Government Investment and Capital Participation to State-Owned
Enterprises in Indonesia to Mitigate The Impact of The COVID-19
Pandemic: Is It Effective?
AMDI VERI DARMA1, NI PUTU WIWIN SETYARI2, EKA ARDHANI SISDYANI3,
NI MADE DWI RATNADI3
1UPN Veteran Jakarta,
Jalan RS Fatmawati, Pondok Labu, Jakarta Selatan, DKI Jakarta, 12450,
INDONESIA
2Department of Economics Development, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Udayana University,
Jalan P.B. Sudirman, Denpasar, 80234,
INDONESIA
3Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Udayana University,
Jalan P.B. Sudirman, Denpasar, 80234,
INDONESIA
Abstract: - The National Economic Recovery (PEN) Program is set by the government of Indonesia
comprehensively regarding the handling of the devastating impact of COVID-19. The target recipients of the
PEN program are classified into two, namely: the first group, State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and the second
group are non-SOEs business units, where for SOEs this is done in the form of State Capital Participation
(PMN) and Government Investment (IP). This research aims to analyze the impact of the PEN program on SOE
performance. The analysis results show that the PEN Program has a positive impact on SOEs, as seen from
SOEs ROA. The PEN program that has been running has not been able to improve significantly. However, it
can be said that the PEN Program has been able to protect the operations of SOE recipients of the PEN
program. In addition, the PEN Program has had an impact on achieving positive EAT growth in almost all
recipient SOESs. The PEN program for SOEs needs to be re-evaluated, especially for SOEs that had the
potential to perform poorly before the pandemic.
Key-Words: - Financial performance, National Economic Recovery (PEN) Program, Government Investment
(IP), State Capital Participation (PMN), State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), Return on Assets
(ROA), Return on Equity (ROE), Earning After Tax (EAT), Earning Before Interest, Taxes,
Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA).
Received: March 12, 2023. Revised: January 15, 2024. Accepted: February 7, 2024. Published: March 8, 2024.
1 Introduction
The government has introduced various forms of
policies to reduce the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic, [1], [2]. Simultaneously with the issuance
of Government Regulation instead of Law Number
1 of 2020 which is stipulated as Law Number 2 of
2020 concerning State Financial Policy and
Financial System Stability for Handling the Corona
Virus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic and/or
in the context of Facing Threats that Endanger the
National Economy and/or Financial System
Stability, the government launched a stimulus
package as an effort to deal with the impact of
COVID-19, [3]. This policy was implemented to
carry out three main focuses for handling COVID-
19 in Indonesia. Firstly, saving lives and improving
the quality of public health. Secondly, providing a
social safety net. Third, save the economy and the
business world. This program is aimed at protecting,
maintaining, and improving the economic
capabilities of business actors from the real sector
and the financial sector in running their businesses,
[4], [5].
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
726
Volume 21, 2024
The National Economic Recovery Policy (PEN)
is comprehensively set by the government regarding
the handling of the devastating impact of the
COVID-19 national economic order, [6]. The
regulatory framework that regulates the PEN
Program is Government Regulation Number 23 of
2020 concerning the Implementation of the National
Economic Recovery Program in the Context of
Supporting State Financial Policy for Handling the
2019 Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic
and/or Facing Threats that Endanger the National
Economy and/or Financial System Stability and
Saving the National Economy (which has been
amended by Government Regulation Number 43 of
2020). These regulations explain that the PEN
program generally consists of (1) State Capital
Participation (PMN); (2) placement of funds; (3)
government investment; (4) guarantee; and (5) other
policies through state spending, [7].
The target recipients of the PEN program are
classified into two, namely: the first group, State-
Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and the second group
non-SOEs business units. SOEs is a business entity
established by the government, part or all of whose
capital is owned by the state, [8]. The role and
prominence of SOEs in the Indonesian economy
have changed substantially over time, with the value
of SOE assets in 2019 standing at over 56.2% of
GDP, down from roughly 90% of GDP in 1990 but
up from a trough of 36% of GDP in 2010, [9]. SOEs
received the PEN program in two forms, namely
State Capital Participation (PMN), which was given
to eight SOEs, namely: PT Hutama Karya, PT
Indonesian Infrastructure Guarantee (PII), PT
Permodalan Nasional Madani (PNM), PT
Indonesian Export Financing Institution (LPEI),
Indonesia Tourism Development Corporation
(ITDC), PT Bio Farma, PT Bahana Pembinaan
Usaha Indonesia (BPUI), and PT Waskita Karya.
The second form is Government Investment (IP)
which is given to five SOESs, namely PT Krakatau
Steel, PT Garuda Indonesia, PT Perkebunan
Nusantara III, PT Kereta Api Indonesia, and Perum
Perumnas. State capital participation for designated
SOEs, carried out by the Government for the
implementation of the National Economic Recovery
Program, which aims to improve the capital
structure of SOEs and/or SOEs subsidiaries affected
by the COVID-19 pandemic; and/or increase the
business capacity of SOEs and/or SOEs
subsidiaries, including to carry out special
assignments by the Government in the
implementation of National Economic Recovery.
On the other hand, Government Investment (IP)
financing in the form of loans to SOEs is provided
for the need to strengthen capital, so IP PEN is
provided to support the operational needs of SOEs
which have been greatly impacted by the pandemic.
One form of the National Economic Recovery
(PEN) Program related to the COVID-19 Pandemic
is government assistance to State-Owned
Enterprises (SOEs) in the form of State Capital
Participation (PMN) and Government Investment
(IP). Recipients of assistance in the PEN Program
include state-owned companies in various industrial
fields, namely construction, infrastructure,
financing, tourism, health/pharmaceuticals,
property, transportation, and agriculture. Data on
PEN Program recipients is presented in Table 1 for
PMN and Table 2 for IP.
