Firm performance during COVID-19 pandemic: Does ownership identity matter? : evidence from Indonesia

Perwitasari, Dian; Doddy Setiawan; Nurrahmawati, An; Rahmawati, Isna Putri Article Firm performance during COVID-19 pandemic: Does ownership identity matter? : evidence from Indonesia Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Perwitasari, Dian; Doddy Setiawan; Nurrahmawati, An; Rahmawati, Isna Putri (2022) : Firm performance during COVID-19 pandemic: Does ownership identity matter? : evidence from Indonesia, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 10, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100444 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/274964 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Citation: Perwitasari, Dian, Doddy Setiawan, An Nurrahmawati, and Isna Putri Rahmawati. 2022. Firm Performance during COVID-19 Pandemic: Does Ownership Identity Matter? Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 444. https:// doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100444 Academic Editors: Irena Jindˇrichovská, Anna Białek-Jaworska, Mihaela Mocanu and Erginbay U˘gurlu Received: 25 August 2022 Accepted: 26 September 2022 Published: 30 September 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article Firm Performance during COVID-19 Pandemic: Does Ownership Identity Matter? Evidence from Indonesia Dian Perwitasari *, Doddy Setiawan , An Nurrahmawati and Isna Putri Rahmawati Accounting Study Program, Faculty of Economics and Business, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta 57126, Indonesia *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This study aimed to examine the importance of shareholder identity in improving company performance during shock events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The outbreak poses threats and opportunities for businesses in various countries including Indonesia. Subsequently, companies must adapt to address the consequences of the economic disruption and lockdown policies imposed by the local government. The study sample comprised companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to 2021. Fixed effects model regression was employed to examine the effect of family, government, and institutional ownership on company performance. The results showed that family and institutional ownership positively affected company performance during the pandemic. The mechanisms of direct supervision and control by family members could potentially increase the benefits of their businesses. Furthermore, high institutional ownership makes the role of investors substantial in reducing business risk and increasing company performance. Furthermore, the results revealed that government ownership negatively affected company performance. As owners, the government has different strategic objectives, where companies are more oriented toward better public services than financial gains. Therefore, it is essential to consider the impact of shareholder involvement on company performance, especially during a pandemic because they are treated differently. The research suggests that organizations are responding and adapting to the uncertainties in the business environment they face through a variety of mechanisms, including developing public and corporate governance strategies to prepare for and respond to future emergencies. Keywords: company performance; ownership structure; during COVID-19 pandemic; panel data model; Indonesia 1. Introduction Previous studies have focused on the consequences of catastrophic events on firm performance, for example, the studies that have focused on the impact of hurricane events (Schuwer et al. 2019), (Dessaint and Matray 2017); bushfires (Siddikee and Rahman 2017); and financial crisis (Huang et al. 2020), (D’Aurizio et al. 2015), (Lins et al. 2017), (Clarke et al. 2012) , (Mitton 2002), (Rajan and Zingales 1998). On 12 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) confirmed the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak as a pandemic owing to its global impact on various sectors, including health and the real economy. According to the Asian Development Bank (2020), the potential impact of the pandemic on the global economy is between USD 5.8 trillion and 8.8 trillion. This is equivalent to 6.4–9.7% of the world’s gross domestic product (Zheng and Zhang 2021). The social restriction policy to reduce transmission and prevent the spread of the virus has caused a sharp and immediate decline in economic production in various countries. The resulting economic crisis differs from previous crises in terms of binding financial performance challenges, value chain disruptions, and difficulties conducting business activities during restrictions (Amore et al. 2022;Ding et al. 2021). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100444 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 2 of 18 Many studies have attempted to determine the key variables that affect company performance during the COVID-19 pandemic (Amore et al. 2022), (El-Chaarani et al. 2022), (Engidaw 2022), (Shan and Tang 2022), (Ding et al. 2021), (Golubeva 2021), (Kaczmarek et al. 2021) ; (Khatib and Nour 2021), (Li et al. 2021), (Wu and Xu 2021), (Albuquerque et al. 2020), (Bartik et al. 2020), (Fahlenbrach et al. 2020), (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020), (Kraus et al. 2020) , (Levy 2020), (Obrenovic et al. 2020), (Shen et al. 2020). Obrenovic et al. (2020) investigated the key factors influencing company operations and the initial strategies for dealing with adversity during a pandemic. The study finds that substantial heterogeneity depends on the company, industry, and macroeconomic factors of the country. Firms with higher cash reserves and lower debt are more robust to the effects of COVID-19 (Ding et al. 2021), (Fahlenbrach et al. 2020). The pandemic has provided opportunities for companies in certain industries to innovate and bring new products (Li et al. 2021). This presents an interesting scenario in which a surprise drastically changes company performance, shifting managers’ expectations in the months before the crisis (Golubeva 2021), (Obrenovic et al. 2020). Since the spread of COVID-19, companies have closely monitored the market trends of their operations. PT Hero Supermarket Tbk (HERO), Indonesia’s giant retail company, was affected by a substantial change in customer spending patterns due to the lockdown. HERO recorded insignificant performance throughout the first semester of 2021. The company lost IDR550.88 billion compared to the previous year’s IDR202.07 billion (Liputan6.com 2021). Companies with good governance respond quickly to new macroeconomic fluctuations (Huang et al. 2020). However, other