it can be seen that the financial statements of manufacturing companies
in the primary and chemical industry sub-sectors are listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX).

Table 1 Financial Statements of Manufacturing Companies

No Description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
1 Population 19 19 19 19 19 19
2 Assets (Billion) 6670.58 7280.06 8058.67 8629.71 9209.96 10994.48
% Up (Down) - 9.14% 10.70% 7.09% 6.72% 19.38%
3 Liabilities (Billion) 2497.91 2786.29 2925.64 3427.94 3613.75 5092.47
% Up (Down) - 11.54% 5.00% 17.17% 5.42% 40.92%
4 Equity (Billion) 4172.66 4493.76 5133.03 5201.76 5596.20 5901.96
% Up (Down) - 7.70% 14.23% 1.34% 7.58% 5.46%
5 Sales (Billion) 6517.40 6437.02 6985.53 8001.32 9127.66 9943.40
% Up (Down) - ( 1.23%) 8.52% 14.54% 14.08% 8.94%
6 Profit (Billion) 767.61 693.47 777.89 460.95 722.84 639.91
% Up (Down) - ( 9.66%) 12.17% ( 40.74%) 56.82% (11.47%)
Source: IDX data, processed 2020

From the average results on the list of company financial statements used as research samples, it
can be seen that profit shows fluctuations that go up and down. From 2014 to 2015, there is a decrease of
9.66%, referring to the Central Statistics Agency (BPS). Indonesia's economic growth in 2015 of 4.88
percent was the lowest in the last six years. Then in 2016, there was an increase of 12.17% because the
Indonesian economy in 2016 grew 5.03 percent higher than the 2015 achievement of 4.88 percent.
Furthermore, in 2017 there was another decline of 40.74%. According to the Central Statistics Agency
(BPS), Indonesia's economic growth throughout 2017 reached 5.07 percent or higher than the 2016
achievement of 5.03%. The 2017 financial growth figure was even the highest since 2014, but there was
a decline in profits for companies with primary and chemical industries. It was due to the increase in the
purchase price of raw materials, thereby reducing the profits of the sample companies. Then in 2018, there
was a very high increase of 56.82%, according to the Ministry of Finance 06/02/2019. The Central
Statistics Agency (BPS) released data that the Indonesian economy in 2018 grew 5.17 percent, higher than
the 2017 achievement of 5. 07 percent. However, in 2019 there was a decline of 11.47%. According to the
Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), the Indonesian economy in 2019 grew 5.02 percent, lower than the
2018 achievement of 5.17 percent. In terms of production, the highest growth was achieved by Other
Services Business Fields of 10.55 percent. The highest increase was acquired from the expenditure side
by the Consumption Expenditure Component of Non-Profit Institutions Serving Households (PK-LNPRT)
of 10.62 percent. So based on the results of the data, the company's performance fluctuating in profit
(profit) will affect other components, namely the components of Assets, Liabilities, and also Equity can
be seen in the table above.
The Research Gap phenomenon is that there are differences in the results of previous studies that
produce different conclusions about the results of the analysis of the effect of liquidity, profitability, firm
size on firm value with capital structure as an intervening variable. Research related to liquidity on the
company's capital structure, which states that liquidity has a positive and significant effect on capital
structure, is the conclusion (Bhawa & Dewi S, 2015; Putra & Sedana, 2019). Meanwhile, the results of
other contradicting studies state that liquidity has a negative and significant effect on capital structure,