Table 1. SOEs Recipient of State Capital Participation (PMN), Year 2020-2021 (in Millions IDR)
No
Name of SOE
Cluster
Amount of
PMN
Realization
2020
2021
1
PT Hutama Karya
Infrastructure Services
16,500,000
7,500,000
9,000,000
2
PT Penjamin Infrastuktur
Indonesia (PII)
Financial Services
1,570,000
1,570,000
-
3
PT Permodalan Nasional
Madani (PNM)
Financial Services
1,500,000
1,500,000
-
4
PT Lembaga Pembiayaan
Ekspor Indonesia (LPEI)
Financial Services
5,000,000
5,000,000
-
5
Indonesia Tourism
Development Corporation
(ITDC)
Tourism and Support
Services
500,000
500,000
-
6
PT Bio Farma
Medical Industry
2,000,000
2,000,000
-
7
PT Bahana Pembinaan
Usaha Indonesia (BPUI)
Insurance and Pension Fund
Services
6,000,000
6,000,000
-
8
PT Waskita Karya
Infrastructure Services
7,900,000
-
7,900,000
Total
40,970,000
24,070,000
16,900,000
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
727
Volume 21, 2024
Table 2. SOEs Receiving Government Investment (IP) in 2020 (in Million IDR)
No
Name of SOE
Cluster
Amount of IP
Budget of IP
(Until Dec.2021)
Realization of IP
(Until June 2021)
1
Perum Perumnas
Infrastructure Services
650,000
650,000
650,000
2
PT Krakatau Steel
Manufacture and Survey
3,000,000
3,000,000
2,200,000
3
PT Kereta Api
Indonesia
Logistic
3,500,000
3.500.000
3,500,000
4
PT Perkebunan
Nusantara (PN) III
Plantation and Forestry
Industry
4,000,000
2,895,410
807,677
5
PT Garuda Indonesia
Tourism and support
Services
8,500,000
2,500,000
1,000,000
Total
19,650,000
12,545,410
8,157,677
Table 1 informs that seven SOEs from various
industries received PMN in 2020, namely: (1) PT
Hutama Karya, (2) PT Guarantee, Indonesian
Infrastructure (PII), (3) PT Permodalan Nasional
Madani (PNM), (4) PT Indonesian Export Financing
Institution (LPEI), (5) Indonesia Tourism
Development Corporation (ITDC), (6) PT Bio
Farma, and (7) PT Bahana Indonesian Business
Development (BPUI). In 2021, PT Waskita Karya
followed by receiving PMN. Apart from that, in
2021 the Government will also provide additional
capital participation to PT Hutama Karya so that it
becomes an SOEs that has received state capital
participation for two consecutive years. The total
state capital participation over the two years reached
IDR40,970,000,000,000 (forty trillion nine hundred
and seventy billion rupiah).
Apart from capital participation, the Government
also distributes assistance in the form of
Government Investment to five other SOEs, as
presented in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that as of June 2021, of the IP
PEN amount of IDR19,650,000,000,000 (nineteen
trillion six hundred and fifty billion rupiah), only
two companies, namely Perum Perumnas and PT
Kereta Api Indonesia, were able to disburse one
hundred percent (100%) of the number of targeted
IPs. Meanwhile, PT Krakatau Steel has only
disbursed 73.33 percent of IP funds, even the
disbursement made by PT PN III and PT Garuda
Indonesia is much smaller, namely 20.19% and
11.76% respectively. These two SOEs are targeted
to obtain greater government investment, especially
PT Garuda Indonesia, which reaches more than
twice as much as other state-owned companies. The
low level of successful disbursement was caused by
the unresolved restructuring problems in the two
SOEs, and also the condition of Garuda Indonesia
which was unable to fulfill the parameters and
scheme for disbursement of the IP PEN Program
assistance. The funds that have not been disbursed
are still in the temporary account of the Indonesian
Ministry of Finance.
These various conditions indicate that the PEN
program through government investment in SOEs
needs to be evaluated, [10], [11]. This research aims
to conduct an analysis of the financial performance
of SOEs and the effectiveness of the PEN program
in SOEs. So that SOEs can improve their
performance by expectations so that SOEs can
become providers of high quality resources, pioneer
business activities that have not been implemented
by the private sector, and can also play an active
role in guiding and providing assistance to small
entrepreneurs, cooperatives and the community, [8].
2 Method
This research was written using a quantitative
approach in descriptive form. A descriptive research
design was used to describe the SOEs affected by
the COVID-19 Pandemic, the actor sectors that took
advantage of the National Economic Recovery
(PEN) Program for Fiscal Years 2020 to 2020.
2022, and the effectiveness of the PEN Program.
Data collection using the documentation method is
used to collect information originating from
important records from both institutions and
individuals, including data published by related
agencies such as the Bank of Indonesia, Statistics of
Indonesia, the Ministry of Finance, and other
agencies/institutions.
This research uses descriptive statistical analysis
to provide an overview of variable conditions based
on performance indicators during the observation
period. This approach is used to describe the
characteristics (information) of business actors from
both SOEs and MSMEs who receive the PEN
program in the government investment scheme.
Measuring the effectiveness of the PEN Program
on program recipients in protecting, maintaining,
and improving the economic capabilities of business
actors will be carried out in two ways to get robust
results. These two analytical tools will be applied to
test the effectiveness of programs in SOEs. First, the
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
728
Volume 21, 2024
analytical tool that will be used is the difference test
between two independent groups (Independent
sample t-test).
Based on the relationship between populations,
the t-test can be classified into two types of tests,
namely (a) dependent sample t-test, and (b)
independent sample t-test. A dependent sample t-
test often termed Paired Sample t-test, is a type of
statistical test that aims to compare the averages of
two paired groups. A paired sample can be
interpreted as a sample with the same subject but
experiencing two different treatments or
measurements, namely measurements before and
after treatment. Independent sample t-test is a type
of statistical test that aims to compare the averages
of two groups that are not paired or unrelated. Not
being paired can mean that the research was
conducted on two different sample subjects. The
principle of testing this test is to look at the
differences in variations between the two groups of
data so that before testing, you must first know
whether the variances are the same (equal variance)
or the variances are different (unequal variance).
The two-average hypothesis test is used to
determine whether or not there is a difference
(similarity) in the average between two groups of
data. This test is a parametric statistical test that
must meet assumptions, i.e.: (1) data is normally
distributed; (2) data is selected randomly; and (3)
The data used is numerical data (scale and interval).
Homogeneity of variance is tested based on the
formula:
Where: Ftable = Fvalue
Data is declared to have the same variance (equal
variance) if F-Calculate < F-table, and conversely,
the data variance is declared to be unequal (unequal
variance) if F-Calculate > F-table. The difference
test is carried out using t-count as follows:
Where
This approach is used to test differences in
effects on the welfare of PEN program recipients.
The difference in welfare in question is the
profitability of SOEs. Differences in RoA and RoE
of SOE recipients of the program before and after
receiving the program. The level of welfare is
measured by measures of program recipient
profitability before and after receiving the program,
namely Return on Assets (ROA) and Return on
Equity (ROE) which shows net profitability after
interest and tax. ROA measures the rate of return on
the total value of assets, while ROE measures the
rate of return on the total value of equity from
shareholders/owners. Testing was carried out by
comparing profitability before and after SOEs
received the program.
Hypothesis:
H0: There is no significant difference in SOE
profitability before and after receiving the program.
H1: there is a significant difference in SOE
profitability before and after receiving the program.
3 Results and Discussion
3.1 Financial Performance of SOE Recipients
of the PEN Program
Financial performance data about government
assistance in the form of the PEN Program is
measured based on the ratio of return on assets
(ROA) and return on equity (ROE). ROA describes
a company's ability to utilize all the assets it owns or
controls to obtain net profit after tax. Therefore, the
information contained in ROA is an important
benchmark for investors so that they will not
hesitate when they want to invest capital. The ROE
ratio functions as a profitability ratio that provides
investors with a view of the level of effectiveness
and efficiency of company management in
managing investors' capital (equity). The higher
(lower) the ROE percentage of a company, the
better (worse) the level of effectiveness and
efficiency of the company in using its equity to earn
profits.
