Abstract :

PT Bank Laju International Tbk (the Bank) has struggled with its increased foreclosed assets, particularly those originating from mortgage loans, which could affect its financial health. The research assessed Bank’s financial health using Risk Based Bank Rating (RBBR) framework by analysing key financial ratios and investigating the root causes of rising foreclosed assets through Fishbone and Pareto analysis. Key factors include customer income instability, slow progress in selling foreclosed assets, and lack of insurance protection during economic downturns. To select effective strategies for managing foreclosed assets, the research utilized Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making method, to evaluate multiple alternatives based on various criteria, which were derived from Focus Group Discussion (FGD) with Bank’s officers, who directly involved in mortgage loans and foreclosed assets activities, also reference with Bank’s SWOT analysis. The research evaluated three alternatives strategy:

1. Protection Insurance for Customer’s Mortgage Loans.
2. Actively Partnering with property agents to accelerate sale of foreclosed assets as-is.
3. Collaborating with property agents to renovate foreclosed assets.

The result showed that despite the increase in foreclosed assets, the Bank remains financially sound, with key financial ratios within acceptable regulatory limits. AHP analysis revealed that alternative 1 stands in first place to be prioritized, followed by alternative 2, however between both alternatives indicates a very small difference in prioritization weight, which means that both strategies are important to be executed and prioritized. Proposal to implement both alternatives in parallel would be a very effective strategy, where alternative 1 conduct as Preventive Strategy in preventing customer’s mortgage loans defaults, while alternative 2 as Corrective Strategy in lowering foreclosed assets volume. Alternative 3 acts as a complement strategy, where renovating foreclosed assets could facilitate quicker sales, however it’ll take longer time for renovation itself.

---

Keywords :

Analytic hierarchy process, Decision making, Foreclosed Assets, Mortgage Loans, Strategy Prioritization

---

References :

1. Published financial report of 2019-2023 in Indonesia Stock Exchange from the10 banks with highest Foreclosed Assets.
2. https://www.ojk.go.id/id/regulasi/Documents/Pages/Bank-Umum/POJK%2012%20-%2003%20-2021.pdf
3. Anginer, D., Demirguc-Kunt, A., Huizinga, H., & Ma, K. (2018). Corporate governance of banks and financial stability. Journal of Financial Economics, 130(2), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.06.011.
4. Doherty, N. (2000). Integrated Risk Management: Techniques and Strategies for Managing Corporate risk: Techniques and Strategies for Managing Corporate Risk. McGraw Hill Professional.
5. Harrington, S. E., & Niehaus, G. R. (2003). Risk Management and Insurance. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
6. Zhu, X., Meng, X., & Zhang, M. (2021). Application of multiple criteria decision-making methods in construction: a systematic literature review. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 27(6), 372–403. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2021.15260.
7. Taherdoost, H., & Madanchian, M. (2023). Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods and Concepts. Encyclopedia, 3(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010006.
8. Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237.
9. Liu, X., Shao, S., & Shao, S. (2024). Landslide susceptibility zonation using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in the Great Xi’an Region, China. Scientific Reports, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-53630-y.
10. Cecilia, G., & Sudrajad, O. Y. (2024). Risk assessment of Neobank in Indonesia: Case study of Bank Gembira Indonesia. International Journal of Current Science Research and Review, 07(05). https://doi.org/10.47191/ijcsrr/v7-i5-41
11. Rudiyanto, C., & Sudrajad, O.Y. (2024) Choosing the most suitable sustainability report standard for banking industry: A case study of Bank ABC. Journal of Multidisciplinary Academic and Practice Studies, 2(3), 269-273.
12. Abdullah, M. M., & Asmael, N. M. (2023). Analytic hierarchy process for evaluation of transportation alternatives on the karkh side of baghdad. Journal of Engineering and Sustainable Development, 27(6), 771–782. https://doi.org/10.31272/jeasd.27.6.8.
13. Shanmugasundaram, S., & Muthaiah, R. (2024). Selection of robot for contour crafting using analytical hierarchy process. Civil and Environmental Engineering Reports, 33(4), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.59440/ceer/177605.
14. Goodwin, P & Wright G, 2024, Decision Analysis for Management Judgement, Third Edition
15. Mazhar, S. A. (2021). Methods of data collection: A fundamental tool of research. Journal of Integrated Community Health, 10(1), 6-10. https://doi.org/10.24321/2319.9113.202101.
16. Syed, S., & Qadri, S. (2021). Data Collection Methods: Advanced Research Methodology. Department of Business Administration, Greenwich University, Pakistan Campus-Karachi.
17. Taherdoost, H. (2021). Data collection methods and tools for research: A step-by-step guide to choose data collection technique for academic and business research projects. International Journal of Academic Research.
18. Nazarko, J., Ejdys, J., Halicka, K., Magruk, A., Nazarko, Ł., & Skorek, A. (2017). Application of enhanced SWOT analysis in the future-oriented public management of technology. Procedia Engineering, 182, 482-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.140.
19. Coccia, M. (2020). Fishbone diagram for technological analysis and foresight. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 14(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2020.10033239.
20. Kumar, R., Singh, K., & Jain, S. (2019). Agile manufacturing: A literature review and Pareto analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 36(2), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-12-2018-0349.