Solid State Technology

Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

Does the Good Corporate Governance

Approach Affect Agency Cost?
Annisa Ayunitha*, Hesti Wuri Sulastri, Muhammad Iqbal Fauzi, Muhamad Azis Prabowo
Sakti, Nugi Mohammad Nugraha
Faculty of Economics and Business, Widyatama University Bandung, Indonesia
*[email protected]

Abstract

This research has the objective to determine the effect of corporate governance on the agency
cost to the consumer goods industry sector companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange
2015-2019 period. The independent variable used in this study is corporate governance
consisting of institutional ownership, managerial ownership, the board of commissioners, the
board of directors, and the audit committee. While the dependent variable used in this study
is agency cost. The data used in this study are secondary data by taking a population of 36
companies and a sample of 17 companies in the consumer goods industry. This research uses
the data analysis method, the classical assumption test, and multiple linear regression. The
results of this study indicate that managerial ownership and the board of commissioners have
a positive influence on agency costs. However, institutional ownership, the board of
directors, and audit committee variables do not affect agency costs.

Keywords: Agency Cost, Corporate Governance, Institutional Ownership, Managerial

Ownership, Board of Commissioners, Board of Directors, Audit Committee.

Introduction
A capital market is a place that brings together parties who need funds, namely companies to
carry out their operational activities (issuer) with parties who have more funds for invested
(investors). The consumer goods industry sector is one of the sectors listed in the Indonesian
Capital Market. The consumer goods industry is an attractive industrial sector. This is
because the consumer goods industry sector always produces products needed by humans, for
example, namely: food, beverages, household appliances, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and
other goods that humans knowingly or unconsciously need them. Companies engaged in the
pharmaceutical industry, the food and beverage industry, the cosmetics and household goods
industry, the household appliance industry, and the cigarette industry are part of companies
engaged in the consumer goods industry. The consumer goods industry in Indonesia in 2020
is experiencing an increase of 5.46% due to Covidpandemic19. This is because of the large
number of people who carry out their activities at home in the short term as recommended by
the Indonesian government. So it is estimated that the purchase of goods and consumption
has increased recently, causing the performance of the consumer goods industry sector to
increase.
Agency conflicts usually occur because of the separation of interests between those who own
the company and those who control the company. Agency conflicts based on agency
theory can occur because management, who is the manager of the company, tends to focus on
increasing personal income rather than prioritizing company goals. A manager who has a
3760

high-performance contribution to the company also wants to get in return for high wages or
salaries. Beside it, company owners or shareholders often only want high-profit value income

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

to maximize the wealth they have. This difference in objectives certainly causes agency
conflicts that agency costs are needed. Agency costs are used to supervise management's
actions to continue to carry out their duties to achieve company goals by a predetermined
contract between shareholders and company managers.
Corporate governance is one way to minimize agency conflicts that can occur in companies
between shareholders and company managers. Corporate governance can be defined as a
process or pattern that must be implemented by company managers in running a company to
increase shareholder profit value while paying attention to all parties involved and
contributing to the company. The company will develop and experience positive growth if it
can manage its corporate governance properly and effectively. Parties that are directly related
to the company, both internally and externally, can guarantee their rights and obligations by
implementing good and correct corporate governance. If the rights and obligations of
company managers and shareholders are guaranteed, then this can provide benefits to the
parties concerned, so that the company's goals can be achieved optimally with minimal
agency conflicts that occur.

Literature Review
Agency Theory
Jensen & Meckling (1976) argues that agency theory is a theory that explains the relationship
that occurs on the principal party who hires another party or agent to perform a service. the
principal has the authority to make decisions with the agent. In a company, two parties are
interrelated with the shareholder as the lessee and the manager as the hired party. According
to agency theory, a company owner if he leaves his operational duties to parties or human
resources who better understand and have more knowledge in carrying out their operations it
will be better for the company's future. The agent is the party who has more information
about the company than the principal. Therefore, the relationship between the principal and
the agent causes asymmetric information or information imbalance.