ROA and ROE ratios are very important for
assessing company prospects. ROA and ROE are
profitability ratios that can complement each other
in displaying a company's financial performance.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
729
Volume 21, 2024
However, if there is a too large difference
between the ROA and ROE ratios, then there is a
possibility that the company uses funding sources
from loans/debt that are greater than the equity it
has so that equity has a negative value and in turn
gives rise to a negative ROE. A negative ROA ratio
indicates the company's inability to generate profits
from the assets it manages, resulting in negative
profits (losses). Negative profit conditions and
negative equity value will result in positive ROE.
Therefore, a positive ROE ratio should be
interpreted carefully, because a positive ROE
resulting from negative profits accompanied by
negative equity will be irrelevant for making
investment decisions.
Information on ROA and ROE ratios for
external users is presented after taking into account
interest costs, taxes, depreciation, and amortization,
namely based on earnings after taxes (EAT).
However, to show operational performance, the
ROA and ROE ratios can be calculated based on
earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and
amortization (EBITDA). Therefore, the ROA and
ROE of SOE recipients of the PEN program will be
reviewed in terms of EAT (Table 3, Appendix) and
EBITDA (Table 4).
Table 3 (Appendix) shows that the profitability
of SOE recipients of PMN PEN in 2018 and 2019
(before COVID-19) as measured by after-tax ROA
and ROE tends to be positive. This shows that the
company can utilize its assets and equity to generate
profits. Likewise, the EBITDA value shows a
positive value. This means that, judging from its
operational performance, the company is still
categorized as healthy. Only PT Indonesian Export
Financing Institution (LPEI) had a negative after-tax
ROA and ROE ratio in 2019. This indicates that the
company experienced a loss after tax (negative
EAT). However, if we look at the EBITDA value
which shows a positive value, it can be stated that
the company's operational condition is still
relatively healthy.
During the COVID-19 period (2020), the
Government disbursed funds for the PEN program.
Several SOE recipients of PMN PEN have negative
EAT, such as PT Hutama Karya, PT Permodalan
Nasional Madani (PNM), and PT Waskita Karya.
However, the EBITDA value of PT Hutama Karya
and PT Permodalan Nasional Madani (PNM) is
positive, only PT Waskita Karya has a negative
EBITDA value. From 2021 to June 2022, the
company's ROA and ROE ratios tend to increase
even though they are still negative. This shows that
the level of losses experienced is decreasing,
meaning that operational performance is starting to
improve. The next recipient of the PEN Program
which has a negative ROA and ROE ratio in 2021 is
the Indonesia Tourism Development Corporation
(ITDC), however, ITDC's losses are getting smaller
and as of June 2022 ITDC's EBITDA value has
become positive. This reflects the increasingly
healthy operational conditions of ITDC with the
PEN Program.
SOEs that experienced an increase in
profitability after receiving the PEN PMN scheme
were PT Penjamin Infrastuktur Indonesia (PII), PT
Indonesian Export Financing Institution (LPEI), PT
Bio Farma, and PT Bahana Pembinaan Usaha
Indonesia (BPUI). This shows that the government's
participation in state capital for economic recovery
during the COVID-19 pandemic was able to
maintain and improve the performance of SOEs.
Increasing the performance of SOEs will be able to
contribute profits to the country and contribute to
national development.
Based on Table 4, SOEs recipients of the IP
scheme PEN program that have profitability ratios,
namely after-tax ROA and positive ROE in 2019 are
PT Kereta Api Indonesia (KAI) and PT Garuda
Indonesia. Meanwhile, Perum Perumnas, PT
Krakatau Steel, and PT Perkebunan Nusantara (PN)
III have negative profitability ratios (after-tax ROA
and ROE) and also negative EBITDA values, except
for PT PN III which has a positive EBITDA value.
The profitability of PT Krakatau Steel, PT KAI, and
PT PN III has increased after receiving the IP
scheme PEN program. Meanwhile, Perum
Perumnas' profitability remains negative from 2020
to June 2022, but the EBITDA value starts to be
positive in 2021 and 2022.
PT Garuda Indonesia experienced losses from
2020, 2021 to March 2022, which was most likely
caused by a significant decrease in passengers
during the COVID-19 pandemic; even though
revenue from passengers contributes more than 80%
of PT Garuda Indonesia's total revenue. Apart from
that, the impact of inefficiency and mismanagement
in the past has caused Garuda Indonesia to be slow
to recover. This ongoing loss reduced Garuda's
equity value, which even reached negative. Negative
equity indicates that the amount of debt is greater
than the amount of equity, in other words, Garuda
Indonesia's operational activities are mostly funded
by debt/liabilities. Moreover, the IP scheme PEN
program to PT Garuda Indonesia amounting to IDR
8.5 trillion was provided in the form of debt to the
state, namely through the issuance of Mandatory
Convertible Bonds (OWK), thereby further
increasing Garuda Indonesia's liabilities and
increasing its negative equity.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
730
Volume 21, 2024
Table 4. Data on the Financial Performance of SOE Recipients of the PEN Program through IP
No
Name of SOE
Description
Year
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
1
Perum
Perumnas
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
10,012
10,381
7,223
7,111
7,160
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
3,386
2,916
677
321
147
EAT (Billion IDR)
306
-408
-416
-356
-174
ROA
3.0541%
-3.9330%
-5.7524%
-5.0045%
-2.4354%
ROE
9.0299%
-14.0027%
-61.3709%
-110.7114%
-118.5786%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
545
-32
-94
59
1
ROA
5.4388%
-0.3107%
-1.3079%
0.8324%
0.0130%
ROE
16.0807%
-1.1063%
-13.9540%
18.4146%
0.6328%
2
PT Krakatau
Steel
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
51,063
46,498
49,175
53,847
3,893,740
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
11,602
4,911
6,329
7,450
587,437
EAT (Billion IDR)
-2,388
-7,147
319
889
78,650
ROA
-4.6764%
-15.3706%
0.6492%
1.6514%
2.0204%
ROE
-20.5813%
-145.5449%
5.0443%
11.9364%
13.3887%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
702
-1,902
1,076
3,209
118,993
ROA
1.3739%
-4.0912%
2.1884%
5.9591%
3.0568%
ROE
6.0466%
-38.7398%
17.0031%
43.0714%
20.2563%
3
Kereta Api
Indonesia
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
38,996
44,906
53,207
62,769
66,366
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
18,300
19,806
17,040
23,412
24,116
EAT (Billion IDR)
1,536
1,975
-1,736
-425
740
ROA
3.9378%
4.3982%
-3.2632%
-0.6774%
1.1150%
ROE
8.3911%
9.9722%
-10.1862%
-1.8162%
3.0683%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
4,326
4,344
1,599
1,599
2,0683
ROA
11.0938%
9.6741%
2.5481%
2.5481%
3.1439%
ROE
23.6398%
21.9342%
6.8317%
6.8317%
8.6518%
4
PT Perkebunan
Nusantara (PN)
III
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
120,418
127,458
131,683
144,626
149,853
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
53,493
49,801
53,875
65,707
69,546
EAT (Billion IDR)
281
-2,526
-1,137
4,644
3,838
ROA
0.2337%
-1.9818%
-0.8631%
3.2113%
2.5748%
ROE
0.5261%
-5.0720%
-2.1097%
7.0682%
5.5480%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
6,830
5,871
7,054
14,848
7,597
ROA
5.6722%
4.6061%
5.3566%
10.2666%
5.0700%
ROE
12.7687%
11.7885%
13.0926%
22.5975%
10.9245%
5
PT Garuda
Indonesia
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
59,232
63,012
152,193
102,633
98,676
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
9,120
10,191
-27,406
-87,184
-88,689
EAT (Billion IDR)
-3,262
91
-34,933
-59,738
-3,138
ROA
-5.5080%
0.1449%
-22.9531%
-58.2055%
-3.1801%
ROE
-35.7736%
0.8961%
n/a
n/a
n/a
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
-1,217
4,885
-4,031
3
2,375
ROA
-2.0545%
7.7522%
-2.6483%
0.0033%
2.4065%
ROE
-13.3437%
47.9324%
n/a
-0.0039%
-2.6775%
However, because of the important role of
Garuda Indonesia as a national flag carrier which is
a major player in the air transportation industry and
as a supporter of the tourism industry, this SOES
needs to get support from the Government as an
investor to restore the health of its business.
