A Study Comparative of PSI, PSI-TOPSIS, and PSI-MABAC Methods in Analyzing the Financial Performance of State-Owned Enterprises Companies Listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2298/YJOR240115017WKeywords:
SOEs, MCDM, Hybrid MCDM, ranking analysis, financial ratiosAbstract
This research provides deeper insight into the advantages and disadvantages of each MCDM method in the context of evaluating SOE performance rankings. This research also shows the peformance of PSI which is used singly and integrated with other MCDM methods to determine the company’s financial health. Financial health can be reviewed through the company’s financial performance based on its financial ratios. The financial ratio criteria used include Current Ratio (CR), Debt to Equity Ratio (DER), Total Asset Turnover (TATO), and Return on Asset (ROA) as the basis for ranking. The Preference Selection Index (PSI) method is used to determine the weight of criteria and analyze the company's ranking through the identified criteria, while the Preference Selection Index-Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (PSI-TOPSIS) and Preference Selection Index-Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison methods (PSI-MABAC) is used to continue the weighting process on the PSI method with the results of the rankings of state-owned companies listed on the IDX. The Spearman rank correlation was determined to compare the PSI, PSI-TOPSIS, and PSI-MABAC methods. The results of the comparative analysis showed that PSI-TOPSIS and PSI-MABAC had a greater correlation compared to PSI.References
V. S. Panicker, R. S. Upadhyayula, and S. Sivakumar, “Internationalization of hybrid state-owned enterprises from emerging markets: Institutional investors as enablers,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 151, pp. 409-422, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.018.
K. Szarzec, Á. Dombi, and P. Matuszak, “State-owned enterprises and economic growth: Evidence from the post-Lehman period,” Economic Modelling, vol. 99, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2021.03.009.
E. W. Astami, G. Tower, R. Rusmin, and J. Neilson, “The effect of privatisation on performance of state-owned-enterprises in Indonesia,” Asian Review of Accounting, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 5-19, 2010. doi: 10.1108/13217341011045971.
V. Dahoklory, “Dinamika Pengelolaan Keuangan BUMN Perihal ‘Dilema’ Antara Kerugian Negara Ataukah Kerugian Bisnis,” Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 349, 2020. doi: 10.33331/rechtsvinding.v9i3.457.
H. Borhan, R. Naina Mohamed, and N. Azmi, “The impact of financial ratios on the financial performance of a chemical company,” World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 154-160, 2014. doi: 10.1108/WJEMSD-07-2013-0041.
L. A. Jackson and D. Singh, “Environmental rankings and financial performance: An analysis of firms in the US food and beverage supply chain,” Tourism Management Perspectives, vol. 14, pp. 25-33, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2015.02.002.
R. Mao, “Verify the Relationship Between a Company’s Earning per Share, Return on Equity, Return on Asset, Sales Growth, Price to Earning Ratio, Current Ratio, Gross Profit Margin, Quick Ratio, Asset Turnover and Its Stock Price,” SHS Web of Conferences, vol. 163, p. 03003, 2023. doi: 10.1051/shsconf/202316303003.
M. Education, “The Influence of Current Ratio, Debt to Equity Ratio and Company Size on Return On Assets,” Journal not specified, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1702-1709, 2021.
T. N. Nariswari and N. M. Nugraha, “Profit Growth: Impact of Net Profit Margin, Gross Profit Margin and Total Assets Turnover,” International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 87-96, 2020. doi: 10.20525/ijfbs.v9i4.937.
H. Wang, W. Wang, and S. E. A. Alhaleh, “Mixed ownership and financial investment: Evidence from Chinese state-owned enterprises,” Economic Analysis and Policy, vol. 70, pp. 159-171, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2021.02.006.
P. J. Gudiel Pineda, J. J. H. Liou, C. C. Hsu, and Y. C. Chuang, “An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance,” Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 68, pp. 103-117, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.06.003.
S. Greco, E. Matthias, and F. Jose Rui, Multiple Criteria Decision State of the Art Surveys, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.springer.com/series/6161
Y. Li, X. He, L. Martínez, J. Zhang, D. Wang, and X. A. Liu, “Comparative analysis of three categories of multi-criteria decision-making methods,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 238, p. 121824, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121824.
K. Maniya and M. G. Bhatt, “A selection of material using a novel type decision-making method: Preference selection index method,” Materials and Design, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 1785-1789, 2010. doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.11.020.
D. P. Miloš Madić, J. Antucheviciene, and M. Radovanović, “Determination of laser cutting process conditions using the preference selection index method,” Optics and Laser Technology, vol. 89, pp. 214-220, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.optlastec.2016.10.005.
Asian Development Bank, Unlocking the Economic and Social Value of Indonesia’s State-Owned Enterprises, Dec. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/843421/economic-social-value-indonesia-state-owned-enterprises.pdf
M. Mahrani and N. Soewarno, “The effect of good corporate governance mechanism and corporate social responsibility on financial performance with earnings management as mediating variable,” Asian Journal of Accounting Research, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 41-60, 2018. doi: 10.1108/AJAR-06-2018-0008.
B. N. Lalithchandra and N. Rajendhiran, “Liquidity ratio: An important financial metrics,” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1113-1114, 2021.
C.-L. Hwang and K. Yoon, “Basic Concepts and Foundations,” in Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications, pp. 16-57, 1981. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_2.
F. Ciardiello and A. Genovese, “A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods,” Annals of Operations Research, vol. 325, no. 2, pp. 967-994, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s10479-023-05339-w.
D. Pamučar and G. Ćirović, “The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC),” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 3016-3028, 2015. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057.
J. Wang, G. Wei, C. Wei, and Y. Wei, “MABAC method for multiple attribute group decision under q-rung orthopair fuzzy environment,” Defence Technology, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.dt.2019.06.019.
Y. Xue, J. You, X. Lai, and H. Liu, “An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information,” Applied Soft Computing Journal, vol. 38, pp. 703-713, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2015.10.010.
W. Liang, G. Zhao, H. Wu, and B. Dai, “Risk assessment of rockburst via an extended MABAC method under fuzzy environment,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, vol. 83, pp. 533-544, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.09.037.
S. Yadav, V. K. Pathak, and S. Gangwar, “A novel hybrid TOPSIS-PSI approach for material selection in marine applications,” Sādhanā - Academy Proceedings in Engineering Sciences, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 1-12, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s12046-018-1020-x.
A. Siva Bhaskar and A. Khan, “Comparative analysis of hybrid MCDM methods in material selection for dental applications,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 209, p. 118268, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118268.
A. E. Torkayesh, E. B. Tirkolaee, A. Bahrini, D. Pamucar, and A. Khakbaz, “A systematic literature review of MABAC method and applications: An outlook for sustainability and circularity,” Informatica, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 415-448, 2023. doi: 10.15388/23-INFOR511.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) YUJOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
