Effect of Profitability, Firm Size and Liquidity on Firm Value With Capital Structure as Intervening Variable (Case Study on Manufacturing Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2017-2020 Period)

The purpose of this research was to examine the role of capital structure in mediating the effect of profitability, firm size, and liquidity towards firm value. The object of this research in manufacturing companies which is listed in the Indonesia Stock Exchange. The data used are secondary data from the 2017-2020 annual financial statements. The collection technique in this research was purposive sampling while the data analysis techniques used in this research is multiple regression analysis and hypothesis testing. The analysis results showed that the profitability has a negative effect toward capital structure, firm size has a positive effect toward capital structure

FactorThe second factor that can affect the value of the company is the size of the company.Company size variable is the size of a company that can be seen through the amount of equity, sales and total assets of the company.The greater the total assets of the company, it can illustrate that the company has reached the maturity stage.Companies that are already at the maturity stage, the company has a positive cash flow and is expected to have profitable aspects in a relatively long period of time (Suwardika & Mustanda, 2017).Based on the research results of Astohar (2017), Wahyu, et al (2018), Liang & Natsir (2019), Andika & Sedana (2019), Vernando & Erawati (2020), Pangesti, et al (2020), Meisyta, et al (2021), and Nasution (2021) stated that firm size had a positive effect on capital structure.While the results are different from the research conducted by Dewi & Sudiartha (2017), Wahyu et al., (2018), andNurwlandari et al., (2021) which state that firm size has a negative effect on capital structure.
Companies that have a high level of liquidity indicate that the company's growth opportunities tend to be high.The more liquid the company, the higher the level of creditor confidence in providing funds, so that it can increase the value of the company in the eyes of creditors and potential investors.Liquidity is the ability of a company to meet its financial obligations in the short term or those that are due soon (Thaib & Dewantoro, 2017).Therefore, companies that have high liquidity tend to reduce total debt, so that the capital structure also decreases.Based on research from Thaib & Dewantoro (2017), Devi et al, 2019), and Aslindar & Lestari (2020) stated that liquidity has a positive effect on capital structure.
Liquidity describes the company's ability to meet its short-term financial obligations which must be met when billed to maintain liquidity (Lumoly et al 2021).Based on research from Lubis et al, (2017), Wahyu et al, (2018), Ariyanti, (2019), Yanti & Darmayanti (2019), Dewi &Sujana (2019), andNurwlandari et al, (2021) stated that liquidity has a positive effect on the value of the company.Meanwhile, research conducted by Thaib & Dewantoro (2017), Permana & Rahyuda (2018), Silvia (2018), Chasanah (2019), Aslindar &Lestari (2020), andLumoly et al, (2021) stated that liquidity has a negative effect on firm value. .The use of debt in the company's capital structure can increase the chances of bankruptcy because debt that is too large causes the opportunity for cash flow to not meet interest payments and debt installments are even greater.Capital structure (capital structure), is a company's long-term expenditure as measured by the comparison of long-term debt with its own capital (Sudana, 2015).Based on research from Astohar (2017), Mulyani et al, (2017), Fajar et al, (2018), Purnomo & Erawati (2019), Yanti & Darmayanti (2019) Dewi and Dana (2017) Company value can also be influenced by the size of the profitability generated by the company.If the company's profitability is good, creditors, suppliers, and also investors will see the extent to which the company can generate profits from the company's sales and investments.Based on research conducted by Astohar (2017), Thaib & Dewantoro (2017), Mulyani et al, (2017), Fajar et al, (2018), Purnomo & Erawati (2019), Ariyanti (2019), Nurwulandari et al, (2021), andNasution (2021) stated that the capital structure is able to mediate profitability on firm value.Meanwhile, research from Wahyu et al, (2018), Aslindar & Lestari (2020), Lestari & Krisnando (2020), and Rosita & The amount of assets issued by a company determines the size of the company.The same thing was done by Nyoman, et al (2014) in Ramdhonah, et al (2019), the size of the company is in accordance with the size of the company's assets approved by the company.The bigger the company, the easier it is to find internal or external sources of funding that can increase the value of the company itself.Based on research from Astohar (2017), Vernando & Erawati (2020), Pangesti, et al (2020), Nurwlandari, et al (2021), and Nasution (2021) state that capital structure is able to mediate firm size on firm value.Meanwhile, research from S & Machali (2017), (Wahyu M et al., 2018), (Ariyanti, 2019), and (Rosita & Richawati, 2021) state that capital structure is not able to mediate firm size on firm value.
A company that is able to fulfill its financial obligations on time means that the company is in a liquid condition.Companies that are in a liquid condition indicate that the company tends to progress.Companies that have a good level of liquidity will easily get additional funds in the form of debt in an effort to maintain the desired capital structure of the company.Based on research by Astohar (2017), Thaib & Dewantoro (2017), Aslindar &Lestari (2020), andNurwlandari, et al (2021) stated that capital structure is able to mediate liquidity on firm value.While research from Mulyani, et al (2017), Wahyu, et al (2018), Ariyanti (2019), and Rosita & Richawati (2021) state that the capital structure is not able to mediate liquidity on firm value.