258
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
namely the conclusion according to (e.g., Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019; Sari & Sedana, 2020; Zuhroh, 2019;
Anjarwati et al., 2015). Research related to profitability on capital structure, which states that profitability
has a positive and significant effect on capital structure, is the conclusion according to (i.e., Warsono &
Zoeboedi, 2019; Sari & Sedana, 2020; Putra & Sedana, 2019; Djashan, 2019). Meanwhile, other
contradicting research results state that profitability has a negative and significant effect on capital
structure (See. Bhawa & Dewi S., 2015; Zuhroh 2019; Siddik & Chabachib, 2017; Anjarwati et al., 2015).
Research related to company size on capital structure, which states that company size has a positive and
significant effect on capital structure (See. Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019; Djashan, 2019; Zuhroh, 2019;
Setiadharma & Machali, 2017; Siddik & Chabachib, 2017; Hermuningsih, 2012). Meanwhile, other
contradictory research results state that company size has a negative and significant effect on capital
structure (Bhawa & Dewi S., 2015). Research related to liquidity on firm value, which states that liquidity
has a positive and significant effect on firm value, is the conclusion according to (See. Yanti & Darmayanti,
2019; Juhandi et al., 2019; Marsha & Murtaqi, 2017; Putra & Sedana, 2019; Setiadharma & Machali,
2017; Ariyanti, 2019; Dewi et al., 2016). Meanwhile, other contradicting research results state that
liquidity has a negative and insignificant effect on firm value, namely the conclusions according to (See.
Thaib & Dewantoro, 2017; Sari & Sedana, 2020; Adiputra & Hermawan, 2020; Zuhroh, 2019; Patricia et
al., 2018; Anjarwati et al., 2015). Other contradicting research results state that liquidity has a negative
and significant effect on firm value, namely the conclusions according to (i.e., Hasanudin et al., 2020;
Siddik & Chabachib, 2017, Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019; Fajaria & Isnalita, 2018; Nuswandari et al., 2019).
Research related to profitability on firm value, which states that profitability has a positive and significant
effect on firm value (i.e., Hasanudin et al., 2020; Yanti & Darmayanti, 2019; Sari & Sedana, 2020; Putra
& Sedana, 2019; Djashan, 2019; Sukmawardini & Ardiansari, 2018; Zuhroh, 2019). Meanwhile, other
contradictory research results state that profitability has a negative and insignificant effect on firm value
(Thaib & Dewantoro, 2017). Research related to firm size on firm value, which states that firm size has a
positive and significant effect on firm value, is a conclusion according to (See. Yanti & Darmayanti, 2019;
Anjarwati et al., 2015; Djashan, 2019; Fajaria & Isnalita, 2018). Meanwhile, other research results
contradict this conclusion state that company size has a negative and significant effect on firm value,
(Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019). Research related to capital structure on firm value, which states that capital
structure has a positive and significant effect on firm value, is a conclusion according to (i.e., Yanti &
Darmayanti, 2019; Sari & Sedana, 2020; Putra & Sedana, 2019; Zuhroh, 2019; Mulyana & Saputra, 2017;
Hermuningsih, 2012). Meanwhile, other contradicting research results state that capital structure has a
negative and significant effect on firm value (e.,g Siddik & Chabachib, 2017; Dewi et al., 2016).
Research related to liquidity on firm value with capital structure as an intervening variable, which
states that capital structure can mediate as an intervening variable (See. Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019; Sari
& Sedana, 2020; Putra & Sedana, 2019; Zuhroh, 2019; Anjarwati et al., 2015). Meanwhile, other
contradicting research results state that capital structure cannot mediate into an intervening variable
between liquidity and firm value (See. Wulandari 2013; Ariyanti, 2019; Dewi et al., 2016; Thaib, 2013;
Dewantoro, 2017). Research related to profitability on firm value with capital structure as an intervening
variable, which states that capital structure can mediate as an intervening variable (See. Warsono &
Zoeboedi, 2019; Sari & Sedana, 2020; Putra & Sedana, 2019; Zuhroh, 2019; Ariyanti, 2019). Meanwhile,
other contradicting research results state that capital structure cannot mediate the intervening variable
between profitability and firm value (See. Wulandari, 2013; Djashan, 2019). Research related to firm size
on firm value with capital structure as an intervening, which states that capital structure can mediate as an
intervening variable (e.g., Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019; Zuhroh, 2019; Hermuningsih, 2012). Meanwhile,
other contradicting research results state that capital structure cannot mediate the intervening variable
between firm size and firm value (See. Anjarwati et al., 2015; Ariyanti 2019; Djashan, 2019). The
company's performance uses the Liquidity variable as proxied by the Current Ratio and Working Capital
Total Asset indicators, which indicate the company's ability to meet short-term financial obligations on

259
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
time. The company size variable uses the natural logarithm of total assets, showing the number of assets
owned. The other variable is profitability proxied by Net Profit Margin and Return On Assets which
indicate the company's ability to earn profits concerning sales results. Meanwhile, the Capital Structure
variable is proxied by the Debt To Equity Ratio and the Debt to Asset Ratio, indicating the ratio indicates
the use of debt from loans as a capital structure. The variable value of the company is proxied by using
Price Book Value which is used to measure the level of share value valued on the stock market through
the Indonesian stock exchange.
Companies with high company performance ratios will prefer to use internal company funds to
finance new investments and company operations. According to Myers and Majluf (1984) (in Husnan &
Pudjiastuti, 2012), it is by the Pecking Order theory that it is by the Pecking Order theory order explains
that companies are more likely to choose to fund companies using internal funds. According to the pecking
order theory, firm size can be predicted to affect capital structure negatively. According to Smith & Warner
(1979), large companies can easily finance their investments through the capital market because of the
slight information asymmetry. Investors can get more information from prominent companies when
compared to small companies. So, by obtaining funds through the capital market, the proportion of debt
becomes smaller in the capital structure.

H1: Liquidity has a direct and significant adverse effect on capital structure
H2: Profitability has a direct and significant adverse effect on capital structure
H3: Firm size has a direct and significant adverse effect on capital structure

Based on the concept of signaling theory, the company's performance will signal from the
company's operations that describes positive prospects based on the level of profit earned from the
company's performance level. It will also directly affect the company's value, which is reflected in the
share price value, representing its value. However, the higher the capital structure of a company, the higher
the risk because funding from debt is more significant than equity. A high capital structure indicates that
companies tend to use debt as a capital structure. Capital structure is a comparison between long-term
sources that are loans to own capital and or assets. However, companies with high performance will reduce
their capital structure by using internal funds for operations.

H4: Liquidity directly has a positive and significant effect on firm value
H5: Profitability directly has a positive and significant impact on firm value
H6: Firm size has a direct and consequential positive impact on firm value
H7: Capital structure has an immediate and substantial adverse effect on firm value

The significant level of the company's performance ratio and the company's size will reduce the
status of the capital structure ratio. It is with paying off loan debt or reducing loan debt. So that it will
result in an increase in the company's value as one of them is to reduce the loan interest expense.

H8: Liquidity has a positive and significant effect on firm value, with capital structure as
a mediating variable
H9: Profitability has a positive and significant effect on firm value, with capital structure
as a mediating variable
H10: Firm size has a positive and significant effect on firm value, with capital structure as
a mediating variable

260
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271

€1

Liquidity H4
(CR & WCTA) H1
X1

H2 Capital Structure
(DAR & DER)
Z H7

Profitability
H9
(NPM & ROA) H8
X2 H10

H5 Firm Value (PBV)

