This is a preview of the print version of your report. Please click "print" to continue or "done" to close this window.

done

or Cancel

 
Similarity Index
89%
Similarity by Source
Internet Sources:
89%
Publications:
13%
Student Papers:
22%

Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTHE ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) METHOD FOR STOCKS RANK Agus Zainul Arifin Magister Management Program Econimics Faculty, Tarumanagara University Agusza1808@gmail.com/agus_za@fe.tarumanagara.ac.id Phone: +62-81380007874 Abstract An optimum portfolio must be built from individual stocks that have good performance and do not correlated positively each other. Therefore, a portfolio built only from one industry must be avoided. The stock coming from one industry must be selected to one individual stock, which is the best in such industry. The problem of this research is how to rank those stocks in one industry and to select one individual stock that has best performance. The aim of this research as to analysize whether the Analytical Hierarchy Process combined with financial rasio criteria can be used to determine the stock rank in coal-mining industry. This research result that the Analytical Hierarchy Process cannot be used to rank those particular stocks due to inconsistent financial ratio criteria used. Keywords: Stock rank, Analytical Hierarchy Process, financial ratio criteriaEnd Match A. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docINTRODUCTIONEnd Match 1. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docBackground In order to optimize the return, investors will build portfolio of their stocks. The efficient portfolio can only be acquired when the stocks in the portfolio correlate negatively. Thus, the stock selection in the portfolio should not be based from only one industry because of their tendency to correlate strongly positively. Therefore, selecting the best stock among the existing ones in the same industry becomes crucial. In this research, used samples four stocks in coal sector will be selected, which are PT. ATPK Resources, Tbk (ATPK), PT. Bumi Resources, Tbk. (BUMI), PT. Esources Alam Indonesia, Tbk (KKGI), and PT. Petrosea, Tbk. (PTRO), that were listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange for the year 2006-2008. The stock selection process is done by applying some objective criteria, which are those commonly used to measure the company performance. Those criteria are seven financial ratio analysis, which are current ratio, acid test ratio, operating profit margin, debt to equity, return on equity, price earning ratio, and price to book value as what has been done by Tarmizi (2007). The reason why this research applies those seven financial ratios is that they can analyze most data coming from the company’s financial statement. Related to the objective of this research, which is selecting one of the stocks in the coal industry, the ranking process will be done according to those financial ratio criteria that have already been measured. The ranking process is done by using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. AHP method is applied to determine the rank of some decision alternatives as well as to determine the best decision when the decision maker has some criterias that can be used as a base of the decision making (Taylor III, 2002: 379). This research is a replication of the research previously conducted by Tarmizi (2007). Because the AHP method is considered new in the financial management scope, especially for the studies in Indonesia, it is considered important to keep developing the method until nowadays. The objective of this research is to determine the rank of those four companies in Indonesia coal sector according to the companies’ performance by using the AHP method in their financial ratio. Furthermore, the result of the ranking process can be a fundamental of selecting stocks to be put in a portfolio.End Match 1. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docLiterature ReviewEnd Match a. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDecision-Making Theory The AHP method is based on the Rational Comprehensive Theory. Saaty (1994:202) states that the focus of the AHP method is achieving the goal that will generate the rational decision, which is the best decision among any goal that will be achieved by decision makers. The main key to such rational decision is the goal, not the alternative, the criteria, or the attribute.End Match b. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Saaty (1994:197) states that in their life, human beings frequently face conditions in making decision under some alternative criteria. The AHP method can provide optimum solution in transparent way through: (a) Analysis of the decision in qualitative and quantitative way, (b) Evaluation and representation of the solution in simple way through hierarchical model, (c) Logical argumentation, (d) Test of quality of the decision, and (e) Shorter time reqired. The AHP method consists of three levels of hierarchy. The first hierarchy level is the goal of the decision making, the second level of hierarchy is how each of the existing criteria contributes to the goal achievement, and the last level of hierarchy is to find out how each of the alternatives contributes to each of the criteria (Exhibit 1). Taylor (2002: 379) explains that the steps in decision making by using the AHP method are as follows:End Match 1) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docEstablishing Pairwise Comparison Matrix for each decision alternative to each criteriaEnd Match 2) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSynthesizationEnd Match 3) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docEstablishing