Formulation of the problem
Based on the above background, the formulation of the problem in this study is as follows: (a).Does profitability have a positive effect on capital structure?; (b).Does firm size have a positive effect on capital structure?; (c).Does liquidity have a positive effect on capital structure?; (d).Does profitability have a positive effect on firm value?; (e).Does firm size have a positive effect on firm value?; (f).Does liquidity have a positive effect on firm value?; (g).Does the capital structure have a positive effect on firm value?; (h).Does capital structure mediate the effect of profitability on firm value?; (i).Does capital structure mediate the effect of firm size on firm value?; (j).Does capital structure mediate the effect of liquidity on firm value?

LITERATURE REVIEW The value of the company
The value of the company as reflected in the stock price will certainly be influenced by several factors such as the stock price index, interest rates, and the company's fundamental conditions.If a company wants to do fundamental analysis, it needs company fundamental data originating from the company's financial statements, such as sales, dividends distributed, company profits and so on (Jogiyanto, 2016).The value of the company can not only be described in the stock price of a company, to measure the high value of the company can be done in various ways, and one of the measuring tools that can be used is price to book value.Price to Book Value is the ratio of the stock market price to its book value which illustrates how much the market appreciates the book value of the stock which is viewed favorably by investors with low risk and high growth having a high market value to book value (Brigham and Houston, 2018).The better the financial performance of a company, the better the value of the company.The higher the value of the company, the higher the profits obtained by the company, and the higher the stock return, the more prosperous the shareholders.

Signaling Theory
Signaling theory explains how the signals of management's success or failure are conveyed to owners.According to Jogiyanto (2014), information published as an announcement will provide a signal for investors in making investment decisions.When information is announced, market participants first interpret and analyze the information as a good signal (good news) or a bad signal (bad news).The higher the debt of a company, the higher the interest costs (Setiawati & Lim, 2018).

Pecking Order theory
This theory states that companies tend to prefer funding from internal companies rather than external sources.The use of external funding is carried out if the company's internal funds are not sufficient.The order put forward in this theory is retained earnings, debt, and preferred stock and the last one is common stock.This funding sequence shows that this funding is based on the level of risk for decisions and costs for funding sources from the cheapest to the most expensive (Sartono, 2015).

Trade-off theory
The third theory, namely the trade-off, explains the assumption that the target point of the optimal capital structure has not been achieved.Companies use debt as an effort to increase value, because it finances operational activities.Firms balance the benefits of funding and debt with higher interest rates and bankruptcy costs (Brigham and Houston, 2011).This theory is essentially a balance between the benefits and sacrifices that arise as a result of using debt.As long as the benefits are still large, the debt will be added.But if the sacrifice due to using debt is greater then the debt is no longer added.The sacrifices due to using the debt can be in the form of bankruptcy costs and agency costs.

Profitability
Profitability affects the ability to pay debts; efficiency with the assets used have an impact on profitability analysis.Shareholders invest expecting that their business will make a profit.According to Brigham and Houston (2018), profitability ratios are a group of ratios that show the effect of a combination of liquidity, asset management and debt on operating results.