Business activities carried out by Garuda Indonesia
are also believed to have multiplier effects for other
industries, especially MSMEs in the tourism and
trade industries, especially in facilitating the
mobility of people and goods.
3.2 Results of Analysis of the Effectiveness of
the PEN Program on the Economic
Capability of Business Actors. Results of
Analysis of SOES Recipients of the PEN
Program
3.2.1 ROA and ROE Calculation Based on EAT
The results of descriptive statistical tests in Table 5
show the average value, standard deviation value,
minimum value, and maximum value of after-tax
ROA and ROE for SOES before and after receiving
the PEN program.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
731
Volume 21, 2024
Table 5. Results of the Descriptive Statistic Test
Variable
Obs.
Mean
St. Dev.
Min.
Max.
ROAbefore
13
0.01595
0.04969
-0.10024
0.105449
ROEbefore
13
0.02769
0.37564
-0.83063
0.954136
ROAafter
13
-0.02559
0.08271
-0.28113
0.045011
ROEafter
13
-0.15625
0.32582
-0.96887
0.101231
Table 6. Results of Different ROA Tests for SOEs Before and After Receiving the PEN Program
Variable
Obs.
Mean
Std. Err.
Std. Dev.
[95% Conf.
Interval]
ROAafter
13
-0.02559
0.02294
0.08271
-0.07557
0.024393
ROAbefore
13
0.01595
0.01378
0.04969
-0.01407
0.045979
diff
13
-0.04154
0.02504
0.09027
-0.09609
0.013005
Table 7. Results of Different ROE Tests for SOEs Before and After Receiving the PEN Program
Variable
Obs.
Mean
Std. Err.
Std. Dev.
[95% Conf.
Interval]
ROEafter
13
-0.02559
0.02294
0.08271
-0.07557
0.024393
ROEbefore
13
0.01595
0.01378
0.04969
-0.01407
0.045979
diff
13
-0.04154
0.02504
0.09027
-0.09609
0.013005
Table 8. Results of Regression Analysis on the Effect of PEN on ROA
ROA
Coef.
Std. Err.
Z
P>z
[95% Conf.
Interval]
pen
-0,03742
0,019147
-1,95
0,051
-0,07495
0,000103
_cons
0,014021
0,019253
0,73
0,466
-0,02372
0,051756
Table 9. Results of Regression Analysis on the Effect of PEN on ROE
ROA
Coef.
Std. Err.
Z
P>z
[95% Conf.
Interval]
pen
-0,1114
0,080247
-1,39
0,165
-0,26868
0,045885
_cons
0,024046
0,075148
0,32
0,749
-0,12324
0,171334
Based on Table 5, the average value of the SOES
ROA ratio before receiving PEN program assistance
was 0.1595 (15.95%) indicating that the average
company's ability to utilize all assets to obtain net
profit was 15.95 percent. The average ROE ratio
shows a figure of 0.2769 (27.69%), meaning that the
average ability of SOEs to obtain profit after tax
from managing equity (net assets) was 27.69 percent
before the PEN Program was rolled out.
After the PEN Program assistance was rolled out,
it appeared that the average SOE ROA ratio was
negative, namely (-)0.02559 or (-)2.559%. This
means that the SOEs experienced a loss of 2.559
percent of all assets used. A similar condition was
also experienced by the SOEs ROE ratio which
showed a negative average, namely (-) 0.16625 or (-
)16.625%. These results indicate that SOEs are
unable to generate profits with the net assets used in
operations, so the company experienced a loss of
16.62 percent of its net equity.
To determine the statistical difference between
the profitability of SOEs before and after receiving
PEN Program assistance, an analysis of the
differences in ROA and ROE of the SOEs was
carried out. The results of the different test analyses
before and after receiving the PEN program are
presented in Table 6.
Based on Table 6, there is a significant
difference in the ROA ratio of SOEs before and
after receiving the PEN program with a value of
0.013005 (smaller than 0.05), but the average ROA
ratio before the PEN program is greater than after
receiving the PEN program. Furthermore, the
difference in ROE ratio before and after the PEN
Program is shown in Table 7.
Table 7 shows that the ROE of SOES before the
PEN program was greater than the ROE after the
PEN program, but this difference was not proven to
be statistically significant.
This section describes the results of random-
effects GLS regression analysis using panel data.
The results of the random-effects GLS regression
panel for the ROA ratio with 65 observations in a
sample of 13 SOEs are presented in Table 8.
Table 8 shows that ROA before the PEN
program is higher than after the PEN program. This
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
732
Volume 21, 2024
can be seen from the coef. pen value of -0.03742
with a probability value greater than Z (P>Z =
0.051). The results of the random-effects GLS
regression ROE analysis with panel data, totaling 65
observations on 13 SOEs are presented in Table 9.
Table 9 shows that the ROE ratio of SOEs before
the PEN program was higher than after the PEN
program. This is shown by the coef.PEN of (-)
0.1114 with a probability value greater than the Z
value (P>Z=0.165).
ROA is used to evaluate operational activities to
obtain a return on investment and is a measuring
tool to assess the level of effectiveness of a
company in generating net profits through available
assets. A high ROA indicates a business has high
profits and a good level of efficiency. On the other
hand, ROE shows a measure of the efficiency of a
company's capital management seen from the
amount of profit generated from the amount of
capital or equity it owns.