studies have shown conflicting views on the relationship between company performance and corporate governance mechanisms (Ahsan et al. 2021) , (Chijoke-Mgbame et al. 2020). The shareholder-centered governance model suggests that separating a company’s ownership from its control causes agent–principals conflict. This is because managers prioritize their profits by maximizing shareholder value (Jensen and Meckling 1976), (Dey 2008). Over the last few decades, the principal–agent issue has been fundamental in modern finance. Agents are trusted to act in the principal’s interest, but they prioritize their interests (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020). A lack of oversight allows agents to expropriate corporate resources by stealing profits and channeling company assets through transactions with related parties or other companies (Chan 2010), (La Porta et al. 2000). Furthermore, agents recruit unqualified relatives in key positions and determine excessive salaries (Schulze et al. 2001) .Xu and Wang (1999) examined ownership government, institutional, and individual influences on company performance in China. The study finds that large institutional shareholders increase company performance. However, increased government ownership decreases labor productivity, resulting in inefficient company performance. The different shareholders’ characteristics, behavior, focus, and strategies describe their involvement in the company and its impact on its performance. According to a press release by the Ministry of Industry on 21 September 2021, Indonesia’s economic strength lies in its large domestic market. It has superior manufacturing value added to other ASEAN countries such as Thailand (USD 1.23 billion), Malaysia (USD81.19 million), and Vietnam (USD41.7 Million). Therefore, Indonesia is the largest economy in Southeast Asia (Kemenperin.go.id 2021). The Report Indonesia 2020 reports real gross domestic product growth in 2019 of 5.03% and before the COVID-19 outbreak, the gross domestic product was expected to increase in 2020 (Oxford Business Group 2020). However, the COVID-19 pandemic forced Bank Indonesia to revise 4.2–4.6% of its 2020 economic growth projection under the 2019 growth rate. According to the East Ventures Digital Competitiveness Index 2021 Report, Indonesia achieved the fastest digital economic growth in the ASEAN region during the pandemic because its regulatory framework is more open than that of other markets in Southeast Asia (East Ventures Digital 2021). The threats and opportunities arising in Indonesia are interesting phenomena because they relate to how ownership identity affects company performance. They also facilitated economic disruption due to the spread of COVID-19 and lockdowns worldwide. Indonesia as one of the largest emerging markets in Southeast Asia has potential for new and re- J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 3 of 18 newable energy (EBT) and export-oriented manufacturing. This distinguishes the country from neighboring countries, increasing its attractiveness to foreign investors. Moreover, the Indonesia Stock Exchange (IDX) was the most active in the ASEAN region during Q3-2021 (EY Global IPO Trends Reports 2021). As a member of the Corporate Governance Task Force, the IDX prepares a corporate governance roadmap to increase investment transparency and attract and protect foreign investors’ interests. Although this step is fundamental to addressing agency problems, its implementation remains challenging for securities market regulators. Setiawan et al. (2016) examine Indonesia’s corporate ownership identity and dividend policy. The study finds that family firms negatively affect dividend payments by making lower payments because they want to be in control, benefiting from these resources at the expense of minority shareholders. Therefore, the family company is involved in a takeover by a minority shareholder because of poor investor protection, lack of transparency, as well as information disclosure. It indicates that Indonesia has the seriousness of the IDX agency problem. In addition, we believe the issue regarding various ownership roles in the firm performance needs a deeper analysis, especially in emerging markets. Most empirical studies on the impact of ownership identity on company performance have focused on developed countries such as the United States (Admati et al. 1994), (Hollowell 2006), (Villalonga and Amit 2006) , the United Kingdom (Becht et al. 2008), and Japan (Yoshikawa and Rasheed 2010). They highlighted the role of governance mechanisms in improving company performance. Only a few studies have examined the relationship between ownership structure and company performance in emerging markets such as Indonesia, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, they cannot guide companies in emerging markets in making business decisions because the uniqueness of emerging markets itself. As such, countries have limited disclosure, inadequate investor protection, and loose regulations (Yu 2013). This study will expand its scope in terms of; (1) the research period used is the COVID-19 pandemic since the reduction in economic activities that happened during this period may lead to a decline in the firm performance; (2) include control variables such as leverage, business risk, liquidity, firm size, growth opportunities, and sector; (3) and investigation of companies in one of the emerging markets in the ASEAN region with the most active capital market in the ASEAN region. The data will be analyzed using panel data regression with an analytical approach to support this novelty. This study aims to fill a research gap by addressing the following research question: Does owner identity play a significant role in business performance during the COVID-19 pandemic? This research tries to answer the question in Indonesia, a developing country with different characteristics from developed countries. The following sections first provide an overview of the theoretical background, literature survey, and hypothesis development. Data and methodology are then described in the third section. The fourth section describes experimental results and robustness tests. Finally, the fifth section presents conclusions, limitations, and implications. 