








































Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  181

THE INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL EFFECT ON 
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCES AT ISLAMIC INSURANCE 

Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih1

Abstract. The Intellectual Capital Effect on Financial Performances at 
Islamic Insurance. The research has analyzed the intellectual capital effect of 
the Islamic insurance company’s financial performance. Intellectual capital is 
quantified by VAICTM (Value Added Intellectual Capital), for efficiency components 
are physical capital coefficient (VACA), human capital coefficient (VAHU), and 
structural capital coefficient (STVA). Financial performance is quantified by 
ROA and RBC. Data is given from seven Islamic insurance companies during 
2009-2013. Data analysis used is PLS (Partial Least Square). The result shows 
that intellectual capital factors had an affect the company’s financial performance. 
Intellectual capital relation to financial performance parameter value estimated 
coefficient 0,845 with t-statistic 46,771.  VAICTM enables to elucidate financial 
performance variable 71, 6%, is by finding the R-square PERF value (financial 
performance) 0,716. 

Keyword: Intellectual capital, financial performance, Partial Least Square 
(PLS)

Abstrak. Pengaruh Modal Intelektual Terhadap Kinerja Keuangan pada 
Asuransi Syariah. Penelitian ini menganalisis pengaruh modal intelektual 
terhadap kinerja keuangan di industri asuransi syariah. Modal intelektual 
dijelaskan dengan VAICTM (Value Added Intelectual Capital), sedangkan komponen 
efisiensi ialah koefisien modal fisik (VACA), koefisien modal manusia (VAHU), 
dan koefisie modal structural (STVA). Kinerja keuangan dikuantifikasikan dengan 
ROA dan RBC. Data yang digunakan ilah dari tujuh perusahaan asuransi syariah 
selama 2009 – 2013. Data dianalisis dengan partial least square. Hasil yang 
ada menunjukkan bahwa faktor modal intelektual memiliki pengaruh terhadap 
kinerja keuangan perusahaan. Modal intelektual memiliki hubungan terhadap 
parameter kinerja keuangan dengan nilai estimasi sebesar 0,845 dengan nilai 
t-hitung sebesar 46,771. VAICTM mampu mendorong variabel kinerja keuangan 
sebesar 71,6%, hal ini diperlihatkan dengan nilai R2 sebesar 0,716.

Kata Kunci: Modal intelektual, kinerja keuangan, partial least square

First draft: January, 10th 2015, Revision: February, 27th 2015, Accepted: March, 20th  2015
1 Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University. Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 95, Ciputat, South 

Tangerang, Banten, Indonesia.
Email: Risqon.hsa@gmail.com; kurniasih129@gmail.com



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 182

Introduction

Knowledge based industries concept leads to new business view. It exposes old 
paradigm of business view which is dominant on labor based business view. Ambar 
Widyaningrum (2004) figure out that knowledge based industries is transformation, 
capitalization and knowledge transfer process as a media to get earning. It can be 
new reference of knowledge based industries concept and it is crucial in uplifting 
company’s performance, especially in finance reporting.  

In this research, it will be appeared quantifying of Intellectual capital by 
“Value Added Intellectual Coefficient” (VAICTM). Ante Public offered a measure 
unit to asses value added efficiency as a result of company intellectual ability. Primary 
components of VAICTM are comprises of physical capital (VACA – value added capital 
employed), human capital (VAHU – value added human capital) and structural 
capital (STVA – structural capital value added). Furthermore, Ante Public said that 
intellectual ability (VAICTM) indicates how both of human resource (physical capital 
and intellectual capital) has already used by some companies efficiently.

The role of human resource in Islamic insurance have important role, is agent 
to uplift up selling. On the other research also indicating that area of information 
technology (IT), marketing and human resource of Islamic insurance are needed 
to develop, because it will affect company profit. Those indicate that if company 
would invest in developing human resource, infrastructure, or marketing, those will 
become intellectual capital and value added of the company. 

Indonesian insurance have no identify yet intellectual capital seriously 
as important factor. Till know, several companies in Indonesia have tend to use 
conventional based in forming their business. So that, products were produced 
meritless technology touching.  Some instances are human capital, structure capital 
and customer capital. Those are indicated by many cases of fraud agent, claim 
matter. Those are difficult to break out and technology use have not maximized 
yet. Those matters come up a research challenge of intellectual capital problematic. 
Based on problems above, in this research will be elucidated:  first, How to do 
treating, measuring and exposing intellectual capital of insurance company in 
Indonesia? Second, How to report intellectual capital which is able to affect for 
finance performance of Islamic insurance company?