Differences in the ROA and ROE ratios of SOEs
before and after receiving the PEN program were
analyzed using the difference test of two paired
sample means and random-effects GLS regression
using balanced panel data and unbalanced panel
data. The analysis shows consistent results, namely
that the ROA and ROE ratio before SOEs received
PEN program assistance was higher than after
receiving PEN program assistance.
This happened because of the 13 SOEs analyzed,
four SOEs (30.78%) reported losses in 2019 (before
COVID-19). The SOESs are LPEI, Perum
Perumnas, PT Krakatau Steel and PT PN III. In
2020 the number of SOEs experiencing losses
increased, namely seven SOEs (54%). The SOEs
that experienced losses were (1) PT Hutama Karya,
(2) PT Permodalan Nasional Madani (PNM), (3) PT
Waskita Karya, (4) Perum Perumnas, (5) PT Kereta
Api Indonesia, (6) PT Perkebunan National III and
(7) PT Garuda Indonesia. This condition causes the
ROA and ROE ratio to become negative.
After the government established the PEN
program, namely PMN PEN and IP PEN, which
were disbursed in 2020 and 2021, the ROA and
ROE ratios of SOEs have increased. However, there
are still several companies that are losing money,
but with smaller losses. The companies that are still
experiencing losses in 2021 are: (1) PT Hutama
Karya, (2) Indonesia Tourism Development
Corporation (ITDC), (3) PT Waskita Karya, (4)
Perum Perumnas, (5) PT Kereta Api Indonesia, (6)
PT Perkebunan Nasional III and (7) PT Garuda
Indonesia. PT ITDC only reported losses in 2021,
due to the government program, namely large-scale
social restrictions (PSBB), causing no tourists to
visit Indonesia.
The financial reports of PT Waskita Karya and
PT Kereta Api Indonesia up to June 2022 present
positive profit after tax so that their ROA is positive
(Table 1), even though operating profit before tax,
interest, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA)
is still negative. The operating results show a loss,
but after taking into account taxes, it becomes
positive. This implies additional value from the tax
element. A possibility that can explain this condition
is the existence of tax refunds from the government
for these SOEs.
3.2.2 ROA and ROE Calculation based on
EBITDA
The measure of profitability that shows the value
and growth opportunities of a company can be seen
from earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation,
and amortization (EBITDA). The EBITDA value
indicates the operational health of a company
without policy costs or accounting losses such as
amortization, depreciation, taxes, and interest.
EBITDA is often used to assess companies that are
very capital-intensive and require significant
depreciation/amortization schemes and debt interest
payments, including tax calculations. Significant
debt interest payments and increasing depreciation
rates often cause the income presented in the
financial statements to be negative (loss) making it
difficult to assess the company. The EBITDA
measure is used to identify the total income that can
be accessed for debt repayment. Therefore, the ROA
ratio will be calculated by comparing EBITDA and
total assets used for company operations. Likewise,
the ROE ratio is calculated by comparing EBITDA
and the company's total equity or net assets.
The descriptive statistical test results in Table 10
show the average value, standard deviation value,
minimum value, and maximum value of ROA and
ROE for SOEs before and after receiving the PEN
program.
The average value of the SOES ROA ratio before
the PEN program was 0.049684 (4.97%), meaning
that the total assets owned by the company could
generate profits before interest, tax, depreciation,
and amortization of 4.97 percent. The average ROE
ratio before the PEN program was 0.209122
(20.91%). This shows that the equity or net assets
owned by the company can produce profits before
interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization of 20.91
percent.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
733
Volume 21, 2024
Table 10. Descriptive Statistics
Variable
Obs.
Mean
St. Dev.
Min.
Max.
ROAbefore
13
0.049684
0.03740
-0.01359
0.138663
ROEbefore
13
0.209122
0.31849
0.05099
1.251937
ROAafter
13
0.027550
0.02271
-0.01288
0.068977
ROEafter
13
0.076333
0.10256
-0.08042
0.267769
Table 11. Testing the Differences in SOE’s ROA Before and After Receiving PEN
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Err.
Std. Dev.
[95% Conf.
Interval]
ROAafter
13
0.02755
0.006299
0.02271
0.013825
0.041275
ROAbefore
13
0.04968
0.010373
0.03740
0.027084
0.072284
diff
13
-0.02213
0.011446
0.04127
-0.047070
0.002805
Table 12. Testing the Differences in SOE’s ROE Before and After Receiving PEN
Variable
Obs
Mean
Std. Err.
Std. Dev.
[95% Conf.
Interval]
ROEafter
13
0.076333
0.028444
0.102557
0.014359
0.138308
ROEbefore
13
0.209122
0.088334
0.318493
0.016658
0.401585
diff
13
-0.132790
0.081077
0.292329
-0.30944
0.043864
Table 13. Results of Regression Analysis on the Effect of PEN on ROA
roa
Coef.
Std. Err.
Z
P>z
[95% Conf.
Interval]
pen
-0.02195
0.008484
-2.59
0.01
-0.03858
-0.00532
_cons
0.049653
0.007649
6.49
0
0.034661
0.064645
Table 14. Results of Regression Analysis on the Effect of PEN on ROE
roa
Coef.
Std. Err.
Z
P>z
[95% Conf.
Interval]
pen
-0.12043
0.048683
-2.47
0.013
-0.21585
-0.02501
_cons
0.212496
0.053719
3.96
0
0.107209
0.317783
The average value of the SOE ROA ratio after
receiving the PEN program decreased to 0.027550
(2.76%), meaning that the assets owned by the
company were only able to generate profits before
interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization of 2.76
percent. On the other hand, the average ROE ratio is
relatively high, reaching 0.076333 (7.633%). This
shows that SOE equity after receiving the PEN
program was able to generate profits before interest,
tax, depreciation, and amortization of 7.633 percent.
To find out whether there is a difference in ROA
and ROE of SOEs before and after receiving the
PEN program, an analysis was carried out using a
difference test. The results of the different tests are
presented in Table 11 and Table 12.
Based on Table 11, there is a significant
difference between SOEs ROA before and after
receiving the PEN program with a value of
0.002805 < 0.05. The average ROA of SOEs before
receiving the PEN program is greater than after
receiving the PEN program.
Table 12 shows that the ROE of state-owned
companies before PEN was greater than the ROE
after receiving the PEN program. There is a
significant difference between SOEs ROE before
and after PEN recipients, namely 0.043 < 0.05. The
PEN program is given to SOES as a stimulant to
restore the performance and operations of SOEs
which have experienced weakening due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The results of random-effects GLS regression-
panel ROA with 65 observations on 13 sample
SOEs are presented in Table 13.