Y
Firm Size
H3
(SIZE)
H6
X3

€2
Information :
: Partially : Through Mediation

Figure 1. Research Model

2. Research Design and Method

The type of data used in this study is descriptive quantitative data. The source of data in this study
is secondary data obtained from the 2014-2019 company Annual Report, specifically on the primary and
chemical industry sub-sector, which was obtained through the company's website used as the research
sample, the Stock Exchange website. Indonesian Effect www.IDX.co.id, and ICMD (Indonesian Capital
Market Directory). The research was selected by the purposive sampling method, one of the sampling
techniques based on several desired and predetermined criteria. Inferential statistics used are non-
parametric statistics, which are statistics on the distribution of independent data or do not require the
issuance of standard parameters. Besides that, non-parametric statistics usually use social measurement
scales, namely nominal and ordinal, which are not typically distributed in the study using inferential
statistics, assisted by analytical tools by the research model. By the formulated hypothesis, in this study,
the analysis of inferential statistical data was measured using Partial Least Square (SmartPLS) V3.2.8
starting from the measurement model (outer model), model structure (inner model), and hypothesis testing,
with Structural Equation Modeling. (SEM) model analysis. According to Sugiyono (2017), Operational
Variables determine the constructor trait be studied to become a variable that can be measured. So that the
operational definition explains the particular way used to research and operate the construct, making it
possible for other researchers to replicate measurements in the same way or develop different ways of
measuring constructs so that they produce better results.

Image captions of source mediating effects (Zhao et al., 2010)

a) Complementary (partial mediation) if a*b is significant, c is significant, and a*b*c is significant
b) Competitive (partial mediation) if a*b is significant, c is substantial, but a*b*c is not significant
c) Indirect-only (full mediation) if a*b is significant, but c is not significant
d) Direct-only (no mediation) if a*b is not significant, but c is significant
e) No effect (no mediation) if a*b is not significant and c is not significant.

261
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271

Table 2. Operational Variables

No Variable Definition Indicator Scale
Independent Variable
1 Liquidity A ratio that shows the company's ability Current Ratio (CR) Ratio
(X1) to pay its short-term debts (liabilities) Current asset
that are due, or a ratio to determine its CR =
ability to finance and meet obligations
(debts) when billed. Current Liability
Working Capital to Total Asset (WCTA)
Current Asset – Current
Liability
WCTA =
Total assets
2 Profitability The company's ability to earn profits Net Profit Margin (NPM) Ratio
(X2) concerning sales, total assets, and own Net profit
capital. Thus, long-term investors will NPM =
be very interested in this profitability
analysis; for example, shareholders will Net sales
see profits that will be received in the Return OnAsset (ROA)
form of dividends. Net profit
ROA =
Total Assets
3 Firm Size Firm size can be defined as the size of a Firm Size (Size) Ratio
(X3) company in various ways: income, Size = Ln (Total Assets)
number of employees, total assets, the
market value of shares, and total
capital.
Intervening Variable
4 Capital Capital structure is a combination of Debt To Asset Ratio (DAR) Ratio
Structure debt with own capital. Capital structure Debt
(Z) is part of the financial structure used to DAR =
determine how much debt the company
will use to fund its assets. Total Assets
Debt To Equity Ratio (DER)
Debt
DER =
Equity
Dependent Variable
5 Price Book Firm value is the company's fair value, Price Book Value (PBV) Ratio
Value which describes the investor's Market Price per Share
(Y) perception of a particular issuer. The PBV =
firm value is the investor's perception,
which is always associated with stock Book Value per Share
prices.

3. Results and Discussion

Result Analysis
The liquidity variable with the Current Ratio (CR) indicator has a minimum value of 0.704 and a
maximum value of 21.705, and then the mean value is 2.900 with a standard deviation of 3.216. The
current ratio shows an average of 2.9 times, which means that the average research sample company can
still meet its short-term obligations from current assets owned by the company in one period as much as
2.9:1. While the Working Capital to Asset (WCTA) indicator has a minimum value of 0.103 and a
maximum value of 0.736, the mean value is 0.328 with a standard deviation of 0.193. WCTA shows an
average of 0.238 which means that the company still has free funds for running a business as much as
0.238 in one period. The profitability variable with Return on Assets (ROA) indicator has a minimum
value of 0.036, a maximum value of 18.326, then a mean value of 6.23 with a standard deviation of 4.378.
ROA shows an average of 6.23 which means that the company can return 6.23 of the total assets. While

262
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
the Net Profit Margin (NPM) indicator has a minimum value of 0.007, a maximum value of 27.653, then
a mean value of 7.385 with a standard deviation of 6.006. NPM shows an average of 7,385 which means
that the company can generate 7,385 total net sales. This ratio indicates that the higher the NPM, the better
and attracts investors. Company Size has a minimum value of 4,917, a maximum value of 11,287, a mean
value of 7,883, and a standard deviation of 1,588. It shows that the size of the company, which is calculated
from total assets. If it is seen that the assets are small, it makes investors less confident in the company
and vice versa. The higher the investor confidence is also increasing. The capital structure with the Debt
to Equity Ratio (DER) indicator has a minimum value of 0.091, a maximum value of 6.341, then a mean
value of 1.124 with a standard deviation of 1.122. The average DER is 1,124, which means it is above the
industry standard average of 0.90. The higher the DER will indicate an increase in the value of debt, and
if it is not good at managing it, it will harm the company, so the company must be careful in regulating
the debt level to make it better. While the Debt to Asset Ratio (DAR) indicator has a minimum value of
0.084, a maximum weight of 0.864, then a mean value of 0.436 with a standard deviation of 0.204. The
average DAR shows 0.436, meaning that it has a level of debt value to assets. The higher DAR will
indicate an increase in the value of debt, and if it is not good at managing it, it will harm the company, so
the company must be careful in regulating the debt level to make it better. Company value is proxied by
Price Book Value (PBV) having a minimum value of 0.202, a maximum value of 11.051, then a mean
value of 2.346 with a standard deviation of 1.972. The mean PBV value is greater than the standard
deviation, indicating that the results are excellent. Because the standard deviation reflects very high
deviations, the spread of the data shows normal results and causes unbiased results. If not biased, the data
results indicate that the PBV fluctuates not too large.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics

