How to cite:

Cariniah, Lasminiasih. (2022). Financial Performance Analysis Using

the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance, Earnings, Capital

(RGEC) Method. Journal Eduvest. Vol 2(4): 806-815

E-ISSN:

2775-3727

Published by:

https://greenpublisher.id/

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Financial Performance Analysis Using the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance,

Earnings, Capital (RGEC) Method 807

KEYWORDS

The economy in Indonesia at this time cannot be separated from financial services

bank service users can see whether the bank is good or not, and can increase the interest of

bank service users from the community, entrepreneurs, creditors and other bank service

users (Santoso, n.d.).

Financial statements are one form that can be used to assess the company's

performance whether the company is in good condition or not. The purpose of financial

statement analysis is to assist users in estimating the company's future by comparing,

evaluating, and analyzing trends from various aspects of the company's finances (Bambang

Wahyudiono & MM, 2014).

Financial performance is an analysis carried out to see the extent to which a company

has implemented it using financial implementation rules properly and correctly (Fahmi,

meant an improvement from the previous method by adding a factor called Sensitivity to

Market Risks so that it was claimed by the term CAMELS (Wardayati & Sayekti, 2021).

Due to the rapid development of the national banking system, which resulted in Bank

Indonesia changing the method of assessing the soundness of banks, Bank Indonesia issued

a new regulation regarding the assessment of bank soundness using a risk approach (Risk-

Based Bank Rating) which was set on October 25, 2011 which includes four factors,

namely the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance (GCG), Earnings (Profitability), and

Capital which is known as RGEC. RGEC is a method of assessing bank financial

performance based on Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 13/1/PBI/2011 regarding the

assessment of financial performance at commercial banks (Shanjaya & Marlius, 2017).

as many as 25% of Indonesian adults have digital bank accounts by 2021(Mujiburrahman,

2021). This figure reaches 47,722,913 adults in Indonesia. In accordance with Bank

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2 Number 4, April 2022

808 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

Indonesia data, the value of digital transactions in 2021 on an annual basis (yoy) will be

IDR 17,901.76 trillion, an increase of 39.39%.

PT Bank Capital Indonesia Tbk (Bank Capital) is one of the financial institutions in

Indonesia which is engaged in business activities in the banking sector. Bank Capital has

carried out a digital transformation, namely the availability of mobile banking and internet

The purpose of this study was to compare the level of bank soundness at PT Bank

Capital Indonesia Tbk and PT Bank Jago Tbk for the 2018-2020 period from the aspects

of Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance, Earnings, Capital.

The object of research used is PT Bank Capital Indonesia Tbk and PT Bank Jago

Tbk, which have published their financial statements for the 2018-2020

period(NurKhikmah, 2021). The type of data used is quantitative data, which contains

numbers ranging from collection, processing, and results that are dominated by numbers.

Bank Jago Tbk or also through the official website of the IDX(Anggadya & Shahadat, n.d.).

The analytical technique used is a technique using Bank Indonesia Regulation

Number 13/1/PBI/2011 concerning the Assessment of Commercial Bank Soundness Levels

using a risk approach (Risk-based Bank Rating) with an assessment coverage of the

following factors:

1. Risk Profile

a) Credit Risk

b). Liquidity Risk

Financial Performance Analysis Using the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance,

Earnings, Capital (RGEC) Method 809

Circular Letter of Bank Indonesia No.15/15/DPNP of 2013 concerning the Assessment of

Good Corporate Governance.

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2 Number 4, April 2022

810 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

several business segments and economic developments that were still declining, resulting

in slow growth of national banking credit.

While the results of the comparison of the NPL ratio at Bank Jago in 2018-2020.

In 2018 the NPL ratio at Bank Jago was 6.16% with the title Fairly Healthy. In 2019, the

NPL ratio at Bank Jago was 2.04% with the title Healthy. Meanwhile, in 2020 the NPL

several business segments and economic developments that were still declining, resulting

in slow growth of national banking credit.

2) Liquidity Risk

(Sumber : Data diolah oleh penulis)

Based on the table above, it can be seen that there are results of the comparison of

the LDR ratio at Bank Capital in 2018-2020. In 2018 the LDR ratio at Bank Capital was

51.96% with the title Very Healthy. In 2019, the LDR ratio at Bank Capital was 60.55%

with the title Very Healthy. Meanwhile, in 2020 the LDR ratio at Bank Capital was 39.33%

with the title Very Healthy. So that the average LDR ratio at Bank Capital is 50.61% with

the title Very Healthy.

