Analysis of the Effect of Non-Performing Loan, Return on Assets, Return on Equity and Size on Banking Liquidity Risk (Case Study on Conventional Banks Registered in IDX period 2016 – 2020)
Abstract
In the economy of a country, banking has a big part to do. Banking plays an important role in lending in public and private areas. The function of banking as an intermediary, which the bank is useful as an intermediary between the parties who are sufficient to those in need. This research is focused on areas that have an effect on liquidity risk in banks. The purpose of this research is nothing but to analyze the securities of NPL, ROA, ROE and Size to liquidity risk in banks listing in IDX for the period 2016-2020. The samples used in the research of all banks, both state-owned (SOE) and National Private Banks in Indonesia are recognized in BI from 2016 to 2020. From the criteria obtained by 40 banks, the method used is purposive sampling. The method of analysis used in this research is linear regression, which is tested through classical assumptions with normality, multicollinearity, autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity. The results showed that roa and ROE variables have a good and significant effect on liquidity risk. Medium variable NPL and Size have an adverse and insignificant effect on liquidity risk.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdul-Rahman, A., Sulaiman, A. A., & Mohd Said, N. L. H. (2018). Does Financing Structure Affects Bank Liquidity Risk? Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 52, 26–39.
Abdullah, A., & Khan, A. Q. (2012). Liquidity Risk Management: A Comparative Study between Domestic and Foreign Banks in Pakistan. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 6(1), 61–72.
Arthesa, Ade. 2006. Bank dan Lembaga Keuangan Lainnya. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
Azhary, A., & Muharam, H. (2017). Analisis faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi Risiko Likuiditas pada Bank Konvensional (Studi pada Bank yang termasuk Badan Usaha Milik Pemerintah dan Bank Asing di Indonesia dan Malaysia periode tahun 2011 sampai dengan 2015). Diponegoro Journal of Management, 6(4), 90-101.
Bani, F., & Yaya, R. (2016). Risiko Likuiditas pada Perbankan Konvensional dan Syariah di Indonesia. Jurnal Riset Akuntansi dan Bisnis 16(1), 1–26.
Effendi, K. A., & Disman, D. (2017). Liquidity risk: Comparison between Islamic and conventional banking. European Research Studies Journal, 20(2), 308–318.
Ghenimi, A., & Omri, M. A. B. (2015). Liquidity risk management: A comparative study between Islamic and conventional banks. Journal of Business Management and Economics, 3(6), 25-30.
Iqbal, A. (2016). Liquidity Risk Management : A Comparative Study betwen Conventional and Islamic Banks of Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(5), 54–64.
Jaara, O. O., Jaara, B. O., Shamieh, J., & Fendi, U. A. (2017). Liquidity Risk Exposure in Islamic and Conventional Banks. Journal International Of Economics And financial Issues, 7(6), 16–26.
Muharam, H., & Kurnia, H. P. (2016). Liquidity Risk on Banking Industry: Comparative Study Between Islamic Bank and Conventional Bank in Indonesia. Al-Iqtishad: Journal of Islamic Economics, 5(2).
Nishanthini, A., & Meerajancy, J. (2015). Trade-Off between Liquidity and Profitability : A Comparative Study between State Banks and Private Banks in Sri Lanka. Research of Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(7), 78–86.
Pandia, F. (2012). Manajemen dana dan kesehatan bank. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Rahman, M. L., & Banna, S. H. (2016). Liquidity Risk Management: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks in Bangladesh. Journal of Business and Technology (Dhaka), 10(2), 18–35.
Roman, A., & Şargu, A. C. (2014). Banks Liquidity Risk Analysis in the New European Union Member Countries: Evidence from Bulgaria and Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15(14), 569–576.
Sukmana, R., & Suryaningtyas, S. (2016). Determinants of Liquidity Risk in Indonesian Islamic and Conventional Banks: A Panel Regression. Al-Iqtishad: Journal of Islamic Economics, 8(2), 187–200.
View Counter: Abstract - 734 and PDF - 987