2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development 2.1. Theoretical Background The 1972 theory by Alchian and Demsetz of property rights treats a firm as a contractual entity in which managers select workers and determine their duties. They state that insiders should have ownership and control rights. Similarly, the rights to production factors should be distributed to different stakeholders, provided that the income from the provision of the rights exceeds costs. Jensen and Meckling (1976) proposed the agency theory by referring to the contractual relationship between the principal and agent. This theory explains inherent conflicts of interest between shareholders (principals) and managers (agents). This conflict occurs because of differences in interests between the principal and the agent. Blockholding has been noted in the corporate governance literature as an effective approach for minimizing agency problems between shareholders and managers (Jensen and Meckling 1976), (Shleifer and Vishny 1997), (Claessens and Djankov 1999). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 4 of 18 Block shareholders offer a partial solution to the small-investor free-rider problems. However, blockholder ownership exceeding a certain level causes the owner–manager camp to expropriate minority shareholder wealth (Fama and Jensen 1983), (Morck et al. 1989), (Claessens et al. 1999), so incurring substantial costs associated with blockholders. For instance, this is called the entrenchment problem. One of the aspects of agency theory is entrenchment theory. It arises from the possibility that large shareholders choose to use their power to take-over minority shareholders by taking investment actions and decisions to fulfill their interests (La Porta et al. 2000), (Claessens et al. 1999). In addition to that, an entrenchment problem might happen when managers utilize information asymmetry to make investment decisions to ensure that their position is irreplaceable (El-Chaarani et al. 2022). Knowledge of a company’s financial condition allows managers to know about underutilized cash sources, such as funding for dormant projects or canceled insurance policies. These cash sources form an expense account or are used to fund golden parachutes. Another entrenchment practice is the poison pill, involving the prevention of ownership dilution by offering more shares to shareholders. In addition, managers implement supermajority amendments, requiring a vote by management to approve key measures (El-Chaarani et al. 2022). Performance-based compensation, board independence, and ownership concentration are internal mechanisms to control entrenchment, while external mechanisms include legal protection (El-Chaarani et al. 2022) , (Jensen and Meckling 1976). 2.2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development COVID-19 has rocked businesses worldwide, testing the resilience of various companies to the pandemic. Indonesia had the highest number of infections in Southeast Asia. On 11 July 2022, the country recorded 1007 deaths, which is the highest daily death record in the world. This was followed by Russia, India, and Brazil, with 749, 720, and 597 cases, respectively (Cnnindonesia.com 2021). The pandemic has also significantly impacted the economic, political, social, cultural, defense, and security fields, as well as the welfare of the Indonesian people (Alam et al. 2021). The COVID-19 epidemic has had an impact on many facets of life across the world, including the economy. According to Pourmansouri et al. (2022), factors of Good Corporate Governance determined how the company’s value performance altered during Covid-19. The study’s statistical sample includes 120 firms that were listed on the Tehran Stock Exchange between 2011 and 2021. The findings revealed that concentration of ownership is averse to the adoption of corporate governance (GCG) standards. Centralized voter ownership, in particular, weakens the corporate governance structure (CGS). According to the findings of this panel investigation, the concentration of ownership has an impact on the quality of his CGS, making it hard for major shareholders to oppose the power of large shareholders. It also had a detrimental influence on the quality of corporate boards. Ownership structure affects company performance, providing important information for users of financial statements when making economic decisions. Company performance is often measured using accountingand market-based approaches (Al-Matari et al. 2014). Return on Assets (ROA) is commonly used in accounting-based measurements (Al-Matari et al. 2014) . This metric reflects a company’s efficiency in using assets in operational activities to meet shareholders’ economic interests. This ratio assesses the efficiency of an entity’s assets in generating profits. Assets are business assets acquired with owner capital through the sale of shares on the stock market and/or through debt owed to lenders or other third parties (including the issuance of bonds). Profit assesses the effectiveness of management in terms of revenue and operational cost-effectiveness. Assessing an asset’s ability to produce a profit is significant because it has a favorable impact on a company’s ability to generate positive cash flow and give investment returns to its shareholders. Managers’ and shareholders’ interests can be aligned by ownership type (Laporšek et al. 2021). (Laporšek et al. 2021) show that perceptions of corporate objectives vary widely depending on the ownership type in Slovenian companies. The right combination of ownership types J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 5 of 18 increases the chance of good corporate governance. Consequently, they increase efficiency and firm value, facilitate access to capital markets and funds, and reduce capital costs (Claessens and Yurtoglu 2013). Alchian and Demsetz (1972) and Jensen and Meckling (1976) define a firm as a contract between the factors of production that act in their self-interest. The success of production factors depends on team performance, the environment in which they operate, and competition with other organizations (Fama 1980). Therefore, a company’s performance results from its operating activities, including its impact on all interest groups. Stakeholders, comprising owners, management, employees, suppliers, customers, local communities, states, and others, aim to improve a company’s performance. In this case, performance is the profitability and rate of return on the stakeholders’ investment, depending on their involvement in the company and their ability to diversify risk. 2.2.1. Family Ownership The literature explains that family involvement in business improves companies’ performance (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020), (Ding et al. 2021), (Adams et al. 2008). Therefore, a study on how family ownership responds to the COVID-19 shock helps understand the pandemic’s general consequences on the business sector (Amore et al. 2022) . The implications of family control on the ability to cope with a pandemic are unclear (Amore et al. 2022) . The desire to inherit healthy businesses is the most frequent motivation for family