Agency Fees
Weston and Brigham (2006) in Menafati and Nuryatno (2014: 23) believes that to ensure and
ensure management actions are following and consistent with the contractual agreement with
the company management, shareholders, or creditors to avoid agency conflicts, it is necessary
to incur a fee called agency fee.
Agency cost measures can be measured using selling and general administrative (SGA). SGA
is a proxy for operating expenses. This variable measures agency costs based on selling and
general administrative, namely the ratio of operating expenses divided by total sales (Dewi &
Ardiana, 2014). Agency costs are calculated using the following formula:

Operational Expenses for

Agency Costs =
TotalSales of

Corporate Governance
Krisnauli & Hadiprajitno (2014) Companies certainly need something that can affect the
direction of the company, and company control so that the company can easily meet the
requirements. This can be achieved through processes, habits, policies, or rules that are
implemented by the company properly, which is usually called Good Corporate Governance.
Meanwhile Handoko (2014) argues that the balance between the power and authority of the
3761

company, especially the manager in providing accountability to shareholders or company

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

stakeholders, can be done by way of shareholders providing direction and special control to
managers.

Institutional Ownership
According to Susiana & Herawati (2007), institutional ownership is a party that plays a role
in supervising and controlling the course of business activities in a company. Shares owned
by other companies located inside and outside the country as well as domestic and foreign
government shares are usually included in institutional share ownership. Meanwhile,
according to Mohd (1998) argues that institutional share ownership will increase the optimal
supervision of how good insider performance and company profits will also increase due to
the impact of this institutional share ownership, which causes firm value (PER) to increase as
well. According to Wahidahwati (2002), institutional ownership can be formulated as
follows:

Σ Institutional
Institutional Ownership =
Shares Σ Circulating Shares

Managerial Ownership
Company owners who participate in the management of the company with managerial
ownership. Conflict that is likely to occur will be smaller if the shares owned by management
(directors and commissioners) have a large proportion. Since the owner participates in the
management of the company, he will be more careful in making decisions and have more
responsibility for meeting management's needs. By utilizing this desire, it will increase the
level of debt and increase net income so as not to harm the company, including themselves.
Conversely, the possibility of conflict will be greater if the proportion of shares owned by
management has a smaller proportion. This is because the shareholders do not participate in
the management of the company and make decisions which will result in higher agency
problems.
Faisal & Firmansyah (2005) argue that executives and directors who have share ownership in
a company can be categorized as having managerial share ownership. Meanwhile, Boediono
(2005) states that the measurement to be transferred, managerial ownership can be
determined by the number of shares owned by management (directors and commissioners)
divided by the number of shares transferred. According to Masdupi (2005), managerial
ownership can be formulated as follows:

Σ Managerial Shares
Managerial Ownership =
Σ Outstanding Shares

Board of Commissioners
The part of the company that has an important task of supervising and implementing policy
policies is the duty of the board of commissioners. The board of commissioners can minimize
agency conflicts that can occur between shareholders and directors. Therefore, shareholders
who have an interest must be in line with the performance produced by the board of
commissioners with a good job or not. Jensen (1993) argues that the management function,
especially the monitoring function performed by the board of commissioners, is taken from
agency theory. According to agency theory, the board of commissioners can represent the
3762

company's main internal mechanism to control opportunistic management behavior so that it

can help adjust the interests of shareholders and managers.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

Board of Commissioners = Σ Members of the Board of Commissioners

Board of Directors
Regulated in Indonesia in Law No. 49 of 2007 concerning limited liability company duties,
functions, and obligations of the board of directors, in article 92 paragraph 1 "the directors
run the company for the interests of the company and under the aims and objectives of the
company". The responsibility of the board of directors ensures and checks the internal system
is running well. Dalton et al. (1999) in the journal (Morgan, 2019) states that the company
performance and the size of the board of commissioners have a positive relationship. Low
performance and decreased efficiency can occur due to the existence of the board of directors
that supports good corporate governance (Weisbach, 1988, in Wijayati, Fitri). The board of
directors is also used as a means of monitoring management and ensuring that management is
running effectively. The size and composition of the board of directors can significantly
reduce agency costs.

Board of Directors = Σ Members of the Board of Directors

Audit
The audit committee is a committee formed by the board of commissioners. The audit
committee has a duty, namely to oversee the management of a company. The audit committee
is a part of the company as a liaison between the shareholders and the board of
commissioners with the management to resolve company control problems or the possibility
of agency conflicts. Company control can be better because the audit committee functions
effectively and improves the welfare of external and internal parties by the wishes of
management who want to minimize agency conflicts. Forker (1992) argues that the audit
committee can reduce agency costs and improve the internal control of the company to
improve the quality of financial reports.