Table 13 shows that the ROA ratio was higher
before SOES received PEN program assistance
compared to after the PEN program. This can be
seen from the coef.pen value of -0.02195 with a
probability value greater than Z (P>Z = 0.01). These
results are consistent with test results using
unbalanced panel data. Random-effects GLS
regression ROE analysis with panel data, 65
observations and a sample of 13 SOEs also shows
consistent results, as presented in Table 14.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
734
Volume 21, 2024
Table 14 shows that the ROE ratio of SOEs
before the PEN program was higher than after
receiving the PEN program. This can be seen from
the coef.pen of (-) 0.12043 with a probability value
greater than the Z value (P>Z=0.013).
Differences in the ROA and ROE ratios of SOEs
before and after receiving PEN Program assistance
were analyzed using the difference test of two
paired sample means and random-effects GLS
regression using balanced panel data. ROA and
ROE are calculated by comparing EBITDA and
total assets for ROA, and EBITDA and total equity
for ROE. The analysis shows consistent results,
namely that the ROA and ROE ratio before SOEs
received the PEN program was higher than after the
PEN program.
Of the 13 SOESs analyzed, two SOEs (15.38%),
namely Perum Perumnas and PT Krakatau Steel
reported negative EBITDA in 2019 (before Covid-
19). In 2020 the number of SOEs experiencing
negative EBITDA increased, namely four SOESs
(38.78%). The SOESs that experienced negative
EBITDA in 2020 were PT Waskita Karya, Perum
Perumnas, PT Kereta Api Indonesia, and PT Garuda
Indonesia. Apart from negative EBITDA, PT
Garuda also has a negative equity value.
After the disbursement of the PEN program,
namely PMN PEN and IP PEN in 2020 and 2021,
on average the ROA and ROE ratios have positive
values. However, there are still SOESs that have
negative ROA and ROE ratios, which are caused by
negative EBITDA (PT Waskita Karya and PT
ITDC). Meanwhile, PT Garuda Indonesia has a
positive ROA, but the ROE is negative because the
equity value is negative. A negative equity value
indicates that the loan amount is greater than the
amount of equity owned. This can happen because
the IP-PEN received by PT Garuda Indonesia is in
the form of a loan in the form of the issuance of
Mandatory Convertible Bonds.
Apart from these conditions, generally, it can be
said that the PEN Program can increase the
profitability of SOEs, where on average the
EBITDA figure, which is a benchmark for
operational performance/profit, has increased,
although not proportional to the increase in ROA
and ROE. This is caused by policy costs (such as
interest costs, depreciation, and amortization) which
reduce EBITDA and make EAT smaller, while the
asset and equity values increase due to receipt of the
PEN Program.
3.2.3 Comparison of the Performance of SOES
Recipients of the PEN Program with SOES
Clusters
To create a healthy and competitive business
ecosystem, SOES are grouped according to the type
of core business, value chain, and supply chain into
certain clusters. There are 12 SOES grouping
clusters, namely: (1) Energy, Oil and Gas Industry
Cluster; (2) Mineral and Coal Industry Cluster; (3)
Insurance Services and Pension Fund Cluster; (4)
Plantation and Forestry Industry Cluster; (5)
Telecommunications and Media Cluster; (6)
Fertilizer and Food Industry Cluster; (7) Tourism
and Support Cluster; (8) Health Industry Cluster; (9)
Manufacturing and Survey Industry Cluster; (10)
Infrastructure Services Cluster; (11) Logistics
Services Cluster; and (12) Financial Services
Cluster.
To determine the impact of PEN on the
performance of the recipient SOES, it is necessary
to carry out a performance evaluation by comparing
the performance of the SOES with the performance
of the cluster in question. The evaluation was
carried out by comparing the earnings after tax
(EAT) growth rate of PEN recipient SOEs with the
EAT growth rate of their clusters. If the EAT of
SOESs receiving PEN shows a growth rate that is
higher than the growth rate of EAT clusters, then the
PEN Program can be said to be effective,
conversely, if the EAT growth of PEN Recipient
SOESs is lower than the growth of EAT clusters
then the PEN Program is not yet effective. Table 15
presents this comparison.
Table 15 shows that the average growth in
Earnings After Tax (EAT) for all clusters is higher
than the average growth in EAT for SOEs PEN
Program Revenues in the cluster concerned. The
Infrastructure Services Cluster has an average EAT
growth of 108% from 2021 to June 2022, while the
average EAT growth of SOEs Recipients of the
PEN Program in this cluster only reached 53%. Not
a single SOE recipient of the PEN Program has
EAT growth exceeding its cluster. This means that
for the Infrastructure Services Cluster, the PEN
Program is not able to increase the EAT of the
Recipient SOES, at least the same as the cluster
average. Of the three SOE recipients of the PEN
Program, the highest performance belongs to PT
Waskita Karya, with an average EAT growth of
98% in the period 2021 to June 2022.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
735
Volume 21, 2024
Table 15. Comparison of Earnings After Tax of BUMN Clusters with BUMN Recipients of PEN in 2021 –
June 2022
No.
Cluster and Name of SOE
Mean of EAT (Billions IDR)
Mean of EAT Growth
1
Cluster of Infrastructure Services
-328.20
108%
PT Hutama Karya
-1.534.35
28%
PT Waskita Karya
-772.41
98%
Perum Perumnas
-265.11
33%
BUMN Penerima PEN
53%
2
Cluster of Financial Services
66,037.29
28%
PT Penjamin Infrastuktur Indonesia (PII)
651.71
45%
PT Permodalan Nasional Madani (PNM)
651.71
45%
PT Lembaga Pembiayaan Ekspor Indonesia (LPEI)
214.08
-28%
BUMN Penerima PEN
21%
3
Cluster of Tourism and Supporting Services
-34,954.26
3%
Indonesia Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC)
-127.23
-384%
PT Garuda Indonesia
-3,557.97
59%
BUMN Penerima PEN
-163%
4
Cluster of Medical Services
2,341.91
531%
PT Bio Farma
2,344.93
499%
5
Cluster of Manufacture Industry and Survey
814.64
493%
PT Krakatau Steel
995.17
101%
6
Cluster of Logistic Services
2,987.39
281%
Kereta Api Indonesia
157.38
175%
7
Cluster of Plantation and Forestry Industry
9,231.32
1389%
PT Perkebunan Nusantara (PN) III
8,502.70
492%
8
Cluster of Insurance Services and Pension Fund
7,669.45
102%
PT Bahana Pembinaan Usaha Indonesia (BPUI)
2,667.76
8%
Better performance was demonstrated by the
Financial Services Cluster, where two SOE
recipients of the PEN Program achieved average
EAT growth above the average achievement of their
clusters, namely PT Penjamin Infrastruktur
Indonesia (PII) and PT Permodalan Nasional
Madani (PNM). On the other hand, PT Indonesian
Export Financing Institution (LPEI) is still
experiencing negative EAT growth, amounting to -
28%. However, on average, the growth rate of EAT
SOEs receiving the PEN Program (21%) has not
been able to match the cluster average (28%). The
best performance seen from the average EAT
growth was achieved by the Plantation and Forestry
Industry Cluster, which reached 1,389%. In this
cluster, one SOEs received the PEN Program,
namely PT Perkebunan Nusantara (PN) III with an
average EAT growth of 492%.