Literature Review

Intellectual capital has many definitions. According to Sveiby (1998) 
(Sawarjuwono and Kadir, 2003) intellectual capital is the invisible intangible part 
of the balance sheet can be classified as a family of three, individual competence, 
internal structural, and external structure. Kadir (2003), figure out that intellectual 



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  183

capital  is the results of three main organization elements (human capital, structural 
capital, costumer capital) have relation to knowledge and information rendering 
value added and eminency for company to compete. 

Ante Public submitted that efficiency measure for assessing of value added 
is the result company intellectual ability (Ihyaul Ulum, 2009). VAIC™ model 
quantified intellectual capital to create value depend on the third relation of main 
components are physical capital, human capital, and structural capital. The first 
relation of VA using physic capital (CA) is called “value added capital coefficient” 
(VACA). It is indicator that is VA created by a physic capital. VACA draws how 
many value added of company created from capital used. In finance commentary, 
capital employed for equity accounting. If a unit of CE generating return bigger 
than other companies, means the company better in employing its CE. So that, 
CE employing for IC forming effort better. Human Capital Coefficient (VAHU) 
describes how much VA enables to deliver through expended fund for employs. 
The relation between VA and HC identified capability of HC to compose company 
value. HC is represented by employs expense in finance commentary for personnel 
expense. The third relations are Structural Capital Coefficient (STVA) that emerging 
structural capital (SC) contribution to form value. STVA assesses SC total needed to 
yield one rupiah from VA and it indicates how successful SC in creating value. Value 
Added Intellectual Coefficient (VAICTM) ratio created from additional coefficients 
like VACA, VAHU, and STVA.

According to Fahmi (2006), performance is work achievements. It used for 
an organization or on a unit of organization. So that, if connect to the definition, 
it can be drawn a simple definition that finance performance can be understood as 
outcome of managers in accomplishing them loaded task which having relation to 
company finance managing.

The research aimed to quantify finance performance using two ratios: a. Return 
on asset (ROA) indicates how much net profit acquired by company if quantified 
from active value. (Harahap, 2010). Firer and Williams in Ihyaul Ulum (2009) have 
already verified that intellectual capital quantified with VAICTM and having positive 
effect for company finance performance. Besides that, it also demonstrates that 
intellectual capital has positive impact and company profitability is significance. It is 
indicated by ROA. Risk Based Capital (RBC) is fund sufficient risk ratio to endure 
and become a main indicator to quantify insurance of company finance balancing, 
especially relate to solvability. 

Based on the theories, the conceptual framework of this research is to find 
relation between intellectual Capital (VAICTM) as exigent variable and company 
performance as endogen variable.  



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 184

Figure. 1. Conceptual Framework

 
Company’s 

Performance 
(PERF) 

 

Intellectual 
Capital 

(VAICTM) 

 

VACA 

VAHU 

STVA 

ROA 

RBC 

Intellectual Capital (VAICTM) counted from VACA, VAHU and STVA are 
exigent variable. Exigent variable will affect endogen variable. Company performance 
is quantified by ROA and RBC endogen variable. The company performance will be 
affected by intellectual capital as exigent variable. 

The first time intellectual capital studies began of Stewart article on 1991, 
Brain Power – How Intellectual Capital Is Becoming America’s Most Valuable Asset. 
It arranged intellectual capital to being management agenda (Ihyaul Ulum, 2009). 
Stewart defines intellectual capital as intellectual matters (knowledge, information, 
intellectual property, experiencing) are valuable to have wealth. It is a thought 
collective power or useful set of insight. The research of Intellectual Capital offered 
some definitions. According to Moeheriono (2012), intellectual capital knowledge 
and ability have had by social collectivity: intellectual organizations, professionals 
and resource delegations of have high value and ability to run as knowledge.

Besides that, Sveiby (1998) in Sawarjuwono (2003), “The invisible intangible 
part of the balance sheet can be classified as a family of three, individual competence, 
internal structural and external structure”. Kadir (2003), defines:  Intellectual capital 
as the result of three main elements of organizations: human capital, structural capital, 
costumer capital. They relate to knowledge and technology has more valuable for 
companies by privilege organization competing (Sawarjuwono and Kadir, 2003).

One of definitions most used to describe intellectual capital is Organization 
for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on 1999 told that intellectual 
capital is an economic account among two intangible asset categories:  first, 
organizational (structural) capital refers to software system, distribution network 
and circle of availability. Second, human capital comprises of human resource in the 
organization (employs) and external resources are consumer and supplier (Ihyaul 
Ulum, 2013).