Audit Committee = Σ Audit Committee Members

Research Hypotheses
Based on the theoretical study and relevant research results that have been stated above, the
research hypothesis can use the following formulation:
H1: Institutional ownership has a positive effect on agency cost in consumer goods industrial
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in 2015 - 2019
H2: Managerial ownership has a positive effect on agency costs in consumer goods industry
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015 - 2019
H3: The Board of Commissioners has a positive effect on agency costs for consumer goods
industrial companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015 - 2019
H4: The Board of Directors has a positive effect on agency costs for consumer goods industry
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015 - 2019
H5: The Audit Committee has a positive effect on agency costs for consumer goods industrial
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015 - 2019

Research Methodology
The approach used in this research is quantitative deductive research with general to specific
3763

patterns. The research method uses hypotheses through processing and statistical testing data,
namely descriptive analysis. After processing the data, the research results will be processed
and drawn based on whether or not it is based on the initial hypothesis. Data consisting of a

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

combination of time series and cross-sections are used in this study; the data is called panel
data.
This study uses an analysis of consumer goods industry companies listed on the Indonesian
Stock Exchange during the observation period. This study uses 36 companies for the
population and uses 17 companies that have gone through the selection using the purposive
sampling method, namely by using certain criteria in selecting the appropriate sample. These
criteria are as follows:
1. Companies in the consumer goods industry that used themselves on the Indonesian Stock
Exchange during the research period, namely 2015-2019
2. Companies that consistently present their financial reports during the study period,
especially companies that are included in the consumer goods industry sector
3. Consumer goods industrial companies whose shares are partly owned by the institution and
management respectively during the observation period.

Results and Discussion

Chow Test

Redundant Fixed Effects Tests

Equation: Untitled
Fixed effects cross-section
test Effects Test Statistic df Prob.
Cross-section F 106.780573 (16.63) 0.0000
Chi-square cross-section 283.597492 16 0.0000

If seen from the Chow Test table above, the statistical value of Cross-section F has a
probability value (p) < 0.05 or a probability value less the cross-sectional statistic F is 0.0000.
So that for panel data regression, it is more appropriate to use the Fixed Effect Model.

Hausman Test

Correlated Random Effects Test - Hausman Test

Equation: Untitled
Test cross-section random effects
Test Summary Chi-Sq. statistics Chi-Sq. df Prob.
Cross-section random 9.431967 5 0.0930

If seen from the Hausman Test table above, the Cross-section Random statistical value has a
probability value (p) > 0.05, or the probability value is smaller than the Cross-section
Random statistical value, which is 0.0930. So the Random Effect Model is more suitable for
panel data regression.

Normality Test using the Random Effect Model

3764

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020
10
Series: Standardized Residuals
Sample 2015 2019
8 Observations 85

6 Mean -3.91e-16
Median 0.014971
Maximum 1.272635
4 Minimum -0.959363
Std. Dev. 0.507278
2
Skewness 0.098197
Kurtosis 2.412121

0 Jarque-Bera 1.360609
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Probability 0.506463

When viewed from the histogram graph of The Normality Test, the Jarque-Bera probability
value generated in this study is 0.506463 which has a value greater than 0.05 so that the data
in this study are normally distributed.

Multicolinearity Test

Institutional Managerial Board of Committee

- BOC
Ownership Ownership Directors Audit
Institutional
1.000000 0.008313 0.276709 -0.00647 0.045095
Ownership
Managerial
0.008313 1.000000 0.187228 0.083446 0.086539
Ownership
BOC 0.276709 0.187228 1.000000 0.513852 0.180167
Board of
-0.006470 0.083446 0.513852 1.000000 0.317873
Directors
Committee
0.045095 0.086539 0.180167 0.317873 1.000000
Audit

If seen from the multicollinearity test table using a correlation matrix for each independent
variable, the value of all correlation coefficients between independent variables is below 0.8
so that the results of data processing do not show multicollinearity.

Heteroscedasticity Test using Random Effect Model

Effects Specification
SD Rho
Cross-section random 0.215033 0.8766
Idiosyncratic random 0.080694 0.1234
Weighted Statistics
R-squared 0.025081 Mean dependent var 0.069698
Adjusted R-squared -0.036623 SD dependent var 0.086902
SE of regression 0.088479 Sum squared resid 0.618460
F-statistic 0.406474 Durbin-Watson stat 1.069875
Prob (F-statistic) 0.842967
Unweighted Statistics
R-squared 0.004578 Mean dependent var 0.421118
Sum squared resid 6.511920 Durbin-Watson stat 0.101610
3765

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

When viewed from the heteroscedasticity test table the probability value of the independent
variables used is all more than 0.05. This means that the data used in this research does not
have a heteroscedasticity problem.