owners. (Adams et al. 2008). Subsequently, family companies exhibit longer time horizons in decision-making, greater involvement and reputation problems, and more business strength than non-family owners. During a crisis, families engage in actions aimed at defending their interests at the expense of minority investors, thereby reducing firm value (Claessens and Yurtoglu 2013), (Claessens et al. 1999). The owner’s low propensity to make workforce adjustments may be a disadvantage because managers cannot make the complex organizational changes needed to cope with a shock event (Pérez-González 2006). Family owners’ motivations are more valuable during a pandemic because they signal to investors and stakeholders that the business would strive to thrive. Previous studies have also shown that family companies are better prepared to deal with growing political instability (Amore and Minichilli 2018). They have a network of connections that assists them in accessing funding (D’Aurizio et al. 2015). Furthermore, such companies exhibit higher employee productivity (Amore et al. 2022), (Sraer and Thesmar 2007) and lower debt costs (Anderson and Reeb 2003). This is because of stronger relationships with stakeholders and better institutional alignments. Therefore, family companies should be better prepared to disrupt COVID-19. Hypothesis 1. Family ownership significantly and positively affects company performance. 2.2.2. Government Ownership Higher government ownership improves company performance because government companies have clear mechanisms and rules. Companies are less constrained by government policies than non-government companies. Furthermore, companies with government ownership easily access monopolies and are more likely to receive government subsidies or low-interest loans when in trouble (Wu and Xu 2021;Berkowitz et al. 2017). Government ownership improves company performance at a certain threshold. First, a governmentdominated shareholding structure may be more effective than dispersed shareholding in reducing agency costs where law enforcement is weak. This is illustrated by Monkey King Limited’s case, where a large shareholder’s absence to monitor its activities enabled the company to manipulate accounts and squander its cash flow. However, this can be avoided when there is concentrated share ownership from any source including the government (Tian and Estrin 2008). Company performance can also decrease through government share ownership (Yu 2013) , (Shleifer and Vishny 1997). As the government is a majority shareholder, it J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 6 of 18 may pursue goals unrelated to profit maximization (Tian and Estrin 2008). Several studies have shown that government ownership is detrimental to a company’s performance. According to Shleifer and Vishny (1997), investors prefer non-governmental ownership to governmental ownership. This is due to the government having a grabbing hand that extorts companies to benefit both politicians and bureaucrats, such as deliberately diverting company resources to political supporters. In addition, most government-owned shares are non-tradable, which is a major obstacle to domestic market development. Wu and Xu (2021) compared the performance of SOE and NSOE in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results show that SOE companies receive greater government support. However, they bear more of the burden imposed by the government and are driven less by market signals. This is because most companies have concentrated ownership structures, limited information disclosure, weak investor protection, and dependence on the banking system (Yu 2013). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government hopes that the companies they control can survive. Government ownership helps companies survive financial crises by injecting capital (Li et al. 2008). In line with this, Sun et al. (2003) emphasize that the government has a strong financial interest in the successful performance of companies in which it is the majority shareholder. During the pandemic, the government helped companies through preferential treatment. Therefore, state-owned companies may be better prepared for the COVID-19 disruption. Hypothesis 2. Government ownership significantly and positively affects company performance. 2.2.3. Institutional Ownership Several studies have shown a positive relationship between institutional ownership and company performance (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020), (Amin and Hamdan 2018), (Abu-Serdaneh et al. 2010) . Proactive involvement entails writing open letters to management or directors, inviting major shareholders to public meetings, requesting special disclosures or audits, and voting on the feasibility of business decisions (Larcker and Tayan 2011) . Companies with significant institutional ownership attract more analysts because institutional oversight allows them to experience lower information asymmetry and better financial performance (Boone and White 2015), (Demiralp et al. 2011). Owing to the high supervision cost, only large shareholders, such as institutional investors, have sufficient interest and incentives to supervise, discipline, and influence managers. This causes managers to focus on company performance without behaving opportunistically. However, some studies show that institutional investors emphasize their gains at the expense of minority shareholders (La Porta et al. 2000), (Claessens et al. 1999). These studies fail to confirm the active involvement of institutional ownership in maximizing shareholder value. This was due to the absence of active institutional supervision of management performance, which required special skills and expertise. Jabbouri and Jabbouri (2020) show that investors are more likely to recognize the importance of the supervisory role of institutions in Moroccan companies during an economic crisis. According to Rajan and Zingales (1998), regulators and investors ignore corporate governance mechanisms during good economic times in East Asian markets. Shareholders are deeply concerned about corporate governance during economic downturns when performance declines and corporate resources become more accessible to insider’s takeover (Mitton 2002). Therefore, institutionally owned companies may be better prepared for COVID-19 disruptions. Hypothesis 3. Institutional ownership significantly and positively affects company performance. 