Pairwise Comparison Matrix for each criteriaEnd Match 4) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docEstablishing The Normalized MatrixEnd Match 5) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docEstablishing The Preference VectorEnd Match 6) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docCalculating overall value for each decision alternativeEnd Match 7) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDetermining the rank of alternatives according to the value acquired in the previous step Source: (s.scribd.com/doc/2908406/Modul-6-Analytic-Hierarchy-Process/21 Juni 2009) Exhibit 1: The Hierarchy level of Decision Saaty (1994: 202) states that there are three basic principles in the AHP method, which are as follows:End Match 1) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDecomposition After the problem has been defined, decomposition is necessary to to be done, which is dividing a problem into some smaller parts. The division process will result some levels of a problem. That’s why this process of analysis is named hierarchy.End Match 2) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docComparative Judgment This principle assesses the relative importance of two elements in a certain level related to those at higher level. This assessment is the main point of the AHP method because it influences the priority of the elements. This assessment result can be observed better if displayed in the form of Pairwise Comparison Matrix.End Match 3) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSynthesis of Priority From each of Pairwise Comparison Matrix, the eigenvector value can be determined to acquire local priority. Because the Pairwise Comparison Matrix is available in each level, the global priority can be acquired by synthesizing between those local priorities. The procedure of ynthesizing is different according to each hierarchy. To rank the elements according to its relative importance through synthesizing procedure is called priority setting. According to Saaty (1994:203), this AHP method is appropriate to be used in making decision that involves decision element comparison, which is difficult to be assessed quantitatively. This matter is based on the assumption that human beings’ natural reaction when facing a complex decision making, is by grouping the decision elements according to its common characteristics. This grouping process includes rank the decision elements, and then comparing between each pair in each group in a form of matrix. Afterward, inconistency ratio and weight for each element will be acquired. Thus, it will provide ease in testing the data consistency. The ratio-scale form is used as an input in the AHP method, which states one’s perception when facing the decision-making situation. The values in the ratio are then organized in a matrix, which is called the pairwise comparison matrix. Due to the limitation of human beings’ brain capability, the ratio-scale is limited as well. In the AHP method, the scale range 1– 9 is assumed sufficiently representing human beings’ perception. The reason why te AHP method limits the ratio-scale 1–9, is acording to the research conducted by a psychologist (Miller, 1956: 256), which shows that human beings cannot simultantly compare more than seven objects, either it increases or decreases two objects. In such condition, human beings will lose their consistency in making the comparison. The Standard Preference Scale used in the AHP method is provided in Table 1 as follows: Table 1: Preference Scale for Pairwise Comparisons Preference Level Numerical Value Equally Preferred 1 Equally to Moderately Preferred 2 Moderately Preferred 3 Moderately to Strong Preferred 4 Strongly Preferred 5 Strongly to Very Strongly Preferred 6 Very Strongly Preferred 7 Very Strongly to Extremely Preferred 8 Extremely Preferred 9 Source: http://www.s.scribd.com/doc/2908406/Modul-6-Analytic-Hierarchy-Process/21 Juni 2009End Match c. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTest of Consistency According to Taylor III (2002:379), each human beings ideally wants consistent decision. On the contrary, there are many cases in which the decision makers cannot make perfectly consistent decisions. The AHP method can tolerate the inconsistency by providing the measurement of assessment inconsistency. This measurement is one of the important elements in priority determination process according to pairwise comparison. The higher consistency ratio, the assessment result becomes more inconsistent. The acceptable consistency ratio is less than or equal to 10 percent, although in some cases the consistency ratio which is higher than 10 percent is still considered acceptable (Forman dan Selly, 2001: 70). According to Taylor III (2002: 379), Consistency Index (CI) can be calculated by using formula as follows:End Match CI ? maks. eigenvalue ? n n ?1 (1) maks.eigenvalue ? ? wi.ci (2) i Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docAfter acquiring Consistency Index (CI), the next step is calculating Consistency Ratio (CR) by using formula (3):End Match CR ? CI RI Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDescription: n = Amount of items compared wi = Weight ci = Sum of column CR = Consistency Ratio CI = Consistency Index RI = Random Consistency Index Random Consistency Index (RI) can be observed in Table 2 as follows: Table 2: Random Consistency Index n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RI 0 0 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 Source: http://www.people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial/AHP/index.html If CR ≥ 10%, the data acquired is inconsistent If CR < 10%, the data acquired is consistent The test of consistency result will be very useful in the AHP method. If the test result is inconsistent (CR ≥ 10%), then the result from the AHP method will be of no use in decision making.End Match d. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDecision Making in Groups According to Taylor III (2002: 378), besides being able to be used for the purpose of personal decision making, the AHP method can also be used or group decision making. The first way to make group decision making is by making consensuality among the group members to acquire a single agreement. The second way is by filling the questionaire. The result of the questionaire is analyzed by using the AHP method, and then the Consistency Ratio is calculated in order to get the final result.End Match 2. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docRelevant Research Tarmizi (2007) was the first researcher applying the AHP method in Finncial Management scope, in which his research subjects were companies listed in Jakarta Stock Exchange. The research used financial ratio analysis in companies in tobacco industry as assessment criteria that can be considered in decision making for investment. The financial ratio, that were measured in the research, were current ratio, acid test ratio, operating profit margin, debt to equity, return on equity, price earning ratio, dan price to book value. After that, the financial ratio of one company was compared to that of another company by asking for opinion from experts. In order to get the rank of the companies compared, analysis by using the AHP method was done. Tarmizi’s research result was that according to the calculation by using the AHP method, HMSP was the most recommended tobacco company by respondents (31,7%). For criteria, operating profit margin was the most recommended ratio analysis by respondents (37,5%).End Match 3. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docConceptual Framework According to the literature review and the result acquired from relevant research, this research also applies the AHP method in ranking the companies in Indonesia coal sector, which is done in three stages of analysis. The sample determnation is the activity conducted in the first stage, which is done by measuring the companies financial ratios in every semester for five semesters during the year 2006-2008, The financial ratios measured are current ratio, acid test ratio, operating profit margin, debt to equity, return on equity, price earning ratio, and price to book value. The ratio assessment is the activity conducted in the second stage, which is done by acquiring opinions from respondents to compare each ratio that has been measured by giving the score 1–9 (Table 1). the result from respondents’ opinion is then analyzed by using the AHP method. From the analysis result, the rank of the companies compared will be acquired. This result is the beginning of the third stage. The next activity is testing whether the result acquired from the second stage is relevant by using the Test of Consistency (Consistency Ratio). The process of analysis in third stage can be observed in Exhibit 2 as follows.End Match Selecting the Best Coal Company Stock Current Ratio Acid- Operating Debt to Return Price Price to Test Profit Equity on Earning Book Ratio Margin Equity Ratio Value ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSource: Attachment 2 Exhibit 2: The Conceptual Framework Exhibit 2 is the conceptual framework of this research. Selecting the companies that have already gone public is the objective of the application of AHP method in stage one. The bottom row in the conceptual model includes the existing companies in the capital market, which are ATPK, BUMI, KKGI and PTRO. The criteria determined to be analyzed are the seven financial ratios. Those criteria are included in stage two in the application of AHP method. Stage three involves selecting the best coal company based on the seven financial ratio criteria among the four existing companies.End Match B. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docResearch MethodologyEnd Match 1) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docThe Variables Operationalization The variables operationalization used in this research can be observed in Table 3 as follows: Table 3: The Variables Operationalization of criterias VARIABLE VARIABLE CONCEPT VARIABLE MEASURMENT SCALE Current Ratio Company’s liquidity indica- tor comparing between its current assets and current liabilities Ratio Acid Test Ratio Company’s liquidity indica- tor Comparing between asset ninus inventory and current liabilitiesEnd Match current Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docRatio Operating Profot Margin Company’s rentability indi- cator comparing between its operating profit and net sales Ratio Debt to Equity Ratio Company’s debt indicator comparing between its total debt and total assets Ratio Return on Equity Company’s profitability indicator comparing between its net profit and common equity Ratio Price to Book Value Company’s valuation indica- tor comparing between its market price and book value per share Ratio Price Earning Ratio Company’s valuation indicator comparing between its market price and earning per share RatioEnd Match 2) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docData Collection MethodEnd Match a. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSecondary Data The first step in data collection process is acquiring the secondary data in form of companies’ financial ratios, by analyzing the financial reports of four coal companies, which are: ATPK, BUMI, KKGI and PTRO for the period 2006 – 2008.End Match b. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docPrimary Data The next step in data collection process is acquiring the primary data, by distributing questionnaires to 30 experts in investment, in order to acquire respondents’ preferences on alternatives of coal company stocks. The questionnaire format can be observed in Attachment 2.End Match 4. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docData AnalysisEnd Match a. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docAnalytical Hierarchy Process Analyzing the data by using the AHP method is done by using Expert Choice 11 Free Trial Versión software, that can be downloaded from the internet. The weight for calculation in AHP method is acquired from the questionnaires that have been filled by respondents. The process of analysis by using the AHP method is done in two stages as follows (Taylor III, 2002: 379):End Match 1) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docFirst Stage: Determining the stock rank, as follows: (a) Establishing the PairwiseEnd Match Comparison Matrix for each decision alternative for each criterion, (b) Synthesization, (c) Establishing the Pairwise Comparison Matrix for each criteria, (d) Establishing the Normalized Matrix, (e) Establishing the Preference Vector (f) Calculating overall values for each decision alternative, and (g) Determining the rank of alternatives according to the values that have been acquired in the previous stage. 2) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSecond Stage: Test of Consistency After analyzing the data by using the AHP method, the result of the selection process must be tested for consistency. The test of consistency is done by using the formula (1), (2), (3) and Table 2 (Random Consistency Index) provided in the literature review part (Taylor III, 2002: 379).End Match C. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docAnalysisEnd Match 1. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDescriptions on Assessment Criteria The descriptions on financial ratios for each semester in coal industry including PT. ATPK Resourceces, Tbk. (ATPK), PT. Bumi Resources, Tbk.(BUMI), PT. Resources Alam Indonesia, Tbk (KKGI), and PT. Petrosea, Tbk (PTRO). for the period 2006 - 2008 are provided from Table 6. Table 6: Comparison each criteria on Coal Industry for the Period 2006 – 2008 CompanyEnd Match ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Company ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Company ATPK Smt 1.2006 8.64 0.71 2.31 2.54 Smt 1.2006 0.83 0.61 1.88 2.45 Smt 1.2006 - Current Ratio Smt Smt Smt 2.2006 1.2007 2.2007 0.74 0.52 0.52 1.33 1.55 1.42 3.59 2.24 2.03 2.27 1.87 1.71 Acid test ratio Smt Smt Smt 2.2006 1.2007 2.2007 0.74 0.52 0.52 1.08 1.43 1.31 2.74 1.67 1.46 2.19 1.82 1.63 Operating Profit Margin Ratio Smt Smt Smt 2.2006 1.2007 2.2007 -19.77% -45.77% -45.77% Smt 1.2008 8.11 1.51 2.03 1.54 Smt 1.2008 8.10 1.39 1.46 1.45 Smt 1.2008 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc-12.11% BUMI 0.06% 0.12% 0.63% 0.35% 0.20% KKGI -0.18% -0.54% -0.59% -0.44% -0.44% PTRO 0.07% 0.06% 0.06% 0.06% 0.05% Company Debt to Equity Ratio Smt 1.2006 Smt Smt Smt 2.End Match 2006 1.2007 2.2007 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSmt 1.2008 ATPK 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BUMI 0.38 0.30 0.06 0.05 0.02 KKGI 0.25 0.09 0.21 0.16 0.16 PTRO 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Company Return on Equity Ratio Smt 1.2006 Smt Smt Smt 2.End Match 2006 1.2007 2.2007 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSmt 1.2008 ATPK -6 -57 -74 -74 -13 BUMI 20 62 163 70 44 KKGI -9 -25 -28 -29 -29 PTRO 9 9 9 9 6 Company Price to Earning Ratio Smt 1.2006 Smt Smt Smt 2.End Match 2006 1.2007 2.2007 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSmt 1.2008 ATPK -7 -1 -37 -37 -23 BUMI 33 9 3 16 29 KKGI -4 -1 -4 -9 -9 PTRO 10 11 11 9 6 CompanyEnd Match ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Smt 1.2006 0 7 0 1 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docPrice to Book Value Ratio Smt Smt SmtEnd Match 2.2006 1.2007 2.2007 1 28 28 5 5 11 0 1 3 1 1 1 Smt 1.2008 3 12 3 1 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSource: From researcherEnd Match 2. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docAnalytical Hierarchy Process In order to determine the stocks rank, the data about financial ratio of the four companies are then put as sample characteristic indicator. Respondents are then asked about their responses when comparing the same ratio of each company by using Standard Preference Scale (Table 1) with scale 1 – 9. The result of those responses are then tabulated and analyzed through seven stages, from developing the Pairwise Comparison Matrix stage until the stage to generate the stocks rank.End Match a. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docPairwise Comparison Matrix To develop the Pairwise Comparison Matrix, the data generated from the questionnaire are used, which are the average measurement given by the respondents arranged in the form of matrix. The analysis result for developing the Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix of each decision alternative for each criteria can be observed from Table 7 to Table 13, which are as follows.End Match 1) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Current Ratio criteria (Table 7) Table 7: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Current Ratio Criteria Current RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 1 8 2 3 BUMI 0,125 1 2 4 KKGI 0,5 0,50 1 2 PTRO 0,3333 0,25 0,50 1 Total 1,9583 9,75 5,5 10 The scores in Table 7 are acquired from the average measurement in Attachment 3. For example, the score 8 in ATPK row and BUMI column is the average measurement given by respondents about their preferrence according to the Current Ratio criteria. The score 8 in ATPK row and BUMI column means