Standard Excess
Mean Median Min Max Skewness
Deviation Kurtosis
CR 2.900 1.736 0.704 21.705 3.216 12.688 3.250
WCTA 0.238 0.186 -0.103 0.736 0.913 -0.304 0.659
ROA 6.230 5.403 0.036 18.326 4.378 -0.138 0.807
NPM 7.385 6.257 0.007 27.653 6.006 2.100 1.467
SIZE 7.883 7.730 4.917 11.287 1.588 -1.010 0.266
DER 1.124 0.788 0.091 6.341 1.122 6.251 2.276
DAR 0.436 0.441 0.084 0.864 0.204 -0.919 -0.009
PBV 2.346 1.771 0.202 11.051 1.972 3.533 1.667

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using SmartPLS (Partial Least Square) V.3.2.8 software in
this study produced several outputs after performing algorithm calculations and bootstrapping (A.
Nurwulandari & M. Darwin, 2020). Analysis of the Measurement Model (Outer Model), the test consists
of Construct Reliability and Validity and Discriminant Validity.

Figure 2. Research Model Test Results

Data sources processed, 2020

263
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271

The first reliability test is the indicator reliability test in SmartPLS (Partial Least Square). In the test
that the rule of thumb usually used, the loading factor value must be 0.50, which can be said to be reliable.
The loading factor value of each indicator obtained in this study can be said to be reliable. It can be seen
in Figure 3 and Table 4.
Table 4. Output Construct Reliability and validity
Composite
Cronbach Alpha rho_A AVE
Reliability
Liquidity 0.849 0.871 0.929 0.868
Firm Value 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Profitability 0.841 0.877 0.925 0.861
Capital Structure 0.923 0.966 0.962 0.927
Firm Size 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

The second reliability test assesses internal consistency reliability by looking at the composite
reliability value of the indicator block that measures the construct. The rule of thumb is that the composite
reliability value obtained must be 0.70. It can be said to be reliable. Furthermore, it can be seen from the
results of the smart pls output on the reliability test, which indicates that the constructs are excellent and
reliable. The third reliability test, the reliability test, can be strengthened using the Cronbach's Alpha
method. So if the result of Cronbach's Alpha value obtained is 0.70, it can be accepted, or the data used is
reliable. The results of the Cronbach's Alpha value in this study can be seen as reliable. A validity test
(outer model) on other smartPLS can be done using convergent validity. Convergent validity assessment
is carried out by looking at the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) value results. The AVE value obtained
if 0.50 means that the indicators used have met convergent validity. In conducting the Validity Test (outer
model) on smart PLS, it can be strengthened again. It can also be done using discriminant validity. The
discriminant validity test with the best measurement is to see the value of the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio
(HTMT) is an alternative method that is recommended to assess discriminant validity. This method uses
a multitrait-multimethod matrix as the basis for measurement. So if the result of HTMT value < 0.90, then
a construct has good discriminant validity. In this study, it can be seen in table 4.9. shows that all HTMT
values between construct variables show values < 0.90 so that the data can be said to be valid and
reasonable.
Table 5. HTML Analysis
Liquidity Firm Value Profitability Capital Structure Firm Size
Liquidity
Firm Value 0.031
Profitability 0.405 0.262
Capital Structure 0.756 0.270 0.606
Firm Size 0.345 0.200 0.327 0.072

Testing this structural model is done by looking at R-Square's value, a goodness-fit test of the model.
The R-Square coefficient is used to see how much influence the independent variable has on the dependent
variable. The greater the value means, the greater the effect because the number of indicators for each
construct varies in number.
Table 6. R-Square Analysis
R-Square R-Square Adjusted
Firm Value 0.144 0.113
Capital Structure 0.597 0.586

Table 6 shows that the ability of the variables of Liquidity, Profitability, Company Size, Capital
Structure in explaining Firm Value (Y) is 0.144, which means that the model results are weak (poor).

264
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
Meanwhile, from the data processing results, namely the ability of the variable liquidity, profitability, firm
size, in explaining the capital structure (Z) of 0.597, which means it has a value with a moderate (medium)
class model. The next test is to see the significant value of the influence of the independent variable on the
dependent variable by looking at the parameter coefficient values and the T-statistical significance value.
The process of conducting this test is the Direct Effect and Indirect Effect test. A positive value indicates
a positive influence, and a negative value indicates a negative influence. To determine the direct effect of
the independent variable on the dependent variable, it can be seen in Table 7. To determine the magnitude
of the indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through the intervening variable,
it can be seen in Table 7. Based on the data processing in Table 7, the indirect effect coefficient can be
interpreted and can be calculated as follows:
The coefficient (𝑋1→𝑍)∗(𝑍→𝑌) (-0.642)*( -0.399) = 0.256 with P-Values 0.000 < 0.050 then
indicates that liquidity has a Positive and Significant effect on Firm Value through Capital Structure as an
intervening variable. According to Figure 2, the mediation category is Indirect Only (Full Mediation) from
the calculation results. It is because the indirect effect has a significant impact. In contrast, the direct impact
of X1→Y is not significant with P-Values 0.074 > 0.050. The coefficient (𝑋2→𝑍) (𝑍→𝑌) (-0.273) * (-
0.399) = 0.109 with P-Values 0.003 < 0.050 then indicates that profitability has a Positive and Significant
effect on Firm Value through Capital Structure as an intervening variable. According to Figure 2, from the
calculation results, the mediation category is Indirect Only (Full Mediation); this is because the indirect
effect has a significant impact, while the direct impact X2→Y is not significant with the results shown P-
Values 0.260 > 0.050. The coefficient (𝑋3→𝑍) (𝑍→𝑌) (-0,151) * (-0,399) = 0,060 with P-Values 0,044 <
0,050 then indicates that Firm Size has a Positive and Significant effect on Company Value through Capital
Structure as an intervening variable. According to Figure 3.2, the mediation category is Indirect Only (Full
Mediation) from the calculation results. It is because the indirect effect has a significant effect. In contrast,
the direct effect X3→Y is not significant, with the results shown that P-Values are 0.490 > 0.050.
Hypothesis testing is done by looking at the path coefficient value or inner model results, showing the
significance level in hypothesis testing. The path coefficient or inner model score indicated by the T-
statistic value must be greater than the one-way test T-table value (> 1.982) with = 5%. While the path
coefficient score or inner model indicated by the p-values must be below =5% so that the research
hypothesis proposed in the study can be accepted.