3. Methodology The study sample comprised all non-financial companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange for the 2020–2021 period during the COVID-19 pandemic. The financial sector J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 7 of 18 companies are excluded since it has a distinct business nature. Because the nature of banks and insurance companies is regulated, their underlying characteristics differ from non-financial companies. Non-financial companies bring together economic units that share many characteristics and behavior. The final sample consisted of 1025 firm-year observations. The financial report data of the company were obtained from the IDX and the company’s websites. The dependent variable was the company’s performance (PERFORM), while the independent variables included family ownership (FAMOWN), government ownership (GOVOWN), and institutional ownership (INSTOWN). The control variables used were growth opportunities (GROWTH), leverage (LEV), liquidity (LIQUID), business risk (BUSRISK), firm size (SIZE), and the industrial sector (SECTOR). Table 1presents the definition of the dependent, independent, and control variables. Table 1. Definition of variables. No Variable Abbreviation Formula Source 1 Firm Performance PERFORM Return on assets ratio (Amin and Hamdan 2018) 2 Family Ownership FAMOWN Percentage of number of shares held by the family divided by the total number of shares outstanding (Amore et al. 2022), (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020), (Villalonga and Amit 2006) 3Government Ownership GOVOWN Percentage of number of shares held by the government divided by the total number of shares outstanding (Yu 2013) 4Institutional Ownership INSTOWN Percentage of number of shares held by the institutions divided by the total number of shares outstanding (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020), (Boone and White 2015) 5 Leverage LEV Debt to total assets ratio (Amore et al. 2022) 6 Business Risk BUSRISK EBIT standard deviation (Wiagustini and Pertamawati 2015) 7 Liquidity LIQUID Current ratio (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020) 8 Firm Size SIZE Natural Logarithm of Total Assets (Setiawan et al. 2016) 9 Growth Opportunities GROWTH Asset growth ratio (Jabbouri and Jabbouri 2020) 10 Industrial Sector SECTOR Dummy for industrial sectors (Samasta et al. 2018) Source: Author’s computational results. This study examines the effect of ownership identity on company performance during the COVID-19 pandemic using the following equation: PERFORMit =αi+β1FAMOWNit +β2GOVOWNit +β3INSTOWNit +β4GROWTHit β5LEVit +β6BUSRISKit + β7LIQUIDit +β8SIZEit +β9SECTORdummiesit This study uses a panel data regression analysis using the fixed effect model (FEM), the common effect model (CEM), and the random effect model (REM). First, determine the best model to use among these models. The Chow test is applied to determine which model is the best between the common effect model (CEM) and the fixed effect model (FEM). In addition, the Hausman test was conducted to determine which model is best used between the fixed effect model (FEM) and the random effect model (REM). 4. Results 4.1. Descriptive Statistics Table 2demonstrates that the average performance is 0.0625, implying that most companies had positive profitability during the 2020–2021 period. This indicates that J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 8 of 18 they generated profits, showing their resilience even during the pandemic. The positive value can be attributed to the company’s rapid response to the COVID-19 crisis. Many companies changed their business activities to enhance efficiencies with rapid technology adoption and alternative income sources (Obrenovic et al. 2020). Furthermore, the average percentage of family ownership is 50.59%, signifying that more than half of the companies are family owned, with a high median value of 58.08%. Claessens et al. (2000) states that companies in Indonesia have a concentrated ownership structure with dominant family control. Government ownership has an average percentage of 1.41%, with 0% and 82.48% as the maximum and maximum values, respectively, meaning that most companies are not state-owned. This is consistent with the median value of 0% for government ownership. Institutional ownership averages 61.39%, meaning that the sample companies have high institutional ownership. According to Amin and Hamdan (2018), the ability of institutions to influence company decisions depends on their share ownership. Table 2also lists the control variables. Table 2. Descriptive statistics. PERFORM FAMOWN GOVOWN INSTOWN GROWTH LEV BUSRISK LIQUID SIZE SECTOR Mean 0.0625 50.5909 1.41373 61.3919 0.70353 3.02677 28.9580 6.3498 28,367.12 5.7795 Median 0.0500 58.0800 0.00000 66.8600 0.02000 0.45000 29.0000 1.5880 28,341.00 6.0000 Maximum 0.5320 99.0040 82.4800 99.9400 473.706 519.369 30.0000 1026.0 33,537.00 9.0000 Minimum −0.5190 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 −0.99900 0.00100 23.0000 − 0.6850 22,531.00 1.0000 Std. Dev. 0.1271 30.8038 9.32958 26.0278 15.0101 32.8664 0.46054 42.802 1842.473 2.5610 Observation 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 1025 Source: Author’s computational results. 4.2. Correlation The correlation matrix between the variables in Table 3shows a weak pairwise correlation among all independent variables. Table 3also shows that the correlation coefficient between all independent variables on the dependent variables, on average, is weak. This can be seen from the value of each correlation, FAMOWN 0.0173, GOVOWN − 0.0657, INSTOWN 0.0945, GROWTH − 0.0141, LEV − 0.0084, BUSRISK 0.0224, LIQUID − 0.0334, SIZE 0.2356, SECTOR −0.1265. This implies that the sample is free of multicollinearity. Table 3. Correlation matrix of the variables. Corelation Probability 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PERFORM 1.0000 FAMOWN 0.0173 1.000 GOVOWN −0.0657 − 0.0307 1.0000 INSTOWN 0.0945 0.0477 − 0.0502 1.0000 GROWTH −0.0141 0.0229 0.0014 0.0153 1.0000 LEV −0.0084 0.0298 − 0.0018 0.0222 − 0.0032 1.0000 BUSRISK 0.0224 − 0.0176 0.0031 − 0.0213 0.0020 0.0073 1.0000 LIQUID −0.0334 0.0384 − 0.0049 − 0.1232 − 0.0049 − 0.0105 − 0.0242 1.0000 SIZE 0.2356 − 0.2227 0.0784 − 0.0091 0.0114 − 0.0968 0.0575 − 0.1122 1.0000 SECTOR −0.1265 − 0.0290 0.0137 0.0175 0.0195 0.0287 − 0.1146 0.0182 − 0.1846 1.0000 Source: Author’s computational results. 