that respondents assess very strongly to extremely preferred (scale 8 from Table 1) ATPK stock compared to BUMI stock according to the Current Ratio criteria. For BUMI row and ATPK column, the score is vice versa (1/8 or 0,125 in decimal). For the other six financial ratios, this formula is also applied.End Match 2) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Acid-Test Ratio (Table 8) Table 8: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Acid Test Ratio Criteria Stock ATPK BUMI ATPK 1End Match 0,167 Acid Test Ratio BUMI 6 1 KKGI 7 2 PTRO Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc2 8 KKGI 0,1429 0,50 1 5 PTRO 0,5000 0,13 0,20 1 Total 1,8095 7,63 10,2 16 Source: Attachment 3End Match 3) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Operating Profit Margin (Table 9) Table 9: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Operating Profit Margin Criteria Operating Profit MarginEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 1 2 8 5 BUMI 0,500 1 3 5 KKGI 0,125 0,33 1 2 PTRO 0,2000 0,20 0,50 1 Total 1,8250 3,53 12,5 13 Source: Attachment 3End Match 4) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Debt to Equity Ratio (Table 10) Table 10: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Debt to Equity Ratio Criteria Debt to Equity RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 1 2 8 8 BUMI 0,500 1 2 2 KKGI 0,125 0,50 1 2 PTRO 0,1250 0,50 0,50 1 Total 1,7500 4,00 11,5 13 Source: Attachment 3End Match 5) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Return on Equity Ratio (Table 11) Table 11: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Return on Equity Ratio Criteria Return on Equity RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 1 2 2 2 BUMI 0,500 1 7 8 KKGI 0,5 0,14 1 3 PTRO 0,5000 0,13 0,33 1 Total 2,5000 3,27 10,3 14 Source: Attachment 3End Match 6) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Price Earning Ratio (Table 12) Table 12: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Price Earning Ratio Criteria Price to Earning RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 1 2 4 4 BUMI 0,500 1 3 2 KKGI 0,25 0,33 1 2 PTRO 0,2500 0,50 0,50 1 Total 2,0000 3,83 8,5 9 Source: Attachment 3End Match 7) Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docStock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Price to Book Value (Table 13) Table 13: Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Price to Book Value Criteria Price to Book ValueEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 1 2 6 8 BUMI 0,500 1 2 2 KKGI 0,1666667 0,50 1 2 PTRO 0,1250 0,50 0,50 1 Total 1,7917 4,00 9,5 13 Source: Attachment 3End Match b. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSynthesization Synthesization is start from Stock Pairwise Comparison Matrix until preference vector. It done by summing the value of each column in each table. This calculation result is shown from Table 7 to Table 13 in Total row. Furthermore, this stage is done by dividing the value of each cell with the total value of the same column. The result of this division for the Current Ratio criteria is shown in Table 14. This formula is also applied for the other criteria in order to develop the Pairwise Comparison Matrix. Table 14: Quotient Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Current Ratio Criteria Current RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 0,510638 0,820513 0,363636 0,3 BUMI 0,06383 0,102564 0,363636 0,4 KKGI 0,255319 0,051282 0,181818 0,2 PTRO 0,170213 0,025641 0,090909 0,1 Source: Manipulated from Table 13End Match c. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docNormalized Matrix This stage is done by modifying the value in Pairwise Comparison Matrix into decimal value. Next, the value of each row are summed and averaged. The result of Normalized Matrix for the Current Ratio criteria is shown in Table 15. This formula is also applied for the other six financial ratios (shown from Table 16 to Table 21) to develop the Normalized Matrix. Table 15: Normalized Matrix for the Current Ratio Criteria Stock ATPK BUMI KKGI PTROEnd Match Current Ratio Average Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK 0,510638 0,820513 0,363636 0,3 0,4987 BUMI 0,06383 0,102564 0,363636 0,4 0,2325 KKGI 0,255319 0,051282 0,181818 0,2 0,1721 PTRO 0,170213 0,025641 0,090909 0,1 0,0967 Source: Manipulated from Table 14 Table 16: Normalized Matrix for the Acid-Test Ratio Criteria Acid Test RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI ATPK 0,552632 0,786885 0,686275End MatchBegin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docBUMI 0,End Match 092105 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 131148 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 196078 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docKKGI 0,End Match 078947 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 065574 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 098039 PTRO 0,276316 0,016393 0,019608 Source: Manipulated from Table 8 PTRO 0,1 0,5 0,3 0,0625 Average 0,5377 0,2298 0,1388 0,0937 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTable 17: Normalized Matrix for the Operating Profit Margin Criteria Operating Profit MarginEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO ATPK 0,547945 0,566038 0,64 0,4 BUMI 0,273973 0,283019 0,24 0,384615 KKGI 0,068493 0,09434 0,08 0,2 PTRO 0,109589 0,056604 0,04 0,076923 Source: Manipulated from Table 9End Match Average 0,5346 0,2954 0,0992 0,0708 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTable 18: Normalized Matrix for the Debt to Equity Ratio Criteria StockEnd Match ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Debt to Equity Ratio Average Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK 0,571429 0,5 0,695652 