Furthermore, Edvinson and Malone in Ulum (2013), identified intellectual 
capital is hidden value of business. Hidden term is defined that intellectual capital 
has knowledge asset. In this case, knowledge divided into three categories: employs’ 
knowledge (human capital), consumers’ knowledge (customer or relation capital), 
and companies’ knowledge (structural or organizational capital). The third categories 



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  185

formed an intellectual capital for companies. 
Human capital refers to knowledge point; skill, innovation, and experience 

are owned by companies’ member. Many experts describe as owned knowledge 
of companies’ employs through training and education process. Human capital 
has important role for intellectual capital because it is being a customer capital 
invention process on human capital component and it is helped by structure capital. 
Human capital has interacted with customers to identify knowledge, skill, ability, 
and expected value by customers (Sangkala, 2006). Edvinson dan Manole exposes 
human capital as knowledge, skill, innovation and companies members’ ability to 
settle up tasks. 

VAICTM method is promoted by Ante Public on 1997. Primary components 
of VAICTM can be seen from companies sources based physic capital, human capital, 
structural capital. Moreover, the model designed to provide information of value 
creation efficiency companies’ intangible asset. It began with companies ability to 
invent value added (VA). VA is being the most objective indicator to assess successful 
business and it represented companies ability in inventing value.VA is accounted as 
deviation among output and input.

In Tan et al. (2007) Output (OUT) represented revenue and included all 
products are sold in market. There is accounting of operational and non operational 
income in commentary finance. Input (IN) includes all expenses are used to get 
revenue. The important point of this model is labor expenses does not include 
IN because has active role in processing in IN, are value creation, intellectual 
potential (representing labor expenses) unaccounted as cost and not include in IN 
component. Therefore, the keyword of Ante Public’s model is to treat employs as 
value creating entity. VA is affected by human capital efficiency (HC) and Structural 
Capital (SC). 

Physical capital use or value added capital coefficient is being indicator that 
VA is yielded by a unit of physic capital. VACA represented how much companies’ 
value added have been invented from capital used. There are accounting equities 
in finance commentary capital employed. If a unit of CE delivering return better 
from other companies, means companies better to employing their CE. Thereby, 
CE utilization might be being efforts to form better IC. 

Human Capital Coefficient (VAHU) indicates how much VA produced 
through expensed fund for employs. The relation between VA and HC indentified 
HC ability to invent companies’ value. HC is represented by employs’ expense in 
personnel accounting finance commentary. 

Structural capital is companies’ capability to reach out market, hardware, or 



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 186

software for companies supporting. Simply, it is supporting tool for employs. In 
this case, even though employs have high intelligence, but if they do not supported 
by adequate tools to apply some innovation, the capability would not employing 
intellectual capital. The third relations are structural capital coefficient (STVA) 
figure out structural capital in scoring. STVA quantifying SC total needed to deliver 
one rupiah from VA and it indicates how successful of SC in scoring. 

Ante Public presented that SC are not independent standard as HC. It is 
dependent to value creation or as big HC contribution to value creation, as small 
SC contribution to it. Furthermore, Public said that SC is VA minus HC, it verified 
by empirical research on traditional industry sector. Value Added Intellectual 
Coefficient (VAICTM) ratio yielded from coefficient addition of VACA, VAHU and 
STVA. Public method’s has intrigue to gain data easily and lead to furthermore 
which will be conducted to other data resources. Data are needed to get standard 
ratio from various finance numbers audited and usually it is from companies finance 
reporting. Alternative IC measurement is limited to engage finance and non finance 
indicators are adjusted with individual companies’ profit (Roos  et al., 1997 in Tan  
et al., 2007). Those indicators are unavailable or unwritten by other companies, 
especially non finance. The impact, capability to realize alternative IC steps have 
various samples for comparative analysis being lack consistent (Firer and Williams, 
2003 in Tan  et al.,  2007).

Methods

This research is using quantitative approach to verify intellectual capital 
theories which affecting to finance performance. Intellectual capital is counted 
using VAICTM method and verified using partial least square method. Moreover, 
intellectual capital results are described and analyzed as data found and interpreted 
as real condition. Secondary data used are finance reporting yearly, such as balance 
sheet, income statement and statement of funds companies financial health of 
the latest fund on 2009-2013 from insurance companies have being object of the 
research. 

Data collection technique of the research is using documentation technique. 
This method covers data and information collecting through bibliofigurey study and 
literatures exploration. Finance reporting publications are taken from companies’ 
website that has already being sample of the research. Insurance books on 2009-
2010 from Badan Pengawas Pasar Modal dan Lembaga Keuangan’s website www.
bapepam.go.id, insurances books on 2011-2013 from Otoritas Jasa Keuangan’s web 
www.ojk.go.id



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  187

Discussion

Referring the table indicates that ROA value growth is invented by each 
Islamic insurance companies for 2009 until 2013, ROA figures out companies 
management ability to draw income from asset management owned. Besides that, it 
can be seen that ROA value on 2009 until 2013 of highest to lowest: (1) Prudential 
Syariah by average of ROA 0, 36%, (2) AXA Mandiri Syariah 0, 32%, (3) Avrist 
Syariah 0, 16%, (4) BNI Life Syaria 0 ,07%, (5) AIA Syariah 0, 05%, (6) Allianz 
Syariah 0,04% and (7) Takaful Keluarga by average of ROA 0, 01%. 