4.3. Regression The results of panel data testing are shown in Table 4. Model specification testing is carried out first to decide which model is appropriate. Based on Hausman’s test, the fixedeffects model seems the most appropriate. Based on the results of the fixed effects model in J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 15 of 18 5.3. Implication These findings provide important theoretical and practical implications that are useful to academic researchers, company managers, investors, and regulators. According to our findings, organizations with considerable family and institutional ownership face a high level of resistance to sustaining their business firm performance. This finding is consistent with that of (Perrini et al. 2008) and (Al-Janadi 2021) both of which found that internal ownership is positively related to organizational performance. Both are doing research in non-centralized companies. Furthermore, Al-Janadi (2021) found that non-financial firms moderated their central ownership relationship with firm performance, moving from a negative to a significantly positive relationship. This weakness stems from the weakening role of internal ownership as non-financial firms have a higher concentration of ownership and more control. Our research provides additional niche value and proves that ownership structure influences company performance, suggesting that future research will test more niches for it. In practice, our research suggests that enterprises should retain the ratio of family ownership to maintain direct supervision of the family in order to boost productivity throughout the pandemic. Based on the findings of this study, organizations should consider decreasing company risk through institutional ownership. Another practical relevance of the findings for the control variables is the requirement for enterprises to monitor the graph of asset growth and financial leverage on a frequent basis and to carry out appropriate actions. Regulators can evaluate governance issues, review procedures, and regulations, and take necessary steps to strengthen investor protection and restore capital market integrity. Strong investor protection and improved corporate governance boost investor trust, stimulate market activity, and contribute to economic growth. Furthermore, in order to increase their understanding of capital markets, regulators must comprehend the influence of their investment decisions on the financial performance of issuers to improve their understanding of capital markets. This study suggests that companies act responsively and adaptively to the business environment uncertainties faced through several mechanisms such as good governance. In addition, the government needs to establish appropriate monetary and economic policies to mitigate the adverse consequences of the next crisis. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.P.; methodology, D.P. and A.N.; software, D.P.; validation, D.S., A.N. and I.P.R.; formal analysis, D.P. and D.S.; investigation, D.P. and I.P.R.; writing— original draft preparation, D.P. and A.N., writing—review and editing, D.S. and I.P.R.; supervision, D.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the Research University Grant of Sebelas Maret University, Number 254/UN27.22/PT.01.03/2022, and The APC was funded by the Research University Grant of Sebelas Maret University. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Abu-Serdaneh, Jamal, Majdy I. Zuriekat, and Imad Al-Sheikh. 2010. Ownership Structure and Corporate Performance in the Jordanian Manufacturing Companies. Jordan Journal of Business Administration 6: 426–39. Adams, Renee, Heitor Almeida, and Daniel Ferreira. 2008. Understanding the Relationship between Founder-CEOs and Firm Performance. Journal of Empirical Finance 16: 136–50. [CrossRef] Admati, Anat R., Paul Pfleiderer, and Josef Zechner. 1994. Large Shareholder’s Activism, Risk Sharing, and Financial Market Equilibrium? Journal of Political Economy 102: 1097–130. [CrossRef] Ahsan, Tanveer, Sultan Sikandar Mirza, Bakr Al-Gamrh, Chai Bin-Feng, and Zia-Ur-Rehman Rao. 2021. How to Deal with Policy Uncertainty to Attain Sustainable Growth: The Role of Corporate Governance. The International Journal of Business in Society 21: 78–91. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 16 of 18 Albuquerque, Rui, Yrjo Koskinen, Shuai Yang, and Chendi Zhang. 2020. Resiliency of Environmental and Social Stocks: An Analysis of the Exogenous COVID-19 Market Crash. The Review of Corporate Finance Studies 9: 593–621. [CrossRef] Al-Janadi, Yaseen. 2021. Ownership Structure and Firm Performance in the Middle East: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14: 577. [CrossRef] Al-Matari, Ebrahim Mohammed, Abdullah Kaid Al-Swidi, and Faudziah Hanim Bt Fadzil. 2014. The Measurements of Firm Performance’s Dimensions. Asian Journal of Finance & Accounting 6: 24. [CrossRef] Alam, Md Mahmudul, Agung Masyad Fawzi, Md. Monirul Islam, and Jamaliah Said. 2021. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on National Security Issues: Indonesia as a Case Study. Springer Security Journal. [CrossRef] Alchian, Armen A., and Harold Demsetz. 1972. The property right paradigm. The Journal of Economic History 33: 16–27. [CrossRef] Amin, Anisa Abdulrahman, and Allam Mohammed Hamdan. 2018. Evaluating the Effect of Ownership Structure on Firm Performance: Evidence from Saudi Arabian Listed Companies. Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development 39: 65–92. Amore, Mario Daniele, and Alessandro Minichilli. 2018. Local Political Uncertainty, Family Control, and Investment Behavior. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 53: 1781–804. [CrossRef] Amore, Mario Daniele, Valerio Pelucco, and Fabio Quarato. 2022. Family Ownership During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Banking & Finance 135: 106385. [CrossRef] Anderson, Ronald C., and David M. Reeb. 2003. Founding-Family Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. The Journal of Finance 58: 1301–28. [CrossRef] Asian Development Bank. 2020. COVID-19 Economic Impact Could Reach $8.8 Trillion Globally—New ADB Report. Available online: https://www.adb.org/news/covid-19-economic-impact-could-reach-8-8-trillion-globally-new-adb-report (accessed on 26 February 2022). Baker, H. Kent, Sujata Kapoor, and Imad Jabbouri. 2017. Institutional Perspectives of Dividend Policy in India. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets 10: 324–42. [CrossRef] Bartik, Alexander W., Marianne Bertrand, Zoe Cullen, Edward L. Glaeser, Michael Luca, and Christopher Stanton. 2020. The Impact of COVID-19 on Small Business Outcomes and Expectations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117: 17656–666. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Becht, Marco, Julian R. Franks, Colin Mayer, and Stefano Rossi. 2008. Returns to Shareholder Activism: Evidence from a Clinical Study of the Hermes UK Focus Fund. Review of Financial Studies 22: 3093–129. [CrossRef] Berkowitz, Daniel, Hong Ma, and Shuichiro Nishioka. 2017. Recasting the Iron Rice Bowl: The Reform of China’s State-Owned Enterprises. The Review of Economics and Statistics 99: 735–47. [CrossRef] Boone, Audra L., and Joshua T. White. 