0,6 0,5956 BUMI 0,285714 0,25 0,173913 0,153846 0,2159 KKGI 0,071429 0,125 0,086957 0,2 0,1093 PTRO 0,071429 0,125 0,043478 0,076923 0,0792 Source: Manipulated from Table 10 Table 19: Normalized Matrix for the Return on Equity Ratio Criteria StockEnd Match ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Return on Equity Ratio Average Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK 0,4 0,612022 0,193548 0,1 0,3371 BUMI 0,2 0,306011 0,677419 0,571429 0,4387 KKGI 0,2 0,043716 0,096774 0,2 0,1387 PTRO 0,2 0,038251 0,032258 0,071429 0,0855 Source: Manipulated from Table 11 Table 20: Normalized Matrix for the Price Earning Ratio Criteria Price to Earning RatioEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI ATPK 0,5 0,521739 0,470588End Match BUMI 0,25 0,26087 0,352941 KKGI 0,125 0,086957 0,117647 PTRO 0,125 0,130435 0,058824 Source: Manipulated from Table 12 PTRO 0,4 0,222222 0,2 0,111111 Average 0,4842 0,2715 0,1380 0,1063 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTable 21: Normalized Matrix for the Price to Book Value Criteria Price to Book ValueEnd Match Stock Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docATPK BUMI KKGI ATPK 0,55814 0,5 0,631579End Match BUMI 0,27907 0,25 0,210526 KKGI 0,093023 0,125 0,105263 PTRO 0,069767 0,125 0,052632 Source: Manipulated from Table 13 PTRO 0,6 0,153846 0,2 0,076923 Average 0,5763 0,2234 0,1193 0,0811 d. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docPreference Vector This stage is done by using the average column to be changed into the Preference Vector. For example, the average column in Table 15 is changed into the Preference Vector in Table 22. Table 22: Preference Vector untuk Kriteria Current Ratio Saham Current Ratio ATPK 0,4987 BUMI 0,2325 KKGI 0,1721 PTRO 0,0967 Source: TheEnd Match “Average” Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docColumn in Table 21 The Preference Vector from each criteria is then combined into developing the Preference Matrix, thus forming a (4x7) matrix as shown in Table 23. Table 23: Preference Matrix for Each Criteria Stock Current Ratio Acid Test Ratio Operating Profit Margin Debt to Equity Ratio Return on Equity Ratio Price to Earning Ratio Price to Book Value ATPK 0,4987 0,5377 0,5346 0,5956 0,3371 0,4842 0,5763 BUMI 0,2325 0,2298 0,2954 0,2159 0,4387 0,2715 0,2234 KKGI 0,1721 0,1388 0,0992 0,1093 0,1387 0,1380 0,1193 PTRO 0,0967 0,0937 0,0708 0,0792 0,0855 0,1063 0,0811End Match e. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docPairwise Comparison Matrix for Each Criteria The next stage is developing the Pairwise Comparison Matrix. The values in this matrix are acquired from the average measurement from respondents about the Comparison between two criteria. For this purpose, the Standard Preference Scale with scale 1 – 9 (Table 1) is used. Table 24 shows the Pairwise Comparison Matrix for each criterion. Table 24: Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Each Criteria Criteria Current Ratio Acid Test Ratio Operating Profit Margin Debt to Equity Ratio Return on Equity Ratio Price to Earning Ratio Price to Book Value Current Ratio 1 4 4 3 2 2 2 Acid Test Ratio 1/4 1 6 3 3 8 2 Operating Profit Margin 1/4 1/6 1 2 2 2 2 Debt to Equity Ratio 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 2 8 8 Return on Equity Ratio 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 3 8 Price to Earning Ratio 1/2 1/8 1/2 1/8 1/3 1 1 Price to Book Value 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/8 1/8 1 1 Source: Attachment 3 The scores in Table 24 are acquired from the average score of respondents questionnaire result. For example, the score 4 in current ratio row and acid-test ratio column is the average of respondents’ preferrence on Current Ratio with Acid-Test Ratio. The score for Acid-Test Ratio row and Current Ratio column is vice versa. This process is then continued to develop from the Normalized Matrix until the Preference Vector. The calculation process is the same as what have been done to compare the financial ratios among companies. The result of Preference Vector is shown in Table 25, which develops a 7x1 matrix. Table 25. Preference Vector for Each Criterion Criteria Current Ratio Acid Test Ratio Operating Profit Margin Debt to Equity Ratio Return on Equity Ratio Price to Earning Ratio Price to Book ValueEnd Match Average 0,2699 0,2413 0,1053 0,1625 0,1200 0,0477 0,0532 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSource: Manipulated from Table 30End Match f. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDetermining the Rank of Coal Company Stocks After acquiring the Preference Matrix (Table 23) in each alternative for each criteria and the Preference Vector (Table 25) for each criteria, the next step is multiplying the Preference Matrix with the Preference Vector, thus acquire a 4x1 matrix. The result of this multiplication becomes the priority of stock selection, as shown in Table 26.End Match ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTable 26: Multiplication Between the Preference Matrix and the Preference Vector CurrentEnd Match Acid Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docRatio Test RatioEnd Match 0,4987 0,5377 0,2325 0,2298 0,1721 0,1388 0,0967 0,0937 Operating Profit Margin 0,5346 0,2954 0,0992 0,0708 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDebt to Equity Ratio Return on Equity Ratio 0,End Match 5956 0,3371 0,2159 0,4387 0,1093 0,1387 0,0792 0,0855 Price to Price Earning to Ratio Book Value 0,4842 0,5763 0,2715 0,2234 0,138 0,1193 0,1063 0,0811 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docCurrent Ratio Acid Test Ratio Operating Profit MarginEnd Match X Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDebt to Equity Ratio Return on Equity Ratio Price to