Autocorrelation Test using Random Effect Model

Cross-section random 0.497510 0.9669

Idiosyncratic random 0.0331 0.092046
Weighted Statistics
R-squared 0.053303 Mean dependent var -0.134017
Adjusted R-squared -0.006615 SD dependent var 0.094282
SE of regression 0.094593 Sum squared resid 0.706879
F-statistic 0.889603 Durbin -Watson stat 1.186229
Prob (F-statistic) 0.492219
Unweighted Statistics
R-squared 0.019089 Mean dependent var -1.625253
Sum squared resid 21.61578 Durbin-Watson stat 0.038792

Based autocorrelation test results table above shows the number of Durbin-Watson by
0.038792. The Durbin-Watson value will be compared with the table Durbin-Watson with the
number of observations (n) = 85, the number of independent variables (k) = 5, and a
significance level of 0.05, so that the results are:
● dL = 1.5254
● dU = 1.7736
● 4 - dU = 2.2264
● 4 - dL = 2.4746

A comparison between the value Durbin-Watson calculated by the Durbin-Watson table

shows that the value of the Durbin-Watson count is equal to 0.038792 be between a value of
0 to dL, which means the positive autocorrelation in the regression model.

Regression Results Panel Data

Effects Specification
SD Rho
Cross-section random 0.497510 0.9669
Idiosyncratic random 0.092046 0.0331
Weighted Statistics
R-squared 0.053303 Mean dependent var -0.134017
Adjusted R-squared -0.006615 SD dependent var 0.094282
SE of regression 0.094593 Sum squared resid 0.706879
F-statistic 0.889603 Durbin-Watson stat 1.186229
Prob (F-statistic) 0.492219
Unweighted Statistics
R-squared 0.019089 Mean dependent var -1.625253
Sum squared resid 21.61578 Durbin-Watson stat 0.038792
3766

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

Based on the panel data regression test results above, the panel data regression research
equation model can be formed as follows:

BK = -1.587028 C - 0.049934 KI + 0.492040 KM + 0.041737 DK - 0.001589 DD - 0.071420 KA + e

The regression equation above can be interpreted as follows: The

1. Constant in the regression model above is -1.587028 which shows that when institutional
ownership, managerial ownership, the board of commissioners, the board of directors,
and audit committee in consumer goods industries listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange
are the same as zero, the agency cost will decrease by 1.587028.
2. The regression coefficient value of institutional ownership is - 0.049934, indicating that if
institutional ownership increases by one unit, the agency cost in the consumer goods
industry listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange will decrease by 0.049934.
3. The regression coefficient value of managerial ownership is 0.492040, indicating that if
managerial ownership increases by one unit, the agency cost in the consumer goods
industry listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange will increase by 0.492040.
4. The regression coefficient value for the board of commissioners is 0.041737, indicating
that if the board of commissioners increases by one unit, the agency cost in the consumer
goods industry listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange will increase by 0.041737.
5. The regression coefficient value for the board of directors is - 0.001589, indicating that if
the board of directors increases by one unit, the agency cost in the consumer goods
industry listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange will decrease by 0.001589.
6. The audit committee regression coefficient value of -0.071420 indicates that if the audit
committee increases by one unit, the agency cost in the consumer goods industry listed on
the Indonesia Stock Exchange will decrease by 0.071420.

Model F test using the Random Effect Model

Effects Specification
SD Rho
Cross-section random 0.497510 0.9669
Idiosyncratic random 0.092046 0.0331
Weighted Statistics
R-squared 0.053303 Mean dependent var -0.134017
Adjusted R-squared -0.006615 SD dependent var 0.094282
SE of regression 0.094593 Sum squared resid 0.706879
F-statistic 0.889603 Durbin-Watson stat 1.186229
Prob (F-statistic) 0.492219
Unweighted Statistics
R-squared 0.019089 Mean dependent var -1.625253
Sum squared resid 21.61578 Durbin-Watson stat 0.038792

It can be seen that the probability value F based on the f model test table is calculated as
0.492219 which shows that the variable corporate governance does not have a linear
relationship with agency cost.
3767