2015. The Effect of Institutional Ownership on Firm Transparency and Information Production. Journal of Financial Economics 117: 508–33. [CrossRef] Chan, Wai Meng. 2010. Expropriation Through Related Party Transactions: The Position in Malaysia. Paper presented at the 2010 IABR & ITLC Conference Proceedings, Orlando, FL, USA, January 4–6. Chijoke-Mgbame, Aruoriwo Marian, Chijoke Oscar Mgbame, Simisola Akintoye, and Paschal Ohalehi. 2020. The Role of Corporate Governance on CSR Disclosure and Firm Performance in a Voluntary Environment. The International Journal of Business in Society 20: 294–306. [CrossRef] Claessens, Stijn, Simeon Djankov, Joseph P. H. Fan, and H. P. Lang Larry. 1999. On Expropriation of Minority Shareholders: Evidence from East Asia. Journal of Finance Economics 58. [CrossRef] Claessens, Stijn, and Simeon Djankov. 1999. Ownership Concentration and Corporate Performance in the Czech Republic. Journal of Comparative Economics 27: 498–513. [CrossRef] Claessens, Stijn, Simeon Djankov, and Larry H. P. Lang. 2000. The Separation of Ownership and Control in East Asian Corporations. Journal of Financial Economics 58: 81–112. [CrossRef] Claessens, Stijn, and B. Burcin Yurtoglu. 2013. Corporate Governance in Emerging Markets: A Survey. Emerging Markets Review 15: 1–33. [CrossRef] Clarke, George R. G., Robert Cull, and Gregory Kisunko. 2012. External Finance and Firm Survival in the Aftermath of the Crisis: Evidence from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Journal of Comparative Economics 40: 372–92. [CrossRef] Cnnindonesia.com. 2021. Salip India Brasil Kematian Baru Covid RI Tertinggi di Dunia. Available online: https://www.cnnindonesia. com/internasional/20210712103839-106-666343/salip-india-brasil-kematian-baru-covid-ri-tertinggi-di-dunia (accessed on 26 February 2022). D’Aurizio, Leandro, Tommaso Oliviero, and Livio Romano. 2015. Family Firms, Soft Information and Bank Lending in a Financial Crisis. Journal of Corporate Finance 33: 279–92. [CrossRef] Demiralp, Ilhan, Ranjan D’Mello, Frederik P. Schlingemann, and Venkat Subramaniam. 2011. Are There Monitoring Benefits to Institutional Ownership? Evidence from Seasoned Equity Offerings. Journal of Corporate Finance 17: 1340–59. [CrossRef] Dessaint, Olivier, and Adrien Matray. 2017. Do Managers Overreact to Salient Risk? Evidence from Hurricane Strikes. Journal of Financial Economics 126: 97–121. [CrossRef] Dey, Aiyesha. 2008. Corporate Governance and Agency Conflicts. Journal of Accounting Research 46: 1143–81. [CrossRef] Ding, Wenzhi, Ross Levine, Chen Lin, and Wensi Xie. 2021. Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Economics 141: 802–30. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 17 of 18 East Ventures Digital. 2021. East Ventures Digital Competitiveness Index 2021. Available online: https://east.vc/dci/ (accessed on 20 February 2022). El-Chaarani, Hani, Rebecca Abraham, and Yahya Skaf. 2022. The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Financial Performance of the Banking Sector in the MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) Region: An Immunity Test of Banks for COVID-19. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 82. [CrossRef] Engidaw, Abraham Ebabu. 2022. Small Businesses and Their Challenges During COVID-19 Pandemic in Developing Countries: In the Case of Ethiopia. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 11: 1–14. [CrossRef] EY Global IPO Trends Reports. 2021. Are Your Growth Strategies Resilient Enough for the Future? Available online: https://www.ey. com/en_gl/ipo/trends (accessed on 10 February 2022). Fahlenbrach, Rüdiger, Kevin Rageth, and Rene M. Stulz. 2020. How Valuable is Financial Flexibility When Revenue Stops? Evidence from the Covid-19 Crisis. The Review of Economic Studies 58: 5474–21. [CrossRef] Fama, Eugene F. 1980. Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy 88: 288–307. [CrossRef] Fama, Eugene F., and Michael C. Jensen. 1983. Separation of Ownership and Control. Journal of Law and Economics 26: 301–25. [CrossRef] Golubeva, Olga. 2021. Firms’ Performance During the COVID-19 Outbreak: International Evidence from 13 Countries. International Journal of Business in Society 21: 1011–27. [CrossRef] Handayani, Meutia, Talbani Farlian, and Ardian Ardian. 2019. Firm Size, Market Risk, and Stock Return: Evidence from Indonesian Blue Chip Companies. Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi Dan Bisnis 6: 171–182. [CrossRef] Hendra, Joni, Hery Koesharjono, and Seger Priantono. 2018. Implication of Good Corporate Governance and Leverage on Earnings Management. Inrnational Journal of Social Science and Business 2: 1–9. [CrossRef] Hollowell, Byron. 2006. The Effects of Institutional Investors in the Retail Industry. The American Academy of Business Journal 9: 27–32. Huang, Zhen, Weiwei Gao, and Lying Chen. 2020. Does the External Environment Matter for the Persistence of Firms’ Debt Policy? Finance Research Letters 32: 101073. [CrossRef] Jabbouri, Imad, and Rachid Jabbouri. 2020. Ownership Identity and Firm Performance: Preand Post-Crisis Evidence from an African Emerging Market. International Journal of Finance and Economics 26: 5963–76. [CrossRef] Jensen, Michael C., and William H. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3: 305–60. [CrossRef] Jensen, Michael C. 1986. Agency Costs of Free Cash Flow, Corporate Finance, and Takeovers. The American Economic Review 76: 323–29. Kaczmarek, Tomasz, Katarzyna Perezb, Ender Demircd, and Adam Zarembaab. 2021. How to Survive a Pandemic: The Corporate Resiliency of Travel and Leisure Companies to the COVID-19 Outbreak. Tourism Management 84: 104281. [CrossRef] Khatib, Saleh F. A., and Abdul-Naser Nour. 2021. The Impact of Corporate Governance on Firm Performance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence from Malaysia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business 8: 943–52. [CrossRef] Kemenperin.go.id. 2021. Unggul di ASEAN, Indonesia Fokus Tingkatkan nilai Tambah Manufaktur. Available online: https://www. kemenperin.go.id/artikel/22780/Unggul-di-ASEAN,-Indonesia-Fokus-Tingkatkan-Nilai-Tambah-Manufaktur (accessed on 23 February 2022). Kraus, Sascha, Thomas Clauß, Matthias Breier, and Johanna Gast. 2020. The Economics of COVID-19: Initial Empirical Evidence on How Family Firms in Five European Countries Cope with the Corona Crisis. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 26: 1067–92. [CrossRef] La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny. 2000. Investor Protection and Corporate Governance. Journal of Financial Economics 58: 3–27. [CrossRef] Laporšek, Suzana, Primož Dolenc, Andraž Grum, and Igor Stubelj. 2021. Ownership Structure and Firm Performance—The Case of Slovenia. Economic Research 34: 2975–96. [CrossRef] Larcker, David F., and Brian Tayan. 