Table 7. Direct and Indirect Effect

Original Sample Standard
Direct Effect T-Statistic P-Value
Sample Mean Deviation
Liquidity Firm Value -0.304 -0.301 0.170 1.788 0.074
Liquidity Capital Structure -0.642 -0.647 0.053 12.139 0.000
Profitability Firm Value 0.121 0.123 0.108 1.128 0.260
Profitability Capital Structure -0.273 -0.275 0.056 4.910 0.000
Capital Structure Firm Value -0.399 -0.399 0.108 3.678 0.000
Firm Size Firm Value 0.055 0.056 0.079 0.691 0.490
Firm Value Capital Structure -0.151 -0.150 0.065 2.314 0.021
Original Sample Standard
Direct Effect T-Statistic P-Value
Sample Mean Deviation
Liquidity Capital Structure Firm Value 0.256 0.257 0.072 3.573 0.000
Profitability Capital Structure Firm Value 0.109 0.109 0.037 2.952 0.003
Firm Size Capital Structure Firm Value 0.060 0.059 0.030 2.018 0.044

265
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
Discussion

Liquidity has a Significant and Negative Effect on Capital Structure

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values of Liquidity were
0.000 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (12.139) > t-estimated (1.982), while the magnitude of the effect
was -0.642. So that the Liquidity variable has a negative and significant effect on the capital structure,
then H1 is accepted. According to the Pecking Order theory, companies with high liquidity conditions tend
to use internal funds to finance the company's operations. So that in the manufacturing industry, the level
of liquidity needs to be maintained so that it is stable because it is essential for the company; with a steady
level of liquidity, it will be easy to get the trust of external and internal parties. In this case, one of the
internal parties, namely employees who will not worry about their salary payments being delayed or not
being paid, will result in unrest and affect team member performance, impacting the company's
development. The results of this study support the results of previous research by (Sari & Sedana, 2020),
(Zuhroh 2019), (Warsono & Zoeboedi, 2019), (Anjarwati et al., 2015), which states that liquidity has a
negative influence and Significant to the capital structure.

Profitability has a Significant and Negative Effect on Capital Structure

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values Profitability was
0.000 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (4.910) > t-estimated (1.982), while the magnitude of the effect
was -0.273. So that the Profitability variable has a Negative and Significant effect on the Capital Structure,
then H2 is accepted. Based on the Pecking Order theory, a company with a high level of profitability will
have a significant internal fund strength. Then will use internal funds first for investment financing
purposes; the level of debt can be suppressed, which in the future can minimize the risk of failure to meet
obligations, interest expenses, and bankruptcy conditions. So seen from the company's prospects will
make investors more interested in investing their funds in the form of share ownership. From the results
of this research, data processing indicates that the companies sampled in this study increase profitability
used to reduce the debt because it can be seen that the analysis results have a negative and significant
effect, which means that the results of the company's profit level are used to reduce debt ratios. The results
of this study support the results of research conducted by (Zuhroh 2019), (Siddik & Chabachib, 2017),
(Anjarwati et al., 2015), (Bhawa & Dewi S., 2015), which states that profitability has a negative effect and
significant to the capital structure.

Firm size has a Negative and Significant Effect on Capital Structure.

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values of Firm Size were
0.021 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (2.314) > t-estimated (1.982). While the magnitude of the effect
was -0.151, the Firm Size variable had a negative and significant effect on the Capital Structure, then H3
is accepted. In the manufacturing companies studied, it can be seen that the use of debt or capital structure
ratios looks small, so they use retained earnings more for company operations and other operational
activities. The number of assets and the minimum amount of debt will attract investors because the
company is considered healthy and can manage assets well and run production smoothly. The results of
the data processing of this study indicate that the companies sampled in this research increase in assets not
accompanied by an increase in debt but tend to decrease debt. Because it can be seen that the analysis
results have a negative and significant effect, meaning that increasing the position of assets tends to reduce
debt levels. The results of this study support the results of research that have been carried out (Nugroho,
2014), which states that company size has a negative and significant effect on capital structure.

Liquidity has a Positive and Significant Effect on Firm Value

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values of Liquidity were
0.074 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (1.788) < t-estimated (1.982). In contrast, the magnitude of the

266
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
effect was -0.304. So that the Liquidity variable has a negative and insignificant influence on firm value,
then H4 is rejected because the data processing results do not support the hypothesis. It shows that high
and low liquidity will not significantly affect the value of the company. Therefore it can be said that
investors in investing ignore the liquidity variable. However, because the liquidity value is too high, it will
also indicate that many company funds are idle and not being used efficiently by its management. It
reduces the company's profit capability, which will ease investors' ability to invest in the company. The
results of this study support the results of research conducted by (Thaib & Dewantoro, 2017), (Patricia et
al., 2018), (Anjarwati et al., 2015), (Sari & Sedana, 2020), (Zuhroh, 2019) which states that liquidity has
a negative and insignificant effect on firm value.