The lowest average EAT growth was
experienced by the Tourism and Support Services
Cluster, where the Cluster's achievement was only
3% and the average achievement of SOEs
Recipients of the PEN Program was even much
lower, namely -163%. The Indonesia Tourism
Development Corporation (ITDC) slumped with an
average growth of -384% from 2021 to June 2022.
This shows that the COVID-19 pandemic has hit the
tourism industry in Indonesia hard, but quite a good
performance was achieved by PT Garuda Indonesia.
Even though it has been in the public spotlight for
its previous performance, with losses suffered from
before the pandemic until 2021, between 2021 and
mid-2022 Garuda Indonesia was able to achieve an
average positive EAT growth of 59%, which is even
much higher than in the cluster, which is only 3%.
This shows a positive signal for improving Garuda
Indonesia's economic performance, as part of the
Tourism and Supporting Services Cluster, which
will bring multiplier effects to other industries,
especially MSMEs in the tourism and trade
industries, especially in facilitating the mobility of
people and goods.
Other clusters, namely the Health Industry,
Manufacturing and Survey Industry, Logistics
Services, Plantation and Forestry Industry, as well
as the Insurance Services and Pension Funds
Cluster, achieved average EAT growth above the
average for SOEs receiving the PEN Program in
their respective clusters. Even though the average
growth of EAT SOEs receiving the PEN Program
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
736
Volume 21, 2024
has not exceeded the cluster average, all of them
have recorded positive values, except for PT LPEI
and ITDC. Thus, it can be said that the PEN
Program has had an impact on achieving positive
EAT growth in almost all recipient SOEs, and this
happened only within a year after the PEN Program
was disbursed. It seems that better performance will
be achieved by SOEs in a longer time horizon in the
future.
4 Conclusion
Please, follow our instructions faithfully, otherwise,
you have to resubmit your full paper. This will
enable us to maintain uniformity in the conference
proceedings as well as in the post-conference
luxurious books by the Press. Thank you for your
cooperation and contribution. We are looking
forward to seeing you at the Conference.
The analysis results show that the PEN Program
has a positive impact on SOEs, as seen from SOEs
ROA. The ROA value before the pandemic turned
out to be greater than the ROA value during the
COVID-19 pandemic, so the ongoing PEN Program
has not been able to increase significantly.
However, it can be said that the PEN Program has
been able to protect the operations of SOE recipients
of the PEN program. Apart from that, the PEN
Program has had an impact on achieving positive
EAT growth in almost all recipient SOEs, and this
happened only a year after the PEN Program was
disbursed. It seems that better performance will be
achieved by SOEs in a longer time horizon in the
future.
The PEN program for SOEs needs to be re-
evaluated, especially for SOEs that had the potential
to perform poorly before the pandemic. For SOEs,
disbursement from the PEN program is still
relatively small. This is because for some SOEs,
especially those that have been experiencing
financial difficulties since before the pandemic,
providing additional PEN programs is considered an
additional burden (if it is recorded as debt on the
balance sheet). So that PEN can be selected in the
form of assignments for SOEs that are relatively
strong and stable. Apart from that, the use of funds
from the PEN Program also needs to be accounted
for and its use monitored so that it has a real impact
on SOEs.
Acknowledgement:
Thanks are conveyed to the Republic of Indonesia
Financial and Development Supervisory Agency
(BPKP) for facilitating the implementation of this
study as stipulated in contract number
PE.06.02/PRJ-443/LB/2022 –
B/165/UN.14.2.7/HK.07.00/2022.
References:
[1] Dergiades, T., Milas, C., Mossialos, E.,
Panagiotidis, T. Effectiveness of government
policies in response to the first COVID-19
outbreak, PLOS Glob Public Health, Vol.2,
2022, No.(4): e0000242.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000242
[2] Kurhayadi. Government Policies in Handling
and Overcoming The Problems of The Covid-
19 Pandemic in Indonesia. Scientific Journal
of Economic Management and Accounting
(Jurnal Ilmiah Manajemen Ekonomi dan
Akuntansi), Vol. 5, 2021, No.1, pp.1937-1947.
[3] Zubarita. Juridical Analysis of Government
Regulations in Lieu of Law no. 1 of 2020
concerning Covid-19 Financial Policy
Regarding Budget Use during the Pandemic
(Analisis Yuridis Peraturan Pemerintah
Pengganti Undang-Undang No. 1 Tahun 2020
Tentang Kebijakan Keuangan Covid-19
Terhadap Penggunaan Anggaran di Masa
Pandemi). Lex Renaissance, Vol.2, 2022,
No.7, 265-280.
[4] Roziqin, A., Mas’udi, S.Y.F., Sihidi, I.T. An
analysis of Indonesian government policies
against COVID-19. Public Administration
and Policy, Vol. 24, 2021, No. 1, pp. 92-107.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PAP-08-2020-0039
[5] Fitriani, R., Hakim, L., Danar, O.R. Handling
Covid-19: A Study of Public Policy in
Indonesia. WACANA, Journal of Social and
Humanities (Jurnal Sosial dan Humaniora),
Vol.24, 2021, No.2, pp.59-70.
[6] Payappo, R.W. Impact of the National
Economic Recovery (PEN) Policy in The
Economic Growth of The Province of Maluku
Post-Covid-19. Budapest International
Research and Critics Institute-Journal
(BIRCI-Journal), Vol.5, 2022, No.2, 17160-
17171.
[7] Aziz, M.F., Handayani, S., Nasution, H.M.A.
Juridical Study of Government Investment in
Saving Tourism MSMEs Due to the Covid-19
Pandemic (Telaah Yuridis Investasi
Pemerintah Menyelamatkan UMKM
Pariwisata Akibat Pandemi Covid-19).
Machinery Journal (Jurnal Jentera), Vol.3,
2020, No.1, pp.202-215.
[8] Hikmatullah, Kartini. Financial Distress
Analysis of State-Owned Enterprises
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
737
Volume 21, 2024
(BUMN) Listed on the Indonesian Stock
Exchange Before and During the COVID-19
Pandemic, Selekta Management: Business &
Management Student Journal (Analisis
Financial Distress Badan Usaha Milik Negara
(BUMN) yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek
Indonesia Sebelum dan Pada Saat Pandemi
COVID-19 Selekta Manajemen: Jurnal
Mahasiswa Bisnis & Manajemen), Vol.01,
2022, No.05, 132-145.