Table 1. The accounting of return on asset (ROA) 
result of Islamic Insurance companies  2009- 2013

ROA TAHUN Rata-rata
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

AIA 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.05
Allianz 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.08 0.04
Avrist 0.02 0.02 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.16
AXA Mandiri 0.04 0.06 0.42 0.50 0.58 0.32
BNI Life 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.07
Prudential 0.09 0.09 0.65 0.55 0.43 0.36
Takaful 
Keluarga 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

In sum up of the table on 2009 that management of Prudential Syariah is 
best to employing asset owned. While, Takaful Keluarga has lowest position and 
it indicates less effective management company to employing asset for delivering 
profit. As high percentage of ROA value, as effective company management is to 
employing asset for delivering profit. 

Table 2. Islamic Insurance RBC Growth (%)

RBC
TAHUN Rata-

rata2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
AIA 3.79 5.15 0.23 1.25 1.20 2.32
Allianz 4.28 4.99 2.07 2.33 3.14 3.36
Avrist 3.29 7.11 1.15 0.74 0.88 2.63
AXA Mandiri 7.91 7.18 0.47 0.81 1.11 3.50
BNI Life 2.10 1.72 1.84 2.14 1.50 1.86
Prudential 4.20 7.66 0.72 0.82 0.85 2.85
Takaful Keluarga 1.20 1.21 0.14 0.26 0.53 0.67



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 188

The Table 2 figures out that RBC value growth for each Islamic insurance 
company during 2009 until 2013. Also it indicates adequacy capital of risk is borne 
by insurance company. In finance ministry regulation of 11/PMK.010/2011 about 
finance health of insurance business and reinsurance to Islamic principle, company 
have to maintain latest fun solvability by seeing finance health achievement ratio of 
latest fund the lowest 30 % from fund needed to anticipate the risk of possible loss 
caused of deviation in asset managing or responsibility. Moreover, the table identified 
that Islamic insurance company has already fulfilled lowest RBC standard, is 30%.

The highest RBC of Islamic insurance companies are (1) AXA Mandiri 
Syariah 350%, (2) Allianz Syariah 336% (3) Prudential Syariah 285%, (4) Avrist 
Syariah 263%, (5) AIA Syariah 232%, (6) BNI Life Syariah 186% and (7) Takaful 
Keluarga 67%. Referring to the RBC value, the seven companies has already fulfilled 
of solvability by RBC value more 30 %

Table 3. VAICTM value 2009

VAIC (2009) VACA VAHU STVA VAIC
AIA 0.55 1.68 0.41 2.64
Allianz 0.92 1.36 0.27 2.55
Avrist 0.32 2.29 0.56 3.17
AXA mandiri 1.52 2.06 0.51 4.1
Bni Life 0.45 1.29 0.22 1.96
Prudential 2.15 1.82 0.45 4.41
Takaful Keluarga 0.25 1.03 0.03 1.3

Referring to the Table VAIC value on 2009 that top performers of Islamic 
insurance companies category are (1) Prudential Syariah VAIC score 4, 41, (2) AXA 
Mandiri VAIC score 4, 1 dan (3) Avrist Syariah VAIC score  3, 17. It indicates that 
the three Islamic insurance companies quite efficient to use their concrete assets, are 
physic and intangible asset by agent ability to serve insurance members. 

Islamic insurance companies which are included in good performers category 
are (1) AIA Syariah VAIC 2, 64 and (2) Allianz Syariah VAIC 2, 55. While, BNI 
Life Syariah is included in common performers VAIC 1, 96 and Takaful VAIC 1, 
3 is bad performers. It is caused by structure capital value achieved of value added 
minimized to low human capital. In addition, low structural capital low is caused by 
lack of adequacy tool to apply innovation of companies’ employs.



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  189

Table 4. VAICTM Value 2010

VAIC (2010) VACA VAHU STVA VAIC
AIA 0.42 1.58 0.37 2.37
Allianz 0.87 1.36 0.27 2.5
Avrist 0.25 2.25 0.56 3.05
AXA mandiri 1.7 2.39 0.58 4.67
Bni Life 0.59 1.09 0.09 1.77
Prudential 1.52 2 0.5 4.02
Takaful Keluarga 0.39 1 0.005 1.38

The VAIC on 2010 stated that no significant from previous year. The Islamic 
insurance companies are included top performers category still similar as previous 
year. But they are little decline and rise: (1) AXA Mandiri VAIC 4, 67 (2) Prudential 
Syariah VAIC 4, 02 and (3) Avrist Syariah VAIC 3, 05. 