Earning Ratio Price to Book ValueEnd Match Score Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 2699 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 2413 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 1053 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 1625 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 1200 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 0477 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc0,End Match 0532 0,5117 = 0,2619 0,1377 0,0887 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSource: Table 23 and Table 25 Generated from the multiplication between the Preference Matrix and the Preference Vector (Table 26), the scores become a criteria to determine the stocks rank. The calculations to generate the scores are as follows: Score ATPK = (0,4987X0,2699) + (0,5377X0,2413) + (0,5346X0,1053) + (0,5956X0,1625) + (0,3371X0,12) + (0,4842X0,0477) + (0,5763X0,0532) = 0,5117 Score BUMI = (0,2325X0,2699) + (0,2298X0,2413) + (0,2954X0,1053) + (0,2159X0,1625) + (0,4387X0,12) + (0,2715X0,0477) + (0,2234X0,0352) = 0,2619 Score KKGI = (0,1721X0,2699) + (0,1388X0,2413) + (0,0992X0,1053) + (0,1093X0,1625) + (0,1387X0,12) + (0,138X0,0477) + (0,1193X0,0352) = 0,1377 Score PTRO = (0,0967X0,2699) + (0,0937X0,2413) + (0,0708X0,1053) + (0,0792X0,1625) + (0,0855X0,12) + (0,1063X0,0477) + (0,0811X0,0352) = 0,0887 According the scores calculation, the stocks rank are consecutively: ATPK (Score = 0.5117), BUMI (Score = 0.2619), KKGI (score = 0.1377) and PTRO (Score = 0.0887).End Match g. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docTest of Consistency This test starts by determining the Pairwise Matrix. The explanation about this test of consistency is given by using the Current Ratio criteria. Developing the Pairwise Matrix by using the Current Ratio criteria is done by combining the values in decimal in Table 7 (column 2,3, 4, and 5) with the average values in Table 15 (column 6). The result can be observed in Table 23 as follows. Table 33: Pairwise Matrix on Stock Selection by Using the Current Ratio Criteria SahamEnd Match ATPK BUMI KKGI PTRO Total ATPK 1 0,125 0,5 0,3333 1,9583 Current Ratio BUMI KKGI 8 2 1 2 0,5 1 0,25 0,5 9,75 5,5 PTRO 3 4 2 1 10 Rata - Rata 0,4987 0,2325 0,1721 0,0967 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSource: Table 21 and Table 33 From Table 33, the λmax or max eigenvalue is then calculated by using formula (2), and the result is 3,2812 [(0,4987X1,9583)+(0,2325X9,75)+(0,1721X5,5)+(0,0967X10)]. Next, the Consistency Index is calculated by using formula (1) whereas n = 4 (the amoun of stocks being compared). The acquired Consistency Index is 0,3857 [(5,1570 – 4)/(4 - 1)]. With n = 4, the acquired Random Consistency Index (RI) according to Table 2 is 0,90. According to those Consistency Index and Random Consistency Index, the Consistency Ratio (by using formula 3) is 0.4285 (0,3857/0,9) or 42.85%. because the Consistency Ratio is 42.85% (higher than 10%), it can be concluded that the Consistency Ratio of stock selection by using the Current Ratio criteria is inconsistent. For the other six financial ratios, the same formula is applied. The complete result of this test of consistency for all criteria can be observed in Table 34. Table 34: The Consistency Ratio for Each Measurement CriteriaEnd Match Consistency Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docPairwise matrixEnd Match Evidence Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docRatio Stock selection with criteria Current Ratio 0,4285 Inconsistent Stock selection with criteria Acid Test Ratio 0,6074 Inconsistent Stock selection with criteria Operating Profit Margin 0,0664 Consistent Stock selection with criteria Debt to Equity Ratio 0,0713 Consistent Stock selection with criteria Return on Equity Ratio 0,3357 Inconsistent Stock selection with criteria Price to Earning Ratio 0,0514 Consistent Stock selection with criteria Price to Book Value 0,0419 Consistent Between criteria 0,2698 InconsistentEnd Match 3. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docDiscussion The test of consistency shows consistent result for measurement using the Operating Profit Margin, the Debt to Equity Ratio, the Price to Earning Ratio and the Price to Book Value criteria. This means that all respondents give the relatively homogenous responses in using those four ratios to rank the stocks in coal industry. It can also be concluded that those four ratios can provide important information value to be a useful criteria in ranking the stocks. For the other three ratios (Current Ratio, Acid-Test Ratio, and Return on Equity Ratioand), the test of consistency result is not consistent. This means that respondents have heterogenous responses in using those ratios to rank the stocks. Therefore, those three criterias cannot become measurement criteria, because they do not have important information value to rank the stocks in coal industry. Simultaneously, the seven financial ratios used as criteria to rank the stocks in coal industry provides inconsistent result. This means that the scores used in ranking the stocks create inconfident result. In other words, the stocks rank do not have important information value to be used in decision making.End Match 4. