<![CDATA[ABSTRAK Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pengaruh dari kebijakan utang terhadap kinerja keuangan pada perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. Kebijakan utang diproksikan dengan short term debt (STD), long term debt (LTD), dan total debt (TD), sedangkan kinerja keuangan diproksikan dengan return on equity (ROE). Penelitian ini menggunakan 2 (dua) variabel kontrol, yaitu size dan sales growth (SG). Periode penelitian ini dilakukan selama 3 (tiga) tahun, yaitu tahun 2016-2018. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian kausal dengan pendekatan kuantitatif, sedangkan berdasarkan tingkat eksplanasinya penelitian ini termasuk penelitian asosiatif. Populasi penelitian adalah seluruh perusahaan manufaktur yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia periode 2016-2018. Sampel yang diperoleh berdasarkan pada teknik purposive sampling, dan diperoleh 73 perusahaan. Teknik analisis data yang digunakan regresi linear berganda dengan 2 (dua) model. Model 1 yaitu regresi dengan menggunakan variabel bebas short term debt (STD), long term debt (LTD),dan variabel kontrol, dan model 2 merupakan regresi dari variabel bebas total debt (TD) dan variabel kontrol. Berdasarkan hasil analisis data, STD tidak berpengaruh terhadap ROEdengan koefisien regresi sebesar -0,009, nilai t hitung -0,160, dan nilai signifikansi sebesar 0,873. Variabel LTD berpengaruh negatif dan signifikan terhadap ROE dengan nilai koefisien regresi sebesar -0,308, t hitung sebesar -4,190, dan tingkat signifkansi sebesar 0,000. Variabel TD berpengaruh negatif dan signifikan dengan koefisien regresi -0,114, t hitung sebesar -2,407 pada signifikansi 0,017. Nilai uji F pada model 1 sebesar 6,833, dan nilai uji F model 2yaitu 5,022. Adapun nilai adjusted R2 model 1 yaitu 0,052, sehingga variabel STD dan LTD mampu memengaruhi variabel ROE sebesar 5,2% dan sisanya 94,8% dijelaskan oleh faktor-faktor lain di luar model penelitian ini. Model 2 memilikinilai adjusted R2 sebesar 0,097, sehingga variabel TD mampu memengaruhi variabel ROE sebesar 9,7%, sedangkan sisanya yaitu 90,3% dijelaskan oleh faktor-faktor lain di luar model penelitian ini. Kata kunci: Kinerja Keuangan, Kebijakan Utang, Short Term Debt, Long Term Debt, Total Debt, Return On Equity ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to examine the effect of debt policy onfinancial performance of listed firms in Indonesian Stock Exchange. Debt policy measured by short term debt, long term debt, and total debt, while financial performance measured by return on equity. This research used two control variables, namely, size and sales growth.This research was causal research with quantitative approach, while by the level of it explanation, the research was associative research. The population of the research included the company listed in Indonesian Stock Exchange on manufacturing sector during the 2016-2018 period. The purposive sampling wasused as sample collection technique for the research, and it was obtained 73 companies. The method was used multiple regression analysis with two models. Model 1 was regression using short term debt, long term debt, and control variables, and model two was regression of independent variable, total debt, and control variables. Short Term Debt had no effect on ROE as proved by -0,009 coefficient regression, -0,160 t-arithmetic and 0,873 significance value. Long Term Debt had negative and significant effect on ROE as proved by -0,308 coefficient regression, -4,109 t-arithmetic and 0,000 significance value. Total Debt had negative and significant effect on ROE as proved by -0,114 coefficient regression, -2,407 tarithmetic and 0,017 significance value. The F test on model 1 was 6,833, and the F test model 2 was 5,022. Adjusted R2 of model 1 was 0,052 which means that variation of Return On Equity could be explained by Short Term Debt and Long Term Debt of 5,2%, while the remaining 94,8% was explained by other variables outside the model. Adjusted R2 of model 2 was 0,097 which means that variation of Return On Equity could be explained by Total Debt of 9,7%, while the remaining 90,3% was explained by other variables outside the model. Keywords : Financial Performance, Debt Policy, Short Term Debt, Long Term]]>