The islamic insurance companies are included in good performers category 
are (1) Allianz Syariah VAIC 2, 5, and (2) AIA Syariah VAIC 2, 37. Then, BNI Life 
Syariah is common performer category is VAIC 1, 77 and Takaful Keluarga VAIC 
1, 38 is still bad performer category.  It is affected by forming value of structure 
capital value added is structure capital has decline. On 2010 net of total income has 
declined but employs expenses (commission and acquisition fee) is increased. 

Table 5. VAICTM Value 2011

VAIC (2011)
VACA VAHU STVA VAIC

AIA 2.17 1.09 0.08 3.33
Allianz 3.9 0.91 -0.09 4.72
Avrist 0.3 1.36 0.27 1.93
AXA mandiri 0.51 4.44 0.77 5.72
Bni Life 0.31 1.72 0.42 2.45
Prudential 3.42 2.68 0.63 6.73
Takaful Keluarga 0.53 1.06 0.05 1.64

On 2011, government has established finances regulation of 11/PMK.010/ 
2011 discussing finance health of insurance and reinsurance business. In this case, 
there is a rule for Islamic insurance finance reporting, Islamic insurance business unit 
must report finance reporting separated and not combined with primary company. 
It impacts to some changing of VAIC categories. Islamic insurance companies are 
included in top performers category are (1) Prudential Syariah VAIC 6, 73, (2) AXA 



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 190

Mandiri VAIC 5, 72, (3) Allianz Syariah VAIC 4, 72. The STVA of Allianz syariah is 
-0, 09. It is caused employs expense bigger than value added (VA = OUT-IN). This 
is in line with Ante Public’s theory has stated that as big contribution of HC in value 
creation, as smaller SC contribution. The last is (4) AIA syariah VAIC 3, 33.

Islamic insurance companies which are included in good performers category 
is BNI Life Syariah VAIC 2, 45.  Common performers are yaitu(1) Avrist Syariah 
1, 93 is decline from previous year in top performer category. It is caused by decline 
of VAHU and STVA value. (2)Takaful VAIC 1, 64 rise from VAIC previous year 
being a common performer.

Tabel 6. VAICTM  value 2012

VAIC (2012) VACA VAHU STVA VAIC
AIA 2.19 1.42 0.3 3.9
Allianz 4.38 0.9 -0.11 5.18
Avrist 0.26 2.06 0.51 2.83
AXA mandiri 0.61 4.7 0.79 6.09
Bni Life 0.53 1.99 0.5 3.02
Prudential 1.76 2.71 0.63 5.1
Takaful Keluarga 0.45 0.93 -0.07 1.32

On 2012, Islamic insurance companies on top performers are AXA mandiri 
syariah, Allianz Syariah, Prudential Syariah and AIA Syariah. It is same as previous 
year and BNI Life rise up from good performer to be top performer. Then, Avrist 
syariah inclined being good performer from previous year as common performer. 
Takaful keluarga has lowest VAIC value from the previous years, is 1, 32 and being 
bad performer category.

Tabel 7. VAICTM Value on 2013

VAIC (2013) VACA VAHU STVA VAIC
AIA 2.27 1.25 0.2 3.72
Allianz 2.92 1.02 0.02 3.97
Avrist 0.15 3.97 0.75 4.87
AXA mandiri 0.81 2.88 0.65 4.34
Bni Life 0.66 1.79 0.44 2.89
Prudential 1.29 2.84 0.65 4.78
Takaful Keluarga 0.5 1.06 0.06 1.62

The top performers of Islamic insurance companies on 2013 are Avrist 



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  191

syariah, Prudential Syariah, AXA mandiri syariah, Allianz syariah, AIA syariah.  BNI 
life syariah is good performer and Takaful keluarga is common performer.

Table 8. VAICTM  Value 2009-2013

VAIC
TAHUN

Rata-rata2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
AIA 2.64 2.37 3.33 3.9 3.72 3.192
Allianz 2.55 2.5 4.72 5.18 3.97 3.784
Avrist 3.17 3.05 1.93 2.83 4.87 3.17
AXA mandiri 4.1 4.67 5.72 6.09 4.34 4.984
Bni Life 1.96 1.77 2.45 3.02 2.89 2.418
Prudential 4.41 4.02 6.73 5.1 4.78 5.008
Takaful Keluarga 1.3 1.38 1.64 1.32 1.62 1.452

The table describes wholly VAIC average for 2009-20013. The top performers 
of the period are (1) Prudential Syariah VAIC 5, 008; (2) AXA mandiri VAIC 4, 98; 
(3) Allianz VAIC 3,784; (4) AIA VAIC 3, 192; and (5) Avrist VAIC 3, 17.  While, 
BNI Life Syariah VAIC 2, 418 is included in god performer and Takaful keluarga 
VAIC 1,452 is bad performer. The VAIC is proposed by Public is a model has 
pointed out how companies ability to manage and to maximize their intellectual 
asset for creating value of companies. Those figureics show up that Islamic insurance 
VAIC value every year have declined and inclined but the trends are tend to stable. 