Company Size
Company sizecan determine the level of ease of the company in obtaining funds from the capital market.Small companies generally lack access to organized capital markets, both for bonds and stocks.Company size describes the size of a company.Determination of the size of the company's scale can be determined based on total sales, total assets, average sales levels and average total assets.Nuraina (2012) in (Oktaviani, et al., 2019) explains the size of the company in terms of company size, namely the total balance sheet, total turnover, total total turnover and average total balance sheet.The size of the Company is the result of its ability to build public trust in the Company after going through several processes and Company assets.

Liquidity
High liquidity can influence investors to invest in companies so that the demand for company shares will increase and then the price will rise.According to (Sudana 2015), said that liquidity is the company's ability to meet short-term financial obligations.There are times when the company is unable to pay all or part of the debt (liabilities) that are due at the time they are billed.Or sometimes the company also does not have the funds to pay its debts on time.This will disrupt good relations between the company and its creditors or distributors.

Capital Structure
Capital structure is the key to improving company productivity and performance.The capital structure theory explains that the company's financial policy in determining the capital structure (mix between debt and equity) aims to optimize the value of the firm (Chasanah, 2019).Capital structure is a comparison between long-term debt with own capital.According to Brigham and Houston (2018), profitability ratios are a group of ratios that show the effect of a combination of liquidity, asset management and debt on operating results.The right capital structure is the main goal of the company to increase the value of the company can be achieved.

Line description:
: direct influence : indirect influence

RESEARCH METHODS
This type of research data is a quantitative approach.The study used three independent variables, one dependent variable and one intervening variable.The independent variables in this study are profitability, firm size and liquidity.The dependent variable in this study is firm value and the intervening variable in this study is capital structure.The population in this study are manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (period 2017-2020).The sample used in this study amounted to 140 of 35 manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (2017-2020 period).The method used in sampling using purposive sampling method.The type of data in this study is secondary data.www.idx.co.id,www.sahamok.net,orthe website of each company.Based on the table above showsthe amount of data used in this study came from data after casewise diagnostics were carried out because there were problems in the normality test and heteroscedasticity test from 140 samples to 72 samples of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2017-2020 period.

CLASSIC ASSUMPTION TEST Normality test
The normality test aims to test whether in the regression model, the confounding or residual variables have a normal distribution.The statistical test that will be used is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) non-parametric statistical test.If significant > 0.05 then the variable is normally distributed.Based on the table above, the results of the second equation normality test after casewise with a standard deviation of 1.9, obtained 98 data samples.Normal distribution is indicated by the KS value of more than 0.05 or the Asymp value.Sig (2-tailed) of 0.200 > 0.05 then the data used is normally distributed.

Multicollinearity Test
Multicollinearity test aims to test whether the regression model found a correlation between the independent variables (Independent).In a good regression model there should be no correlation between the independent variables.The multicollinearity test was carried out by looking at the Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values from the analysis using SPSS.If the Tolerance value is greater than 0.10 or VIF is smaller than 10, it can be concluded that there is no multicollinearity.1.5 in the first equation can be seen that each variable has a VIF value < 10 and a tolerance value > 0.10.In profitability, the VIF value is 1.019 and the tolerance value is 0.982, the size of the company has a VIF value of 1.077 and the tolerance value is 0.928, liquidity has a VIF value of 1.070 and a tolerance value of 0.935.From these data, there is no multicollinearity so it can be concluded that the multicollinearity test is fulfilled.1.6 in the second equation can be seen that each variable has a VIF value < 10 and a tolerance value > 0.10.On the profitability of the VIF value of 1.065 and a tolerance value of 0.939, firm size has a VIF value of 1.424 and a tolerance value of 0.702, liquidity has a VIF value of 1.060 and a tolerance value of 0.943, the capital structure has a VIF value of 1.426 and a tolerance value of 0.701.From these data, there is no multicollinearity so it can be concluded that the multicollinearity test is fulfilled.

Heteroscedasticity Test
The heteroscedasticity test aims to test whether in the regression model there is an inequality of variance from the residuals of one observation to another observation.The regression model is said to not contain heteroscedasticity if the significance profitability is above the 5% confidence level or > 0.05.From the results of the table 1.7 test for the first equation after casewise with a standard deviation of 1.8, 114 data samples were obtained, the significance value of the independent variables was more than 0.05.Thus, it can be concluded that there is no heteroscedasticity problem in the regression model.From resulttest table 1.8 the first equation after casewise with a sample of 72 data, the significance value of the independent variables is more than 0.05.Thus, it can be concluded that in the regression model there is no symptom of heteroscedasticity.

