Publication Search

This study examines the relationship of Corporate Governance with Debt Policy, and Profitability, especially in corporate that conduct IPOs on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2018-2019 period. Corporate Governance uses proxies of the Board of Commissioners, Independent Commissioners, Institutional Investors, and Insider Ownership which is predicted to affect Debt Policy and Profitability Using a purposive sampling technique, obtained 108 samples, the analyst uses multiple regression with the IBM SPSS 23 program. The findings show that Insider Ownership and the Board of Commissioners have a positive effect on profitability, Institutional Investors and Independent Commissioners are not proven to affect profitability. Corporate governance variables that are proven to influence Debt Policy are Insider Ownership, Institutional Investors, and Independent Commissioners.

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of profitability, liquidity, leverage on firm value and determine the effect of dividend policy in moderating the relationship of the effect of profitability, liquidity, leverage on firm value. This research is a quantitative research. The population is 154 manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange in 2016-2018. The sampling method uses a purposive sampling method and a sample of 39 companies is produced. Analysis using multiple linear regression and MRA (Moderated Regression Analysis) using SPSS software version 24. The results showed that: 1) Profitability and leverage have a significant positive effect on firm value, while liquidity has no effect on firm value, 2) Dividend policy is able to moderate relationship between the effect of profitability on firm value, 3) Dividend policy is not able to moderate the relationship of the influence of liquidity on company value, 4) Dividend policy is able to moderate the relationship of the influence of leverage on firm value.

The research was conducted to examine the moderating effects ofboard independent directors on the relationship between managerialownership on dividend policy and debt. The purpose of this study to determinehow much influence managerial ownership on dividend policy and debt aswell as the moderating effects of independent directors on the relationshipbetween managerial ownership on dividend policy and debt.The research wasconducted by quantitative methods using secondary data. Secondary data werefrom Indonesia Capital Market Directory (ICMD) and annual reports listedcompanies on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX). The research populationis a company listed on the Stock Exchange, then the samples were taken bypurposive sampling with the criteria listed companies from 2007 to 2011 andhave the data required in this study. The analysis used the multiple regressionanalysis to see the effect of independent variables on the dependent variableeither jointly or individually. Before being tested by multiple linear regressionfirst tested the classical assumptions.The results showed that the significant negative effect of managerialownership on dividend policy, managerial ownership has no effect on debtpolicy. Independent directors are moderate the relationship betweenmanagerial ownership to dividend policy, but did not moderate therelationship between ownership and debt managerial. Control variables affectthe profitability of dividend policy, size does not affect the dividend policy.While variables affect the profitability and size of debt policy.

Entrepreneurship education was introduced into the schoolscurriculum with the aim of providing knowledge directed towardsdeveloping the students skills, and competences that will equip them to beinnovative, and to identify, create, and successfully manage business. Thisstudy is on the attitude of students towards entrepreneurial education inSTIE Totalwin Semarang. Questionnaire were the instrument used andsensus sampling technique was adopted. It was found out that, majorityof the respondents believes entrepreneurial education is a good policy andit has come to stay. Most student from the university are not keen andcommitted to entrepreneurship education because they seeentrepreneurship as menial and risky, and their ambition is to seek forsenior white-color job with certainty of income.