This shows that the LDR ratio at Bank Capital is below 75% which illustrates that

Financial Performance Analysis Using the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance,

Earnings, Capital (RGEC) Method 811

in 2019 with an acquisition of 60.55% because the higher the LDR level, the more illiquid

a bank is, meaning that the bank will find it difficult to meet its short-term obligations.

While the results of the comparison of the LDR ratio at Bank Jago in 2018-2020.

In 2018 the LDR ratio at Bank Jago was 76.74% with the title Healthy. In 2019 the LDR

ratio at Bank Jago was 47.54% with the title Very Healthy. Meanwhile, in 2020 the LDR

a bank is, meaning that the bank will find it difficult to meet its short-term obligations.

Table 9. Comparative Results of Self Assessment of GCG Implementation

Self Assessment of GCG Implementation at Bank Capital in 2018-2020. In 2018 Bank

Capital had a Self-Assessment at a composite rating of 2 with a good predicate. Meanwhile,

in 2019 Bank Capital had a Self-Assessment at a composite rating of 3 with a Pretty Good

predicate. And finally, in 2020, Bank Capital has a Self-Assessment at a composite rating

of 3 with a Pretty Good predicate. So that the average Self Assessment at Bank Capital has

a composite rating of 2.6 with the predicate of Fairly Good.

This shows that the Self Assessment of GCG Implementation at Bank Capital is

below the composite rating of 3.5 which illustrates that a bank is categorized as a bank that

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2 Number 4, April 2022

812 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

is quite good in terms of stability and sustainability of a bank. The peak of the increase in

Self-Assessment Implementation of GCG at Bank Capital occurred in 2019-2020 with the

acquisition of 3 because the higher the level of Self-Assessment at the bank, the higher the

company's performance, especially financial performance and reducing the risks

undertaken by the board of directors to make decisions that benefit themselves and can also

with the predicate of Fairly Good(De, 2020). So that the average Self Assessment at Bank

Jago has a composite rating of 2.3 with a good predicate.

This shows that the self-assessment of the bank is below the composite rating of

2.5 which illustrates that a bank is categorized as a healthy bank in terms of the stability

and sustainability of the bank. The peak of the increase in the Self-Assessment of GCG

Implementation at Bank Jago occurred in 2018 with the acquisition of 3 because the higher

the Self-Assessment level at the bank, the higher the company's performance, especially

Table 11. Bank Jago ROA 2018-2020

Based on the table above, it can be seen that there are results of the comparison of

the ROA ratio at Bank Capital in 2018-2020. In 2018 the ROA ratio at Bank Capital was

Financial Performance Analysis Using the Risk Profile, Good Corporate Governance,

Earnings, Capital (RGEC) Method 813

0.83% with the title Fairly Healthy. In 2019, the ROA ratio at Bank Capital was 0.13%

with the predicate of Less Healthy. Meanwhile, in 2020 the ROA ratio at Bank Capital was

0.40% with the predicate of Less Healthy. So that the average ROA ratio at Bank Capital

is 0.45% with the predicate of Less Healthy.

This shows that the ROA ratio at Bank Capital is below 0.5% which illustrates that

In 2018 the ROA ratio at Bank Jago was -2.44% with the predicate Unhealthy. In 2019 the

ROA at Bank Jago was -11.96% with the predicate Unhealthy. Meanwhile, in 2020 the

ROA ratio at Bank Jago was -10.83% with the predicate Unhealthy. So that the average

ROA ratio at Bank Jago is -8.41% with the predicate Unhealthy.

This shows that the ROA ratio at Bank Jago is below 0% which illustrates that a

bank is categorized as an Unsound bank in terms of how effectively a bank uses its assets

in generating profits. The peak of the ROA ratio increase at Bank Jago occurred in 2018

(Source: Data processed by the author)

Eduvest – Journal of Universal Studies

Volume 2 Number 4, April 2022

814 http://eduvest.greenvest.co.id

with the title Very Healthy. So that the average CAR ratio at Bank Capital is 15.15% with

the title Very Healthy.

This shows that the CAR ratio at Bank Capital is above 12% which illustrates that

a bank is categorized as a very healthy bank in terms of indicating that the bank has a large

enough possibility or strong ability to survive in abnormal conditions or crises. The peak

CAR ratio at Bank Jago was 151.93% with the title Very Healthy. Meanwhile, in 2020 the

CAR ratio at Bank Jago Tbk was 104.29% with the title Very Healthy. So that the average

CAR ratio at Bank Jago is 91.94% with the title Very Healthy.

This shows that the CAR ratio at Bank Jago is above 12% which illustrates that a

bank is categorized as a Very Healthy bank in terms of indicating that the bank has a large

enough possibility or strong ability to survive in abnormal conditions or crises. The peak

of the increase in the CAR ratio at Bank Jago occurred in 2019 with the acquisition of