Profitability has a Positive and Significant Effect on Firm Value

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values Profitability was
0.260 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (1,128) < t-estimated (1,982), while the magnitude of the effect
was 0.121. So that the profitability variable has a positive and insignificant influence on firm value, then
H5 is rejected because the data processing results do not support the hypothesis. It indicates that the
average value of the company is stagnant. However, profitability increases or decreases, so investors pay
less attention to profitability because it is not the main thing about the value of profitability in investing
their funds. Generally, profitability will affect the company's value, where profitability is the net profit
achieved by the company in carrying out its operations. Profitability will be a benchmark for investors'
assessment of the company, which can be seen from the amount of profit generated by the company and
the gains worth distributing to shareholders in dividends. The results of this study support the results of
research conducted by (Siddik & Chabachib, 2017), which states that probability has a positive and
insignificant effect on firm value.

Firm Size has a Positive and Significant Effect on Firm Value

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values of Firm Size were
0.490 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (0.691) < t-estimated (1.982), while the magnitude of the effect
was 0.055. So that the Firm Size variable has a positive and insignificant influence on firm value, then H6
is rejected because the data processing results do not support the hypothesis. The data processing results
from this study indicate that the company's size was analyzed using the Natural Logarithm (Ln). Total
Assets have a positive and insignificant effect on the company's value. The company's size is not the only
consideration for investors because of the large number of assets. Without optimal management will not
have significant implications for the value of the company. Companies with large company sizes, but
mishandling in managing sources of monetary funds, will not benefit. In general, the company's size will
affect the assessment of investors in making investment decisions because the size of the company will
predict the ability to earn the company's operating profit and will also be able to predict the level of stability
in managing finances. Companies with large company sizes and the ability to generate profits will be more
stable and pay more enormous dividends. In contrast, companies with small company sizes tend to be
allocated to increase company assets and distribute fewer dividends. The results of this study support the
results of research conducted by (Ariyanti 2019), (Patricia et al., 2018), (Siddik & Chabachib, 2017),
stating that firm size has a positive and insignificant effect on firm value.

Capital Structure has a Negative and Significant Effect on Firm Value.

The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values of Capital Structure
were 0.000 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (3.678) > t-estimated (1.982), while the magnitude of the
effect was -0.399. So that the Capital Structure variable has a negative and significant effect on firm value,
then H7 is accepted. The policy in the use of debt must be to a certain extent because if it is excessive, it
will reduce its value. The trade-off theory explains that firm value increases with additional debt when the
capital structure is below optimal. In addition, the use of debt to reduce the tax burden will increase the

267
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
company's value, but if the debt has reached the maximum limit, it will decrease because tax savings are
unable to bear the risk. Pecking order theory states that companies like internal financing, and if external
funding is needed, it is very urgent. Companies that use debt have obligations for interest and principal
costs. The use of debt (external funding) has a considerable risk of non-payment of debt, so debt needs to
pay attention to the company's ability to generate profits. The more outstanding the obligation to the
company, the greater the potential for company failure to lead to business bankruptcy. In practice, no
company uses 100% debt in its capital structure because it will risk its inability to pay interest and principal
installments. In unfavorable economic conditions, the greater the liability causes the value of the company
to decline. Companies must be able to determine the amount of debt because limiting the amount of debt
to a certain extent will increase the company's value. However, if the amount of debt exceeds a specific
limit, it will cause a decrease in the value of the company. The results of this study support the results of
research conducted by (Dewi et al., 2016) (Siddik & Chabachib, 2017), which also states that capital
structure has a negative and significant effect on firm value.

Liquidity has a Positive and Significant Effect on Firm Value with Capital Structure as an Intervening
Variable
The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values of Liquidity were
0.000 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (3.573) > t-estimated (1.982), while the magnitude of the effect
was 0.256. So that the Capital Structure variable can become an intervening variable for liquidity on firm
value and has a positive and significant effect, then H8 is accepted. Investors in investing their investments
pay less attention to the level of liquidity. It is reflected in the effect of liquidity on firm value. It is stated
that the effect is negative and insignificant, but after being mediated by the capital structure, it turns out to
be positive and significant. So that investors pay more attention to the amount of debt first. By paying
attention to a well-managed capital structure, trust will increase because it indicates that there will be no
difficulty in paying their loan obligations. Based on the data from this study, the company that is running
the company's business needs operational funds obtained from the owner of the company and debt. The
proceeds of loan funds received by the company are used to produce goods and services, purchase raw
materials for production and sales purposes, purchases to hold inventories, and cash and buy securities,
which are often called securities or securities for transaction purposes and to maintain company liquidity.
The results of this study support the results of research conducted by (Zuhroh 2019), (Sari & Sedana 2020),
(Putra & Sedana, 2019) (Anjarwati et al., 2015), which states that capital structure can be an intervening
variable for the company's liquidity to the value of the company.

Profitability has a Positive and Significant Effect on Firm Value with Capital Structure as an Intervening
Variable
The results of the research conducted with the t-test showed that the P-Values Profitability was
0.003 0.05 and similarly for the t-statistic (2.952) > t-estimated (1.982), while the magnitude of the effect
was 0.109. So that the Capital Structure variable can become an intervening variable for profitability on
firm value, the results have a positive and significant effect, then H9 is accepted. Profitability increases
along with increasing the company's value, but followed by lowering the level of debt, it will attract
investors to become the target investment target, hoping that the company will last longer and develop.
Profitability is the level of net profit that can be achieved by the company when carrying out its operations.
The profit that will be distributed to shareholders is the profit after interest and taxes. On the other hand,
investors do not pay too much attention to the level of profitability. It can be seen from the statistical results
showing a positive and insignificant effect between profitability and firm value. However, after being
mediated through the capital structure, profitability has a positive and significant impact. It indicates that
investors do not pay too much attention to profitability but pay more attention to managing the value of
the capital structure. It is assumed that if the profitability ratio is high, the capital structure ratio is also
high. It will be a concern because the result of a high profitability ratio is only to pay loan interest, so it is

268
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
likely to reduce and difficulty in paying dividends. The results of this study support the results of research
conducted by (Zuhroh 2019), (Hermuningsih 2012), (Thaib & Dewantoro, 2017), (Ariyanti, 2019), (Sari
& Sedana, 2020), (Putra & Sedana, 2019) which states that the capital structure variable is capable of
being an intervening variable for profitability to firm value.