Prudential Syariah and AXA Mandiri Syariah are Islamic insurance companies 
have top performer of VAIC value from 2009 to 20013. In the figureic, they can 
be seen that VAIC is 4, 0 and 7, 0.  Avrist Syariah is included on top performer on 
2009-2010 and it is in 3.0-4.0; but on 2011 has declined, is 2, 0. After that, Avrist 
Syariah has inclined trend on 2013, is 4, 87.

On 2009-2010 AIA Syariah and Allianz Syariah are in 2, 0 – 3, 0; then, 
they have inclined from 2011-2013 and being top performers. BNI Life Syariah 
and Takaful Keluarga in VAIC 1, 0—2, 0 for 2009-2010. The next year, BNI Life 
Syariah has better trend even though little,  is 2, 0 – 3 ,0; meanwhile, Takaful 
Keluarga has stable trend in 1, 0 – 2, 0.

There are two concealed variables in this research. They are VAIC and 
finance performance (PERF). Those are formed by formative indicator. Formative 
indicator is indicator used as exigent and endogen variable forming or dependent 
and independent (Ghazali, 2006).  VAIC variable is constructed by VACA indicator 
and STVA. Finance performance is configurated by ROA and RBC. 



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 192

Formative indicator is assumed as among indicator have no correlation 
each other. So those, the standard of internal consistence of (cronbach alpha) not 
needed to examine formative construction of reliability (Ghozali 2006). Formative 
construction basically is regression relation from indicator to construction. To evaluate 
it is by seeing regression coefficient and significant of regression coefficient. The line 
model analysis of all concealed variables in PLS is comprised of three relations set: 
(1) outer model is specifying relation between concealed variable and its indicator; 
(2) inner model is pointing out relation to concealed variable (3) weight relation is 
how comprehensively the case from concealed variable can be estimated. The data 
analysis has described with software Smart PLS can be seen as follow: 

Figure 2. Outer Model : Calculate Bootstrapping

According to the outer model and t statistic, it can be concluded that t statistic 
indicator above 1, 697 (for significant level 0, 05. One tail test) are VACA, STVA, 
ROA and RBC, with each t statistic 3, 275; 2, 687; 12, 258 and 4, 073. Meanwhile, 
VAHU indicator has t statistic 0, 369 and not significant. For Outer Weight PLS 
can be seen on table below. 

Table 9. Nilai Outer Weight (Mean, STDEV, T-Values)
Original 
Sample 

(O)

Sample 
Mean 
(M)

Standard 
Deviation 
(STDEV)

Standard 
Error 

(STERR)

T statistiks 
(|O/

STERR|)
RBC -> PERF 0.5764 0.5581 0.1415 0.1415 4.0728
ROA -> PERF 1.0595 1.0518 0.0864 0.0864 12.2583
STVA -> VAIC 0.9072 0.8254 0.3377 0.3377 2.6867
VACA -> VAIC 0.3995 0.3828 0.1220 0.1220 3.2750
VAHU -> VAIC 0.1285 0.1945 0.3485 0.3485 0.3687

Based on the table, it can be seen that RBC and ROA weight have shaped 
finance performance 0, 5764 and 1, 0595. Its t-statistic is 1, 697 (for significant 
level 0, 05. One tail test). The RBC and ROA are significant.  For STVA, VACA 
and VAHU weight are 0, 9072; 0, 0395; and 0, 1285. For the significant t-statistics 
level is 1, 697 (significant level 0, 05. One tail test) The VAHU indicator is not 
significant So, VAHU have to eliminated and needed to estimate back through 
engaging indicators significant only.    



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  193

Figure. 3. PLS Result: Recalculate Bootstrapping

After eliciting indicators have no significant and just engaging the significant 
indicators or close to significant, it can be known that each variables have weight 0, 
050 (positive) and significance t statistic to p <0, 05. 