Test the coefficient of determination (R2) using the Random Model Effect

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

Effects Specification
SD Rho
Cross-sectional random 0.9669 0.497510
random Idiosyncratic 0.0331 0.092046
Statistics Weighted
R-squared 0.053303 Mean dependent var -0.134017
Adjusted R-squared -0.006615 SD dependent var 0.094282
SE of regression 0.094593 Sum squared resid 0.706879
F-statistic 0.889603 Durbin-Watson stat 1.186229
Prob (F-statistic) 0.492219
Unweighted Statistics
R-squared 0.019089 Mean dependent var -1.625253
Sum squared resid 21.61578 Durbin-Watson stat 0.038792
Cross-section fixed (dummy variables)
R- squared 0.956003 Mean dependent var 0.161589
Adjusted R-squared 0.943432 SD dependent var 0.110781
SE of regression 0.026348 Akaike info criterion -4.238803
Sum squared resid 0.102050 Schwarz criterion -3.503951
Log likelihood 445.6863 Hannan-Quinn criter. -3.941125
F-statistic 76.05048 Durbin-Watson stat 1.597210
Prob (F-statistic) 0.000000

The coefficient of determination in the research model (R2) based on the Adjusted R-squared
table is -0.006615, or -0.66% which this means that variations in the dependent variable,
namely agency cost, cannot be explained by variations in the independent variable, namely
corporate governance.

Hypothesis test (t-test)

Variable t ∝count Conclusions

Institutional Ownership (X1) -0.088987 0.9293 Not Significant
Managerial Ownership (X2) 0.847013 0.3995 Not Significant
Board Of Commissioners (X3) 1.320667 0.1904 Not Significant
Board of Directors (X4) -0.100684 0.9201 Not Significant
Committee Audit (X5) -0.669502 0.5051 Not Significant

Judging from the results of the hypothesis test shows that it is

Managerial ownership and board of commissioners variables have
judging from the results of the t test, the variables that have a positive effect on agency costs
are managerial ownership and board of commissioners. Meanwhile, the variables that do not
have an influence on agency costs are institutional ownership, the board of directors and the
audit committee.

Conclusion
This study aims to determine the factors that can affect Agency Cost by using the
3768

Corporate Governance variable which consists of Institutional Ownership, Managerial

Ownership, The Board of Commissioners, The Board of Directors, and The Audit
Committee. Based on the results of the research and analysis that has been carried out, the

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

conclusions of the research on the effect of corporate governance on agency cost are as
follows:
1. Institutional ownership (X1) does not affect agency cost (Y) in consumer goods industry
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015- 2019
2. Managerial ownership (X2) affects agency cost (Y) in consumer goods industry
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015-2019
3. The board of commissioners (X3) affects agency cost (Y) in consumer goods industry
companies listed on the Stock Exchange Indonesia 2015-2019 period
4. The board of directors (X4) does not affect agency cost (Y) in consumer goods industry
companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2015-2019 period
5. The audit committee (X5) does not affect agency cost (Y) in goods industrial companies’
consumption listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2015-2019

REFERENCES

1. Angelina, S., & Nugraha, N. M. (2020). Effects of Monetary Policy on Inflation and
National Economy Based on Analysis of Bank Indonesia Annual Report. Technium
Social Sciences Journal 10(1), 423-435.
2. Boediono, G. 2005. Kualitas Laba: Studi Pengaruh Mekanisme Corporate Governance
dan Dampak Manajemen Laba dengan Menggunakan Analisis Jalur. Simposium Nasional
Akuntansi VIII.
3. Brigham, E. F., & Houston, J. F. (2006). Dasar-Dasar Manajemen Keuangan. Terjemahan
oleh Ali Akbar Yulianto. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
4. Brigham, E. F., & Gapenski, L. (2014). Intermediate Finance Management.
Implementation Science.
5. Bursa, DI, Indonesia, E., & Amin, MN (2014). Junius / Muhammad Nuryatno Amin
Volume. 1 Number 1, 2014. 20–40.
6. Damayanti, E., Nugraha, N. M., & Nugraha, D. N. S. (2020). The Influence of Debt to
Asset Ratio (DAR) and Debt to Equity Ratio (DER) to Earning Per Share (EPS) in the
Basic and Chemical Industry Sector Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange Period
2015-2018. Journal of Government Science and Rural Development, 1(2).
7. Dewi, N. L. G. E. L., & Ardiana, P. A. (2014). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Manajerial Pada
Agency Cost Perusahaan Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2008-2012. E-
Jurnal Akuntansi Universitas Udayana, 9(1), 245-258.
8. Forker, J. J. (1992). Corporate Governance and Disclosure Quality. Accounting and
Business Research, 22(86), 111–124.
9. Handoko, J. (2015). Pengaruh Struktur Modal Dan Mekanisme Corporate Governance
Terhadap Agency Cost Perusahaan LQ45 di BEI Tahun 2013. 7th NCBF and Doctoral
Colloquium, Fakultas Bisnis dan Manajemen UKWMS, pp. 226-253.
10. Harmono. (2011). Manajemen Keuangan Berbasis Balanced Scorecard Pendekatan Teori,
Kasus, dan Riset Bisnis. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
11. Husnan, S., & Pudjiastuti, E. (2012). Dasar-Dasar Manajemen Keuangan. Yogyakarta:
UPP STIM YKPN.
12. Jensen, M. C. (1993). The Modern Industrial Revolution, Exit, and the Failure of Internal
Control Systems. Journal of Finance, 48(3), 831–880.
13. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior,
agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305-360.
3769