Autocorrelation Test
Testing autocorrelationin a model aims to determine whether there is a correlation between the confounding variable in a certain period with the previous variable.For time series data, autocorrelation often occurs.But for data whose sample is cross-sectional, it rarely occurs because one confounding variable is different from another.Detect autocorrelation using Durbin-Watson value (DW test).According to Sujarweni (2015) (Sujarweni, 2015).The output results above can be seen that there is no autocorrelation symptom because the Durbin-Watson value is 1.480 between DW -2 to +2.

DATA ANALYSIS TEST Multiple Linear Regression Test
Multiple regression analysis was used to analyze the effect of several independent variables on the dependent variable together.
From the regression equation it can be concluded: α = constant value in the first regression equation is -0.612, meaning that if the profitability (X1), company size (X2), liquidity (X3) are zero or constant or there is no change, then the capital structure is -61.2%.β 1 = The regression coefficient value of the profitability variable (X1) is -0.318 meaning that if the profitability variable (X1) decreases by one percent, it will cause a decrease in the capital structure of -31.8% with the assumption that other variables remain.β 2 = The value of the regression coefficient of the firm size variable (X2) is 0.032, meaning that if the firm size variable (X2) increases by one percent, it will cause an increase in the capital structure of 3.2% units with the assumption that other variables remain.β 3 = The value of the regression coefficient of the liquidity variable (X3) is -0.010, meaning that if the liquidity variable (X3) decreases by one percent, it will cause a decrease in the capital structure by -1.0% units with the assumption that other variables remain.
Based on the results of the multiple linear regression test, the first equation found the results of the most influential variable in this study, namely company size with Beta of 0.032, followed by profitability of -0.318, and liquidity of -0.010.value of the company by 161.71% with the assumption that other variables remain.β 2 = The value of the regression coefficient of the firm size variable (X2) is -0.110, meaning that if the firm size variable (X2) decreases by one percent, it will cause a decrease in firm value of -1.10% with the assumption that other variables remain.β 3 = The value of the regression coefficient of the liquidity variable (X3) is -0.015, meaning that if the liquidity (X3) decreases by one percent, it will cause a decrease in the value of the company by -1.5% with the assumption that other variables remain.β 4 = The regression coefficient value of the capital structure variable (M) is 0.423, meaning that if the capital structure variable (M) increases by one percent, it will cause an increase in firm value by 42.3% with the assumption that other variables remain.
Based on the results of the second equation multiple linear regression, it was found that the most influential variable in this study was profitability with a Beta value of 16,171, followed by a capital structure of 0.423, company size of -0.110, and liquidity of -0.015.

HYPOTHESIS TESTING F Uji test
This test function is the accuracy of the sample regression function in estimating the actual value.This test can be measured from the value of F, the value of the coefficient of determination and statistical values: From the first regression model above, it shows that the F value is 10,478 with a significance value of 0.000 less than 0.05, so the degree of freedom is obtained; , (k-1), (nk) or 0.05 (3-1) (114-3) obtained F table at 95% confidence level is equal to, thus Fcount < Ftable (10,478 > 3,08.From the test results F, it can be concluded that the regression equation model is fit (accepted).From the first regression model above, it shows that the F value is 99.352 with a significance value of 0.000 less than 0.05, so the degree of freedom is obtained; , (k-1), (nk) or 0.05 (4-1) (72-4) obtained F table at 95% confidence level is equal to, thus Fcount < Ftable (99.352 > 2.74.From the test results F, it can be concluded that the regression equation model is fit (accepted).