Table 10. Recalculate Outer Weight (Mean, STDEV, T-Values)
Original 
Sample 

(O)

Sample 
Mean 
(M)

Standard 
Deviation 
(STDEV)

Standard 
Error 

(STERR)

T statistiks 
(|O/

STERR|)
RBC -> PERF 0.6040 0.5948 0.1203 0.1203 5.0208
ROA -> PERF 1.0530 1.0435 0.0814 0.0814 12.9384
STVA -> VAIC 1.0237 1.0151 0.0841 0.0841 12.1763
VACA -> VAIC 0.4031 0.3984 0.1086 0.1086 3.7125

Referring to the table that model has already fit because each variables have 
weight >0, 5 and t-statistic >1, 697. PLS test pointed out that all indicators forming 
VAIC. VACA and STVA are significant and both ROA and RBC have significant 
for finance performance (PERF). 

Structural model test is committed by finding R-square value has goodness–
fit model. In addition, this test finds construct relation between significant value 
and R-square of the research model. 

Figure 4. The Result of Algoritma PLS

The result pointed out that R-square PERF (finance performance) is 0, 716, 
means VAIC variable is able to deliver PERF variable 71, 6 %. The rest is delivered 
by another variable. The next test is to find significant of VAIC effect of finance 
performance by identifying coefficient parameter and t-statistic significant. 

Referring to the result, the big coefficient parameter is 0, 845, means there 
is VAIC positive effect of finance performance of Islamic insurance company. As 



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 194

high of VAIC, the finance performance of Islamic insurance is as high company 
by significant t-statistic 46, 771. Therefore, t-statistic is bigger than t-table 1, 697. 
The PLS test indicates that intellectual capital has affected to company’s finance 
performance. The relation both of them offered parameter coefficient estimation 0, 
845 and significant to 0, 05 (t-significant table 0, 05 = 1, 697) with t-statistic 46, 
771. VAIC variable enables to present finance performance variable 71, 6%, is by 
finding R-square PERF (finance performance) 0, 716. 

The analysis afforded that as high of intellectual capital value of company 
owned, the company performance is increase. It means that the company has 
managed its intellectual resource maximally, it affordable valued added that will affect 
to company’s finance performance increasing. The context of path power between 
intellectual capital and finance performance has found is in line and supporting 
Tan and friends’ work (2007); Zulianti and Arya (2011), also Alipour (2012). But, 
the research finding is inconsistent with previous finding when indentifying weight 
and each significant indicator. The testimonies are proposed by Tan and friends 
(2007); Zulianti and Arya (2011); Alipour (2012) stated out that three components 
of VACA, VAHU and STVA as significant statistic to form VAIC and have influence 
to company’s finance performance. 

Meanwhile, the research finding offers evidence that only VACA and STVA 
as significantly statistic forming VAIC construct for five years observation to Islamic 
insurance companies (2009-2013). It can be explained that the research taking 
sampling of Islamic insurance companies are running in employs service ability (agent 
of Islamic insurance) and structural capital use like software to support insurance 
claim service. Nevertheless, in Indonesia, the progress years of growth observing to 
join with Islamic insurance is not accompanied with insurance experts of human 
capital growth.  The big cost incurred for employs have not inflict significant yet of 
company intellectual capital. It caused the total of insurance experts to handle it is 
still lack. 

Furthermore, RBC and ROA indicators are statistically represent Islamic 
insurance company, because PLS of both indicators are significant. Intellectual 
capital is able to influence finance performance. Finance performance of this 
research is pointed out by ROA and RBC. The main purpose of this research is 
to analyze intellectual capital effect of finance performance in Islamic insurance 
companies. Intellectual capital is quantified by Value Added Intellectual Capital 
(VAICTM). Moreover, finance performance of Islamic insurance is quantified by 
Return on Asset (ROA) and Risk Based Capital (RBC). Sampling used are seven 
Islamic insurance companies for 2009-2013.  Data analysis technique used is Partial 
Least Square (PLS) method. 



Rizqon Halal Syah Aji & Kurniasih: The Intellectual Capital Effect  195

Conclusion  

Intellectual capital has effect to company’s finance performance. Intellectual 
capital relation to finance performance is allowing parameter coefficient estimation 0, 
845 and significant 0, 05 (t-significance table 0, 05 = 1, 697) with t-statistic 46, 771. 
As high of intellectual capital company owned, the company finance performance is 
increase. It means, company has managed its intellectual capital maximally be able 
to create value added which impacted to inclined of company finance performance. 
Finally,  VAICTM  variable enabling to explain finance performance variable 71, 6 %, 
is by finding R-square PERF (finance performance) 0, 716. 

The research finding offers evidence that only VACA and STVA as significantly 
statistic forming VAIC construct for five years observation to Islamic insurance 
companies (2009-2013). It can be explained that the research taking sampling 
of Islamic insurance companies are running in employs service ability (agent of 
Islamic insurance) and structural capital use like software to support insurance claim 
service.