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docFindings The AHP method is a common replication applied in Operations Management, which is then modified to be applied in Financial Management scope. The first research in Financial Management done by Tarmizi (2006) in Indonesia. So, this method is relatively new in Financial Management, especially for research that are conducted in Indonesia. The modification is done by changing the criteria used in operations field into financial ratio criteria. The application of financial ratios in this AHP method is still considered trial. Thus, there has been no established financial criteria applied for this method until nowadays. Simultaneous research can be expected to develop some useful criteria, which can be a fundamental in stock selection method, as well as a new method in the Financial Management scope. Therefore, this research result is still so far from completion, that there still opens extremely wide opportunities for researchers to develop it through further research.End Match D. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docConclusion and SuggestionEnd Match 1. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docConclusion According to the application of AHP method to determine the stocks rank in Indonesia coal sector, the rank are consecutively the stock of PT. ATPK Resources, Tbk (#1), the stock of PT. Bumi Resoureces, Tbk (#2), the stock of PT. Resources Alam Indonesia (#3), and the stock of PT. Petrosea, Tbk (#4). On the contrary, the ranking process shows inconsistent result.End Match 2. Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docSuggestion For future research in Financial Management scope, it is suggested to put other variables into consideration in order to develop a better measurement criteria, that finally can be expected to be an alternative concept in modern portfolio theory.End Match 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brealey, Richard A., and Myers, Stewart C (2004). Principles of Corporate Finance, Seventh Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc. Brigham, Eugene F., and Daves, Phillip R (2004). Intermediate Financial Management, (Eighth Edition). Ohio: Thomson South–Western Brodjonegoro, Bambang P.S (1992). Analytical Hierarchy Process, Pusat Antar Universitas – Studi Ekonomi Universitas Indonesia (unpublished) Damodaran, Aswath (2002). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset (Second edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gitman, Lawrence J (2003). Principles of Managerial Finance, (Tenth Edition). Boston: Addison Wesley Jones. Charles P. et al (2009). Investment: Analysis and Management (An Indonesian Adaptation). Singapore: John Wiley and Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd. Keown, Arthur J. et al. (2005). Financial Management, (Tenth Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc. Liedtka, Stephen L. (2005). The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Multi-Criteria PerformanceManagement Systems. www.mdm.gwu.edu. 20 Juni 2009 Mulyono. (2009).(www.Mulyono.staff.uns.ac.id/2009/06/08/teori-pengambilan- keputusan-theory-of-decision-making/ Download Date: 21 Juni 2009) Seputro, Hery. (2008). (s.scribd.com/doc/2908406/Modul-6-Analytic-Hierarchy- Process/ Download Date: 21 Juni 2009) Reilly, Frank K. and Brown, Keith C. (2006). Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management, (Eighth Edition). Ohio: Thomson South–Western Sudaryo, Supriyono, dan Wardana, Wisnu Arya. (2007). Sistim Pemilihan Pejabat Struktural dengan Metode AHP. (www.jurnal.sttn-batan.ac.id/wp.../06/30-supriyono-ahp-hal-311-322.pdf/June, 21, 2009) Sukarto, Haryono. (2006). Pemilihan Model Transportasi di DKI Jakarta dengan Analisis Kebijakan Proses Hirarki Analitik .(www.jurnalsipiluph.files.wordpress.com /2006/12 /vol313.pdf./ June,21, 2009) June 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UK 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 Tarmizi (2006). Pengaruh Faktor-Faktor pada Keputusan Investasi Portofolio Perusahaan Rokok yang Terdaftara di BEJ Menggunakan Metode AHP, Jakarta: Extention Program Indonesia University (unpublish). Taylor III, Bernard W. (2002). Management Science, (seven edition) . New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall, Inc. Wild, John J. et al. (2003). Financial Statement Analysis (Eighth Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. June 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UK Begin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End MatchBegin Match to source 2 in source list: http://docs.exdat.com/docs/index-136983.html2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428End Match 2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.doc2011 Cambridge Business & Economics Conference ISBN : 9780974211428 June 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 1 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 2 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 3 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 4 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 5 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 6 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 7 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 8 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 9 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 10 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 11 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 12 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 13 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 14 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 15 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 16 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 17 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 18 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 19 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 20 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 21 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 22 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 23 Begin Match to source 1 in source list: http://gcbe.us/2011_CBEC/data/Agus Zainul Arifin.docJune 27-28, 2011 Cambridge, UKEnd Match 24 25 26