2011. Corporate Governance Matters: A Closer Look at Organizational Choices and Their Consequences. Upper Saddle River: FT Press. Lazzarini, Sergio G., and Aldo Musacchio. 2018. State Ownership Reinvented? Explaining Performance Differences between State-owned and Private Firms. Corporate Governance 26: 255–72. [CrossRef] Levy, David L. 2020. COVID-19 and Global Governance. Journal of Management Studies 58: 562–66. [CrossRef] Li, Hong-Xia, Zong-Jun Wang, and Xiao-Lan Deng. 2008. Ownership, Independent Directors, Agency Costs and Financial Distress: Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies. Corporate Governance 8: 622–36. [CrossRef] Li, Kai, Xing Liu, Feng Mai, and Tengfei Zhang. 2021. The Role of Corporate Culture in Bad Times: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 56: 2545–83. [CrossRef] Lins, Karl V., Henri Servaes, and Ane Tamayo. 2017. Social Capital, Trust, and Firm Performance: The Value of Corporate Social Responsibility during the Financial Crisis. The Journal of Finance LXXII: 1785–824. [CrossRef] Liputan6.com. 2021. Pandemi Covid-19 Rugi Hero Supermarket Membengkak Pada Semester I 2021. Available online: https://www. liputan6.com/saham/read/4619395/pandemi-covid-19-rugi-hero-supermarket-membengkak-pada-semester-i-2021 (accessed on 27 February 2022). Mitton, Todd. 2002. A Cross-Firm Analysis of the Impact of Corporate Governance on the East Asian Financial Crisis. Journal of Financial Economics 64: 215–41. [CrossRef] Morck, Randall, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny. 1989. Alternative Mechanisms for Corporate Control. American Economic Review 79: 842–52. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022,15, 444 18 of 18 Obrenovic, Bojan, Jianguo Du, Danijela Godinic, Diana Tsoy, Muhammad Aamir Shafique Khan, and Ilimdorjon Jakhongirov. 2020. Sustaining Enterprise Operations and Productivity During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Enterprise Effectiveness and Sustainability Model. Sustainability 12: 5981. [CrossRef] Oxford Business Group. 2020. The Report: Indonesia 2020. Available online: https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/indonesia-2020 /economy (accessed on 23 February 2022). Perrini, Francesco, Ginevra Rossi, and Barbara Rovetta. 2008. Does Ownership Structure Affect Performance? Evidence from the Italian Market. Corporate Governance: An International Review 16: 312–25. [CrossRef] Pérez-González, Francisco. 2006. Inherited Control and Firm Performance. The American Economic Review 96: 1559–88. [CrossRef] Pourmansouri, Rezvan, Amir Mehdiabadi, Vahid Shahabi, Cristi Spulbar, and Ramona Birau. 2022. An Investigation of the Link between Major Shareholders’ Behavior and Corporate Governance Performance before and after the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study of the Companies Listed on the Iranian Stock Market. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15: 208. [CrossRef] Rajan, Raghuram G., and Luigi Zingales. 1998. Which Capitalism? Lessons from the East Asian crisis. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 11: 40–48. [CrossRef] Samasta, Almira Santi, Harjum Muharam, and Antonius Mulyo Haryanto. 2018. The Effect of Board of Director, Audit Committee, Institutional Ownership to Firm Value, with Firm Size, Financial Leverage, and Industrial Sector as Control Variables (Study on Listed Companies in Indonesian Stock Exchange Period 2011–2015). Jurnal Bisnis Strategi 27: 53–62. [CrossRef] Schulze, William S., Michael H. Lubatkin, Richard N. Dino, and Ann K. Buchholtz. 2001. Agency Relationships in Family Firms: Theory and Evidence. Organization Science 12: 99–116. [CrossRef] Schuwer, Ulrich, Claudia Lambert, and Felix North. 2019. How Do Banks React to Catastrophic Events? Evidence from Hurricane Katrina. Review of Finance 23: 75–116. [CrossRef] Setiawan, Doddy, Bandi Bandi, and Lian Kee Phua. 2016. Ownership Structure and Dividend Policy in Indonesia. Journal of Asia Business Studies 10: 230–52. [CrossRef] Shan, Chenyu, and Dragon Yongjun Tang. 2022. The value of employee satisfaction in disastrous times: Evidence from COVID-19. Review of Finance. [CrossRef] Shen, Huayu, Mengyao Fu, Hongyu Pan, Zhongfu Yu, and Yongquan Chen. 2020. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Firm Performance. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 56: 2213–30. [CrossRef] Shleifer, Andrei, and Robert W. Vishny. 1997. A Survey Of Corporate Governance. The Journal of Finance 52: 737–83. [CrossRef] Siddikee, Md. Noman, and Mohammad Mafizur Rahman. 2017. Effect of Catastrophic Disaster in Financial Market Contagion. Cogent Economics & Finance 5: 1288772. [CrossRef] Sraer, David, and David Thesmar. 2007. Performance and Behavior of Family Firms: Evidence from the French Stock Market. Journal of the European Economic Association 5: 709–51. [CrossRef] Sun, Qian, Wilson H. S. Tong, and Jin Tong. 2003. How Does Government Ownership Affect Firm Performance? Evidence from China’s Privatization Experience. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 29: 1–27. [CrossRef] Suprihati, Suprihati, Abdul Haris Romdhoni, and Gita Wahyu A. M. 2018. Increasing Company Performance with Liquidity, Solvency in Cigarette Industry Listed in IDX. International Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting Research (IJEBAR) 2: 94–106. [CrossRef] Tian, Lihui, and Saul Estrin. 2008. Retained State Shareholding in Chinese PLCs: Does Government Ownership Always Reduce Corporate Value? Journal of Comparative Economics 36: 74–89. [CrossRef] Villalonga, Belen, and Raphael Amit. 2006. How Do Family Ownership, Control and Management Affect Firm Value? Journal of Financial Economics 80: 385–417. [CrossRef] Wiagustini, Ni Luh Putu, and Ni Luh Pertamawati. 2015. Pengaruh Risiko Bisnis dan Ukuran Perusahaan pada Struktur Modal dan Nilai Perusahaan pada Perusahaan Farmasi di BEI. Jurnal Manajemen, Strategi Bisnis, Dan Kewirausahaan 9: 112–22. Wu, Howei, and Bin Xu. 2021. Did State-Owned Enterprises Do Better During COVID-19? Evidence from a Survey of Company Executives in China. Journal of Economics and Business 115: 105991. [CrossRef] Xu, Xiaonian, and Yan Wang. 1999. Ownership Structure and Corporate Governance in Chinese Stock Companies. China Economic Review 10: 75–98. [CrossRef] Yoshikawa, Toru, and Abdul A. Rasheed. 2010. Family Control and Ownership Monitoring in Family-Controlled Firms in Japan. Journal of Management Studies 47: 275–95. [CrossRef] Yu, Mei. 2013. State Ownership and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Listed Companies. China Journal of Accounting Research 6: 75–87. [CrossRef] Zheng, Chen, and Junry Zhang. 2021. The Impact of COVID-19 on the Efficiency of Microfinance Institutions. International Review of Economics & Finance 71: 407–23. [CrossRef]