14. Kasmir. (2014). Bank dan Lembaga Keuangan Lainnya. PT. Raja Grafindo Persada,
Jakarta.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us

 Solid State Technology
Volume: 63 Issue: 4
Publication Year: 2020

15. Moh’d, M. A., Perry, L. G., & Rimbey, J. N. (1998). The impact of ownership structure
on corporate debt policy: A time-series cross-sectional analysis. Financial Review, 33(3),
85-98.
16. Morgan. (2019). Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 53(9), 1689–1699.
17. Nugraha, N. M., & Susanti, N. (2019). Investment Decisions Using CAPM in the Coal
Mining Sub-Sector Period 2012-2016. Global Business & Management Research, 11(1),
266-274.
18. Nugraha, N. M., & Riyadhi, M. R. (2019). The Effect of Cash Flows, Company Size, and
Profit on Stock Prices in SOE Companies Listed on Bei For the 2013-2017 Period.
International Journal of Innovation Creativity and Change, 6(7), 130-141.
19. Nugraha, N.M., Widajatun, V. W., & Aji, M. B. (2020). The Analysis of Public Share
Ownership and Industrial Groups Against the Implementation of Interest Financial
Reporting in The Era Disruption. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation,
24(7), 6623-6630.
20. Nuryaman, Sardjudin, Nisjar, K., Dwilestari, & Jayanti, F. (2011). Pengaruh Keputusan
Investasi, Pendanaan, dan Kebijakan Dividen terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Bisnis,
Manajemen & Ekonomi, Vol. Khusus(4).
21. Octavia, D., & Nugraha, N. M. (2020). Pengaruh Keputusan Investasi, Keputusan
Pendanaan, Dan Kebijakan Dividen Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Pada Sektor Aneka
Industri Yang Terdaftar Di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode 2014-2018. Jurnal Computech
& Bisnis, 14(1), 01-09.
22. Reminov, Melvin, M. (2015). Pengaruh mekanisme tata kelola perusahaan dan struktur
kepemilikan terhadap struktur modal. Fakultas Ekonomika dan Bisnis Universitas
Diponegoro.
23. Susanti, N., Widajatun, V. W., Aji, M. B., & Nugraha, N. M. (2020). Implications of
Intellectual Capital Financial Performance and Corporate Values (Studies on Goods and
Consumption Sector 2013-2017 period). International Journal of Psychosocial
Rehabilitation, 24(7), 6588-6599.
24. Sutrisno. (2012). Manajemen Keuangan Teori, Konsep dan Aplikasi. Yogyakarta:
Ekonisia.
25. Usunariyah. (2003). Pengantar Pasar Modal. Yogyakarta: UPP MPP YKPN.
26. Weisbach, M. S. (1988). Outside directors and CEO turnover. Journal of Financial
Economics, 20, 431-460.
27. Widajatun, V. W., Nugraha, N. M., & Ichsani, S. (2019). Kejadian Aksi Teroris Dan
Dampaknya Pada Performa Nilai Tukar Dolar Amerika Serikat dan Performa IHSG.
Jurnal Muara Ilmu Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 3(1), 141-155.
28. Widajatun, V. W., Rahmadzikrishafira, T. F., Nugraha, N. M., & Susanti, N. (2020).
Effect of Profitability on Firm Values With Managerial Ownership As a Variable Control
(Construction and Building Sub Sector Listed in the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the
2014-2018 Period). International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 24(7), 7220-
7229.
29. Wijaya, J. H., & Nugraha, N. M. (2020). Peramalan Kinerja Perusahaan Perbankan Tahun
2017 Yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Dengan Metode ARCH-GARCH. BISMA:
Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen, 14(2),101-108.
30. https://www.idx.co.id.
31. https://www.sahamok.com.
3770

32. https://invest.kontan.co.id/news/sektor-industri-dasar-dan-barang-kentuk-jadi- crutches-

ihsg-this week.

Archives Available @ www.solidstatetechnology.us