Firm Size has a Positive and Significant Effect on Firm Value with Capital Structure as an Intervening
Variable
The results of the research conducted with the t-test obtained that the P-Values. Firm size is 0.044
0.05 and similarly for t-statistic(2.018) > t-estimated(1.982), while the magnitude of the effect is 0.060. so
that the Capital Structure variable can become an intervening variable for Company Size on firm value,
the results have a Positive and Significant effect, then H10 is accepted. The direct effect test shows that
the company's size has a negative and significant effect on the capital structure. The capital structure has
a negative and significant effect on the value of the company. Increasing the company's size by a particular
value will reduce debt by a certain amount. A decrease in the amount of particular debt will increase the
company's value. The results of this study indicate that the company's size is a policy that must be managed
as well as possible so that many companies, both large and small, are chosen to increase company value.
This choice will determine the ability to generate profits. In addition, a large company size will find it
easier to get loans from outside parties to meet the need for funding by way of debt. Investors have an
assessment point of view that the company's size can be a picture of the continuity of its operations, so it
will be easier if people need loan funds. The results of this study support the results of research conducted
by (Zuhroh 2019), (Warsono & Zoeboedi 2019), (Hermuningsih 2012), which states that the capital
structure variable can be an intervening variable for firm size on firm value.

4. Conclusion

Liquidity, Profitability, and Firm Size directly have a negative and significant effect on the capital
structure. Primary industry and chemical sub-sector companies tend to use internal funds to fund their
operational activities. Meanwhile, Liquidity, Profitability, and Firm Size directly have a Positive and
Insignificant effect on firm value. Investors pay more attention to the ratio of capital structure or debt ratio.
Meanwhile, the capital structure directly has a negative and significant effect on firm value. It indicates
that the capital structure policy by reducing external borrowing can provide better results on firm value.
Capital structure can be an intervening variable (full mediation) for Liquidity, Profitability, Company Size
to solid value. Liquidity to the company's value suggests that liquidity management must be adequately
managed by not piling up too much inventory (stock control) so that funds do not stop at the list and can
then increase the company's value. Profitability to the value of the company has not been optimally
managed. It is recommended to increase the stability of profitability by increasing the number of sales and
controlling the costs incurred to increase the company's value. The size of the company to the value of the
company is not too optimal. It is recommended to increase the company's value by optimizing the use of
available assets or adding production machines to increase the volume of products so that the company's
size can increase its value. Capital structure on the company's value, it is advisable to use loans from
outside parties with proper considerations and calculations to increase its value. Especially industries that
have good corporate matters, such as the ceramic, chemical, animal feed, and cement industries

Reference

Adiputra, I. G., & Hermawan, A. (2020). The effect of corporate social responsibility, firm size, dividend
policy and liquidity on firm value: Evidence from manufacturing companies in Indonesia.
International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 11(6), 325–338.
Ahmad, H., Mappatompo, A., & Muslim, M. (2018). Capital Ownership Structure And Decision On Fi-