T Uji test
The results of this hypothesis testing are to test and determine how much influence the independent variable (X) has on the dependent variable (Y) with a significant level.These results can be seen from the table below:  4.24 of the first regression model above, it is obtained that the t value for profitability is -2.576, company size is 3.878 and liquidity is -2.551, with a sample size of 114 data, resulting in degrees of freedom df = 110 from nk-1 with a significance value of 5% so that we get the value of t table is 1.65882.
The first hypothesis testing aims to answer the research question whether profitability has a positive effect on capital structure.Table 4.24 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.The first hypothesis testing shows that there is a negative effect between profitability and capital structure with a regression coefficient value of -0.318 at a profitability significance level of 0.011 which is smaller than 0.05 which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than t-table (-2.576 < 1.65882 Therefore, the first hypothesis which states that profitability has a positive effect on capital structure is not supported. Testing the second hypothesis aims to answer the research question whether firm size has a positive effect on capital structure.Table 4.24 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the second hypothesis shows that there is a positive influence between firm size and capital structure with a regression coefficient value of 0.032 at a significance level of 0.000 firm size smaller than 0.05 which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than t-table (3.878 > 1.65882 ).Therefore, the second hypothesis which states that firm size has a positive effect on capital structure is supported.
The third hypothesis testing aims to answer the research question whether liquidity has a positive effect on capital structure.Table 4.24 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the third hypothesis shows that there is a negative influence between liquidity and capital structure with a regression coefficient value of -0.010 at a liquidity significance level of 0.011 which is smaller than 0.05 which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than t-table (-2.551 <1.65882).Therefore, the third hypothesis which states that liquidity has a positive effect on capital structure is not supported.4.25 the second regression model above, the t value of profitability is 19.809, company size is -4.305, liquidity is -1.625 and capital structure is 4.120 with a sample size of 72 data, so the degrees of freedom df are generated.= 67 from nk-1 with a significance value of 5% so that the t table value is 1.66792.
The fourth hypothesis testing aims to answer the research question whether profitability has a positive effect on firm value.Table 4.25 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the fourth hypothesis shows that there is a positive influence between profitability and firm value with a regression coefficient of 16,171 at a profitability significance level of 0.000, smaller than 0.05, which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than ttable (19.809 > 1.66792).Therefore, the fourth hypothesis which states that profitability has a positive effect on firm value is supported.
The fifth hypothesis testing aims to answer the research question whether firm size has a positive effect on firm value.Table 4.25 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the fifth hypothesis shows that there is a negative effect between firm size and firm value with a regression coefficient value of -0.015 at a significance level of 0.000 firm size which is smaller than 0.05 which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than ttable (-4.305 > 1 ,66792).Therefore, the fifth hypothesis which states that firm size has a negative effect on firm value is not supported.
Testing the sixth hypothesis aims to answer the research question whether liquidity has a positive effect on firm value.Table 4.25 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the sixth hypothesis shows that there is no influence between liquidity and firm value with a regression coefficient value of -0.110 at a liquidity significance level of 0.109, greater than 0.05 which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than t-table (-1.625 > 1, 66792).Therefore, the sixth hypothesis which states that liquidity has a positive effect on firm value is not supported.
The seventh hypothesis testing aims to answer the research question whether capital structure has a positive effect on firm value.Table 4.25 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the seventh hypothesis shows that there is a positive influence between capital structure and firm value with a regression coefficient value of 0.423 at a capital structure significance level of 0.000 which is smaller than 0.05 which can be strengthened by a t-count value smaller than t-table (4.120 > 1.66792 ).Therefore, the seventh hypothesis which states that capital structure has a positive effect on firm value is supported.

Sobel Test
The Sobel test is carried out by testing the strength of the indirect effect of X to Y through M. The Sobel test is carried out by testing the strength of the indirect influence of the independent variables (profitability, firm size, and liquidity) on the dependent variable (firm value) through mediating or intervening variables.(capital structure).The standard error of coefficients a and b is written as Sa and Sb and the standard error of indirect effect is Sab.4.28 shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the tenth hypothesis shows that capital structure is able to mediate liquidity on firm value with a significance value of 0.03655461 <0.05 with a t-count value greater than the t-table value, namely -2.09070398 <1.66792.Therefore, the tenth hypothesis which states that the capital structure is able to mediate liquidity on firm value is supported.