References 

Ainurridha. 2014. Pengaruh Intellectual Capital terhadap Profitabilitas. (Unpublished 
Thesis). Jakarta: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

Amrin, A. 2009. Bisnis, Ekonomi, Asuransi, dan Akuntansi Keuangan Syariah. Jakarta: 
PT Grasindo. 

Antonio, M. S. et.al. 2012. An Analysis of Islamic Banking Performance: Maqashid 
Index Implementation in Indonesia and Jordania. Journal of Islamic Finance, 
Vol. 1 No. 1 (2012), pp. 012-029.

Fahmi, I. 2006. Analisis Investasi dalam Perspektif Ekonomi dan Politik. Bandung: 
PT. Rafika Aditama.

Ghoni, A. & E. Arianty. 2007. Akuntansi Asuransi Syariah antara Teori dan Praktik. 
Jakarta: INSCO Consulting. 

Ghozali, I. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling - Metode Alternatif dengan Partial 
Least Square. Semarang: Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro.

Gitosudarmo, I & Basri. 2002. Manajemen Keuangan. Yogyakarta: BPFE.
Harahap, S.S. 2010. Analisis Kritis atas Laporan Keuangan. Jakarta: Rajawali 

Press.
Hutapea, P & N. Thoha. 2008. Kompetensi Plus Teori Desain, Kasus dan Penerapan 

untuk HR serta Organisasi yang Dinamis. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
Kuncoro, M. 2009. Metode Riset untuk Bisnis dan Ekonomi. Jakarta: Erlangga. 
Murti, A. C. 2010. AnalisisPengaruh Modal Intelektual terhadap Kinerja Perusahaan. 



Al-Iqtishad: Vol. VII No. 2, Juli 2015 196

(Unpublished Thesis). Semarang: University of Diponegoro. 
Petty, R. & Guthrie, J. 2000. Intellectual Capital Literature Review. Measurement, 

Reporting and Management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 1 No. 2 , 
(2000): pp. 155-176.

Prastowo, D. 2011. Analisis Laporan Keuangan Konsep dan Aplikasi. Yogyakarta: 
Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Manajemen YKPN.

Puspitawati, L. & Reza, C. N.  2012. Analisis Pemeringkat Intellectual Capital 
Performance dan Pengaruhnya Terhadap Kinerja Keuangan Perbankan. Jurnal 
Ekono Insentif Kopwil 4 Vol. 6 No.1 , (Juli 2012), pp. 1-9.

Rustandi, R. 2012. Pengaruh Intellectual Capital terhadap Kinerja Keuangan pada 
Perusahaan Retail yang Terdapat di Bursa Efek Indonesia Tahun 2009-2011. 
(Unpublished Thesis). Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Salim, S. M. & Karyawati, G. 2013. Pengaruh Modal Intelektual terhadap Kinerja 
Keuangan. Journal of Business and Enterpreneurship, Vol. 1 No. 2 , (Mei 
2013), pp. 74-91.

Sangkala. 2006. Intellectual Capital Management Strategi Baru Membangun Daya 
Saing Perusahaan. Jakarta: Yapensi.

Sawarjuwono, T., & Kadir, A. P. “Intellectual Capital: Perlakuan, Pengukuran dan 
Pelaporan (Sebuah Library Research).” Jurnal Akuntansi & Keuangan,Vol 5 
No. 1 , (Mei 2003): h. 35-57.

Suhendah & Rousilita. 2012. Pengaruh Intellectual Capital terhadap Profitabilitas, 
Produktivitas dan Penilaian Pasar pada Perusahaan yang Go Public di Indonesia 
pada Tahun 2005-2007. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XV, Banjarmasin, 
2012.

Tan, H. P. et.al. 2007. Intellectual Capital and Financial Return of Companies. Journal 
of Intellectual Capital Vol. 8 No. 1 , (2007), pp. 76-95. 

Tanjung, H., & A. Devi. 2013. Metode Penelitian Ekonomi Islam. Jakarta: Gramata 
Publishing.

Ulum, I. 2008. Intellectual Capital Performance Sektor Perbankan di Indonesia. Jurnal 
Akuntansi dan Keuangan Vol. 10 No. 2 , (November 2008), pp. 77-84.

Ulum, I. 2009. Intellectual Capital Konsep dan Kajian Empiris. Yogyakarta: Graha 
Ilmu.

Wibowo.  2006. Manajemen Kinerja. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo.
Widyaningrum, A. 2004. Modal Intelektual. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan 

Indonesia, Vol. 1 , (2004), pp. 16-25.
Zuliyati, & Arya, N. 2011. Intellectual Capital dan Kinerja Perusahaan. Jurnal 

Dinamika Keuangan dan Perbankan, Vol. 3 No. 1 , (November 2011): pp. 
113-125.