[9] Asian Development Bank. Unlocking The
Economic and Social Value of Indonesia’s
State-Owned Enterprises. 2022.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/SPR220442-2
[10] Oktaryal, A., Arif, A., Yudhistira, B., Albajili,
C., Hasan, M., Ayuni, Q. Critical Notes from
Two Years of Handling the Covid-19
Pandemic: Collection of Expert Opinions
(Catatan Kritis Dua Tahun Penanganan
Pandemi Covid-19: Kumpulan Pendapat
Keahlian). Indonesia Corruption Watch, 2022.
[11] Ontowiryo, J.P., Aulia, M.R. Outstanding
Government Capital Participation in Oil and
Gas Infrastructure, Surveillance Bulletin
(Outstanding Penyertaan Modal Pemerintah
Infrastruktur Migas, Buleting Pengawasan),
Vol. 18, 2021, No.1, pp.17-22.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
738
Volume 21, 2024
APPENDIX
Table 3. Data on the Financial Performance of SOE Recipients of the PEN Program through PMN
No
Name of SOE
Description
Year
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
1
PT Hutama
Karya
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
64,533
91,648
110,990
132,918
127,950
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
10,616
22,959
31,799
54,809
54,148
EAT (Billion IDR)
2,276
2,023
-2,061
-2,408
-660
ROA
3.528%
2.207%
-1.857%
-1.812%
-0.516%
ROE
21.444%
8.810%
-6.481%
-4.394%
-1.220%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
2,827
2,896
1,338
3,028
1,677
ROA
4.3806%
3.1598%
1.2052%
2.2779%
1.3108%
ROE
26.6295%
12.6135%
4.2064%
5.5241%
3.0974%
2
PT Penjamin
Infrastruktur
Indonedia (PII)
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
10,621
11,111
13,547
14,144
n/a
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
10,481
10,972
13,343
13,789
n/a
EAT (Billion IDR)
471
529
621
625
n/a
ROA
4.435%
4.765%
4.581%
4.422%
n/a
ROE
4.495%
4.825%
4.651%
4.536%
n/a
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
488
608
636
602
n/a
ROA
4.5961%
5.4711%
4.6931%
4.2591%
n/a
ROE
4.6576%
5.5406%
4.7648%
4.3690%
n/a
3
PT Permodalan
Nasional
Madani (PNM)
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
17,553
24,907
31,665
43,712
45,470
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
1,894
2,864
5,587
6,438
6,894
EAT (Billion IDR)
2,276
2,023
-2,061
845
458
ROA
12.9691%
8.1207%
-6.5081%
1.9334%
1.0079%
ROE
120.2181%
70.6092%
-36.8861%
13.1273%
6.6479%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
2,827
2,896
1,338
3,558
1,989
ROA
16.1055%
11.6270%
4.2241%
8.1387%
4.3739%
ROE
149.2920%
101.0955%
23.9421%
55.2603%
28.8499%
4
PT Lembaga
Pembiayaan
Ekspor
Indonesia
(LPEI)
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
120,071
108,702
92.085
89,041
88,438
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
21,189
18,937
24,797
30,120
30,122
EAT (Billion IDR)
172
-4,711
288
387
41
ROA
0.1430%
-4.3337%
0.3132%
0.4351%
0.0461%
ROE
0.8102%
-24.8768%
1.1630%
1.2862%
0.1353%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
5,574
119
4,435
3,575
1,466
ROA
4.6421%
0.1095%
4.8167%
4.0146%
1.6576%
ROE
26.3049%
0.6288%
17.8873%
11.8678%
4.8666%
5
Indonesia
Tourism
Development
Corporation
(ITDC)
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
1,847
2,007
2,982
5,747
5,664
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
1,498
1,528
2,055
2,353
2,263
EAT (Billion IDR)
73
43
23
-164
-91
ROA
3.9549%
2.1611%
0.7701%
-2.8523%
-1.5985%
ROE
4.8711%
2.8394%
1.1175%
-6.9654%
-4.0019%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
103
106
53
-70
55
ROA
5.5903%
5.2695%
1.7892%
-1.2108%
0.9730%
ROE
6.8938%
6.9234%
2.5963%
-2.9568%
2.4358%
6
PT Bio Farma
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
7,401
27,647
32,693
40,444
35,651
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
5,963
14,066
15,841
17,381
17,912
EAT (Billion IDR)
543
356
289
1,966
379
ROA
7.3397%
1.2875%
0.8846%
4.8619%
1.0619%
ROE
9.1102%
2.5305%
1.8255%
11.3130%
2.1135%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
456
1,213
1,206
3,836
899
ROA
6.1640%
4.3891%
3.6882%
9.4843%
2.5214%
ROE
7.6509%
8.6267%
7.6116%
22.0685%
5.0186%
7
PT Bahana
Pembinaan
Usaha
Indonesia
(BPUI)
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
n/a
72,808
88,105
124,227
142,432
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
n/a
38,661
45,547
42,214
40,635
EAT (Billion IDR)
n/a
3,658
2,179
3,840
1,495
ROA
n/a
5.0247%
2.4737%
3.0914%
1.0497%
ROE
n/a
9.4627%
4.7850%
9.0974%
3.6794%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
n/a
3,658
2,179
5,244
1,959
ROA
n/a
5.0247%
2.4737%
4.2209%
1.3752%
ROE
n/a
9.4627%
4.7850%
12.4211%
4.8203%
8
PT Waskita
Karya
Total Assets (Billion IDR)
124,392
122,589
105,589
103,602
97,144
Total Equity (Billion IDR)
28,887
29,118
16,578
15,461
19,937
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
739
Volume 21, 2024
No
Name of SOE
Description
Year
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
EAT (Billion IDR)
4,620
1,029
-9,496
-1,839
294
ROA
3.7137%
0.8393%
-8.9931%
-1.7748%
0.3026%
ROE
15.9918%
3.5335%
-57.2806%
-11.8924%
1.4742%
EBITDA (Billion IDR)
6,343
4,131
-3,318
-334
-389
ROA
5.0992%
3.3701%
-3.1420%
-0.3226%
-0.4004%
ROE
21.9578%
14.1882%
-20.0128%
-2.1615%
-1.9509%
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
- Amdi Veri Darma, contributed by providing ideas
and formulating goals and directions, as well as
providing sources related to study materials.
- Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari carried out data curation,
including data collection, and coordinated project
administration.
- Eka Ardhani Sisdyani compiled the methodology
and carried out a formal analysis of data related to
government capital participation (PMN).
- Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi carried out a formal
analysis of data related to government investment
(IP), and validated and visualized the results of the
data analysis.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
This study was funded by the Republic of Indonesia
Financial and Development Supervisory Agency
(BPKP), stipulated in contract number
PE.06.02/PRJ-443/LB/2022 –
B/165/UN.14.2.7/HK.07.00/2022.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2024.21.61
Amdi Veri Darma, Ni Putu Wiwin Setyari,
Eka Ardhani Sisdyani, Ni Made Dwi Ratnadi
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
740
Volume 21, 2024