CONCLUSION
Based on the data analysis and discussion that has been carried out, the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Profitability has a significant negative effect on the capital structure of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 2. Company size has a significant positive effect on the capital structure of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 3. Liquidity has a significant negative effect on the capital structure of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 4. Profitabilitysignificant positive effect on firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 5. Company size has a significant negative effect on firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 6. Liquidity has no significant effect on firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 7. Capital structure has a significant positive effect on firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 8. Capital structure is able to mediate the relationship between profitability and firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 9. Capital structure is able to mediate the relationship between firm size and firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020 10.Capital structure is able to mediate the relationship between liquidity and firm value in manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2017-2020

LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS Limitations
The limitations in this study that may affect the results of the study are:(a).The sample in this study is small because there are several companies that do not have complete financial statements and some companies do not have profits in a row during the 2017-2020 period; (b).
In this study in the first and second equations there are problems of normality and heteroscedasticity; (c).In this study, there are still sample data that are outliers, thus discarding some of the research sample data; (d).In this study, Adjusted R2 in the first equation is low, namely 0.201 or 20.1%.

Suggestion
For companies Recommended companyto pay more attention and be careful in determining the source of funding decisions that reflect the condition of the company which includes profitability, company size and liquidity so that companies can improve company performance in financial management and improve company quality.Investors and potential investors.Investors and potential investors are advised to pay attention to profitability, company size, liquidity, capital structure and company value in investment considerations so as to improve company performance.
For Academics.Limitationsin this study is expected to be refined again in further research, especially regarding the role of capital structure and firm value in influencing profitability, firm size, and liquidity.
For the next researcher.(a).This study uses research samples in manufacturing companies with a time span of 4 years.It is recommended for further research to increase the number of research samples by adding more or longer time spans, so that the research results become more representative; (b).Future research is expected to replace other variables besides the variables in this study, which have a greater influence on firm value.

Table 1 .1 Descriptive Statistics of the First Equation
Based on the table above showsthe amount of data used in this study came from data after casewise diagnostics were carried out because there were problems in the normality test and heteroscedasticity test from 140 samples to 114 samples of manufacturing companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2017-2020 period.

Table 1 .3 Normality Test of the First Equation One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Based on the table above, the results of the first equation normality test after casewise with a standard deviation of 2.1, obtained 126 data samples.Normal distribution is indicated by the KS value of more than 0.05 or the Asymp value.Sig (2-tailed) of 0.053 > 0.05 then the data used is normally distributed.

Table 1 .9 Autocorrelation Test of the First Equation
the test results criteria used in this DW test method are as follows:DW number below -2 means there is a positive autocorrelation DW number between -2 to +2 means there is no autocorrelation DW number above +2 means that there is a negative autocorrelation Based on table 1.9the results of the autocorrelation test did not show signs of autocorrelation if the Durbin-Watson value was between -2 to +2(Sujarweni, 2015).The output results above can be seen that there is no autocorrelation symptom because the Durbin-Watson value is 0.867 between DW -2 to +2.

Table 1 .12 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Second Equation
(X1), company size (X2), liquidity (X3) and capital structure (M) are zero or constant or there is no change, then the firm value is 307.1 %. β 1 = The value of the regression coefficient of the profitability variable (X1) is 16,171 meaning that if the profitability variable (X1) increases by one unit, it will cause an increase in the

Table 1 .19 Results of the Eighth Hypothesis Sobel Test calculator
is able to mediate profitability on firm value.Table4.26shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the seventh hypothesis shows that capital structure is able to mediate profitability on firm value with a significance value of 0.03314894 <0.05 with a t-count value greater than the t-table value, namely -2.13027471 <1.66792.Therefore, the eighth hypothesis which states that the capital structure is able to mediate profitability on firm value is supported.

Table 1 .19 Results of the Ninth Hypothesis Sobel Test calculator
The ninth hypothesis testing aims to answer the research question of whether the capital structure is able to mediate firm size on firm value.Table4.27shows the results of the overall hypothesis testing in this study.Testing the seventh hypothesis shows that capital structure is able to mediate firm size on firm value with a significance value of 0.00476038 <0.05 with a t-count value greater than the t-table value, namely 2.82281638 > 1.66792.Therefore, the ninth hypothesis which states that the capital structure is able to mediate firm size on firm value is supported.

Table 1 .20 Results of the Tenth Hypothesis Sobel Test Calculator
Hypothesis test The tenth objective is to answer the research question whether the capital structure is able to mediate liquidity on firm value.Table