269
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
financial Market Reaction And Corporate Value. International Journal of Innovative Science and Re-
search Technology, 3(9), 395-406.
Arsyad, M., Haeruddin, S. H., Muslim, M., & Pelu, M. F. A. (2021). The effect of activity ratios, liquidity,
and profitability on the dividend payout ratio. Indonesia Accounting Journal, 3(1), 36-44.
A. Nurwulandari, Hasanudin, AJS. Budi. Analysis Of The Influence Of Interest Rate, Exchange Value,
World Gold Prices, Dow Jones Index, AEX Index, DAX index, and Shanghai Index, On LQ 45
Index In Indonesia Stock Exchange 2012 -2018. Journal of Applied Business and Economics (JABE)
Vol 7 No. 2 (Desember 2020) 135-147.
A Nurwulandari, M Darwin. Heywood Case Data Statistics, Using The Model Respesification
TechniqueUsing The Model Respesification
Techniquehttps://journal.neolectura.com/index.php/nucleus/article/view/173
Anjarwati, K., Chabachib, M., & Demi, I. R. (2015). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Size, Dan Likuiditas
Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Manufaktur Di Indonesia Dengan Struktur Modal Sebagai Variabel
Intervening. Diponegoro Journal of Finance.
Ariyanti, R. (2019). Pengaruh Tangible Asset, Roe, Firm Size, Liquidty Terhadap Price Book Value
Dengan Struktur Modal Sebagai Variabel Intervening Pada Perusahaan Perbankan. Balance:
Economic, Business, Management and Accounting Journal. https://doi.org/10.30651/blc.v16i1.2450
Bhawa, I., & Dewi S., N. (2015). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Likuiditas, Profitabilitas, Dan Risiko
Bisnis Terhadap Struktur Modal Perusahaan Farmasi. E-Jurnal Manajemen Universitas Udayana.
Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2014a). Dasar-Dasar Manajemen Keuangan : Assetials Of Financial
Management. In Salemba Empat. https://doi.org/10.1145/2505515.2507827
Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2014b). Dasar-Dasar Manajemen Keuangan Edisi 11 Buku 1. In Salemba
Empat Jakarta.
Dewi, N., Andini, R., & Santoso, E. B. (2016). Pengaruh Likuiditas dan Pertumbuhan Perusahaan
Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan dengan Variabel Intervening. Jurnal of Accounting 2018.
Djashan, I. A. (2019). The Effect of Firm Size and Profitability on Firm Value with Capital Structure as
Intervening Variables in Indonesia. Journal of International Business, Economics and
Entrepreneurship.
Fajaria, A. Z., & Isnalita. (2018). The Effect of Profitability, Liquidity, Leverage and Firm Growth of Firm
Value with its Dividend Policy as a Moderating Variable. International Journal of Managerial Studies
and Research. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0349.0610005
Hasanudin, Nurwulandari, A., Adnyana, I. M., & Loviana, N. (2020). The effect of ownership and
financial performance on the fair value of oil and gas mining companies in Indonesia. International
Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(5), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.9567
Hermuningsih, S. (2012). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Size Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Dengan Sruktur Modal
Sebagai Variabel Intervening. Jurnal Siasat Bisnis. https://doi.org/10.20885/jsb.vol16.iss2.art8
Husnan, S., & Pudjiastuti, E. (2012). Dasar-dasar Manajemen Keuangan. Yogyakarta: UPP AMP YKPN.
Ekonomi. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2111-9
Juhandi, N., Fahlevi, M., Abdi, M. N., & Noviantoro, R. (2019). Liquidity, Firm Size and Dividend Policy
to the Value of the Firm (Study in Manufacturing Sector Companies Listed on Indonesia Stock
Exchange). Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, 100(Icon), 313–317.
https://doi.org/10.2991/icoi-19.2019.53
Marsha, N., & Murtaqi, I. (2017). The Effect of Financial Ratios on Firm Value in the Food and Beverage
Sector of the IDX. Journal of Business and Management, 6(2), 214–226.
Mulyana, A., & Saputra, M. (2017). The Influence of Liquidity, Profitability and Leverage on Profit
Management and Its Impact on Company Value in Manufacturing Company Listed on Indonesia
Stock Exchange Year 2011-2015. International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research, 6(1), 8–
14. https://doi.org/10.20431/2349-0349.0601002
Nugroho, N. C. (2014). Analisis Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Pertumbuhan Penjualan, Ukuran Perusahaan,
Dan Umur Perusahaan Terhadap Struktur Modal Usaha Mikro Kecil Dan Menengah Kerajinan
Kuningan Di Kabupaten Pati. Management Analysis Journal.
http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/maj
Nuswandari, C., Sunarto, S., Jannah, A., & Ikromudin, I. (2019). Corporate Social Responsibility
Moderated the Effect of Liquidity and Profitability on the Firm Value. Advances in Economics,
Business and Management Research, 86(Icobame 2018), 87–90. https://doi.org/10.2991/icobame-
18.2019.19

270
 ATESTASI: JURNAL ILMIAH AKUNTANSI
Vol 4, Issue 2, (2021), 257-271
Patricia, Bangun, P., & Tarigan, M. U. (2018). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Likuiditas, dan Ukuran Perusahaan
Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Dengan Kinerja Keuangan Sebagai Variabel Intervening (Studi Empiris
Pada Perusahaan Manufaktur Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia). Manajemen Bisnis
Kompetensi.
Putra, I. G. W. R., & Sedana, I. B. P. (2019). Capital structure as a mediation variable: Profitability and
liquidity on company value in real estate companies in Indonesia stock exchange. International
Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v6n4.640
Salvator, D. (2005). Ekonomi Manajerial dalam Perekonomian Global. In Penerbit Salemba Empat.
Sari, I. A. G. D. M., & Sedana, I. B. P. (2020). Profitability and liquidity on firm value and capital structure
as intervening variable. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v7n1.828
Setiadharma, S., & Machali, m. (2017). The Effect of Asset Structure and Firm Size on Firm Value with
Capital Structure as Intervening Variable. Journal of Business & Financial Affairs, 06(04).
https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-0234.1000298
Siddik, M. H., & Chabachib, M. (2017). Pengaruh Roe, Cr, Size, Dan Kepemilikan Institusional Terhadap
Nilai Perusahaan Dengan Struktur Modal Sebagai Variabel Intervening. Diponegoro Journal of
Management.
Smith, C. W., & Warner, J. B. (1979). Bankruptcy, Secured Debt, and Optimal Capital Structure: Comment.
In The Journal of Finance. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1979.tb02085.x
Sugiyono. (2017). Metode Penelitian Bisnis (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, Kombinasi dan R&D). In
Metodelogi Penelitian.
Sukmawardini, D., & Ardiansari, A. (2018). the Influence of Institutional Ownership . Profitability ,.
Management Analysis Journal, 7(2).
Thaib, I., & Dewantoro, A. (2017). Pengaruh Profitabilitas dan likuiditas terhadap nilai perusahaan dengan
struktur modal sebagai variabel intervening. Jurnal Riset Perbankan Manajemen Dan Akuntansi.
Warsono, & Zoeboedi, F. (2019). Determinasi Nilai Perusahaan dengan Struktur Modal Sebagai Variabel
Intervening Pada Perusahaan LQ45 di Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Bisnis, 3(1), 37–53.
Wulandari, dwi retno. (2013). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Operating Leverage, Likuiditas Terhadap Nilai
Perusahaan Dengan Struktur Modal Sebagai Intervening. Accounting Analysis Journal, 2(4).
https://doi.org/10.15294/aaj.v2i4.4172
Yanti, I. G. A. D. N., & Darmayanti, N. P. A. (2019). Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Ukuran Perusahaan, Struktur
Modal, Dan Likuiditas Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Makanan Dan Minuman. E-Jurnal Manajemen
Universitas Udayana. https://doi.org/10.24843/ejmunud.2019.v08.i04.p15
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Zuhroh, I. (2019). The Effects of Liquidity, Firm Size, and Profitability on the Firm Value with Mediating
Leverage. KnE Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i13.4206

271