18 ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to determine the effect of Financial Performance toward Firm Value with Own- ership Structure as Moderating Variable on Manufacturing Companies Listed in Indonesia Stock Ex- change in The Period of 2012-2016. Independent variable of this study is Financial Performance with Return on Assets as a proxy. Dependent variable of this study is Firm Value with Tobin’s Q as a proxy. While moderating variable used in this study is a mechanism of Corporate Governance in the form of Ownership Structure with Managerial Ownership and Institutional Ownership as the proxy. Then con- trol variable in this study are Firm Size and Leverage. The research model of this study employs panel data analysis with Fixed Effect Model approach. The empirical result shows that Financial Perfor- mance has positive significant effect on Firm Value. Managerial Ownership and Institutional Owner- ship can’t moderate the relation between Financial Performance on Firm Value. Firm Size has negative significant effect on Firm Value. And Leverage has insignificant effect on Firm Value. Keywords: Firm Value, Financial Performance, Ownership Structure. Received: 03 September 2018 ; Accepted: 20 September 2018; Publish; Oktober 2018 How to Cite: Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018).The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Own- ership Structure As Moderating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship, 2 (1), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.002.1.03 The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moderating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016) Anida Amalia Luthfiah Faculty of Economics, State University of Jakarta Email: amaliaanida96@yahoo.com Suherman Faculty of Economics, State University of Jakarta Email: suherman@feunj.ac.id 19 INTRODUCTION One of the main objectives of the companies that have gone public is to increase prosperity for the owners of the company or shareholders. Because the shareholders (investors) who have invested their wealth in a company certainly want the maximum return from the company. With the increase in stock prices owned by the company, it will have a positive impact on the company's prosperity and return for shareholders. The company's stock price can be affected by the condition and financial position of the company which are described in the financial statements or the company's annual report. Because through the financial statements or the company's annual report there is a description of information about the achievements and performance of the company during a period that can affect the decision making made by investors. If the company's operations run well, then the value of the company also increases and will have a good influence on the company. In addition, there are many factors that can affect the value of the com- pany and research on factors that can affect the value of the company has also been carried out, includ- ing a company's financial performance, corporate governance, and so on. If a company's financial performance shows good prospects, then the company's shares will be in- creasingly in demand by many investors and can affect the selling value of the shares. Financial perfor- mance assessment can be done using financial ratio analysis. And one of the ratios that will be used to measure financial performance is return on assets (ROA). ROA itself is one part of the profitability ratio to measure the company's ability to generate profits by using total assets. High ROA shows that the total assets used for operating activities of the company is able to generate greater profits for the company. And low ROA shows that the total assets used generate small profits for the company. So it can be said that the higher the ROA value, the better the company's financial perfor- mance will be followed by the increase in the stock price of the company. Miller and Modigliani (1961) stated that the firm's value was determined by earnings power of the company's assets. Marsha and Murtaqi (2017) also found that ROA has a positive effect on firm value. However, different results were obtained by Munawaroh (2014) who found that ROA had a negative effect on firm value. This shows the possibility of other factors that affect the relationship between ROA and company value. In the process of maximizing the firm value, there may be a conflict of interest between the manager or management and shareholders. The management may prioritize their personal interests that are not in line with the company's main objectives and ignore the interests of shareholders. Differences in interests between management (agent) and shareholders (principal) are known as agency conflict. Asmawati and Amanah (2013) found a positive relationship between managerial ownership and firm value, this is because managerial ownership is considered capable of reducing agency problems arising from differences in managerial interests with shareholders or company owners, which would have a positive impact on company value. Wijaya and Linawati (2015) also stated that managerial ownership is able to moderate the relationship between financial performance and corporate value, which means that higher managerial ownership makes the management try as much as possible for the benefit of share- holders. Sukirni (2012) precisely states that managerial ownership has a negative effect on firm value. This is because there are not many management who have a significant number of company shares and because of the low number of managerial ownership, managers are more concerned with their own goals as man- agers rather than the interests of the company or shareholders. However, Pertiwi and Pratama (2012) revealed that managerial ownership cannot moderate the relationship between financial performance and firm value. Sukirni (2012) found a positive relationship between institutional ownership and company value, this means that the greater the institutional ownership, the more efficient for company to use their assets and is expected to also act as a prevention of waste and manipulation of earnings that may be carried out by management so that it will increase the value of the company. In addition, Dewi and Tarnia (2011) stated that institutional ownership was considered to be able to moderate the relationship between finan- cial performance and firm value. Different research results were revealed by Dewi and Sanica (2017) who assumed that institutional ownership or share ownership by parties outside the company did not affect the value of the company. Heder and Priyadi (2017) state that institutional ownership cannot moderate the relationship between financial performance and firm value. Research on financial performance towards firm value, which is moderated by ownership structures, has not been done too much in Indonesia. Most of the related research only took too few samples and the majority focused on companies in the food and beverage sector in Indonesia. Based on these reasons Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 20 the researcher was interested in conducting research with the title: "The Effect of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value with Ownership Structure as Moderating Variables in Manufacturing Companies Listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange from 2012 to 2016". RESEARCH PURPOSES The purpose of this research are to examine the impact oof financial performance, Managerial own- ership as a moderating variable, and Institutional ownership as a moderating variable on firm value in manufacturing companies that listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange in the period of 2012-2016. THEORITICAL REVIEW Agency Theory Jensen and Meckling (1976) propose an agency theory which describes agency relations as contracts where one or more people (principals) employ other people (agents) to provide a service and then dele- gate decision-making authority to the agent. Thus a good work contract between the principal and agent is a work contract that explains what the manager must do in managing the invested funds and the profit sharing mechanism in the form of profits, returns and risks that have been agreed by both parties. The essence of the agency relationship is the separation of functions between investor ownership and control on the part of management. Signaling Theory Signaling theory emphasizes the importance of information issued by companies to investment deci- sions of parties outside the company. According to Sharpe (1997) the announcement of accounting in- formation gives a signal that the company has good prospects in the future so investors are interested in trading shares, thus the market will react which is reflected through changes in stock trading volume. Thus the relationship between the publication of information on financial statements, financial condi- tions, or socio-politics on stock trading fluctuations can be seen in market efficiency. Good Corporate Governance According to Sutedi (2012) corporate governance is a process and structure used by corporate organs to increase business success and corporate accountability in order to realize long-term shareholder value while still paying attention to other stakeholders, based on legislation and ethical values. Good corporate governance as a form of good corporate management has five important elements that must always be a reference in corporate governance, namely: a. Transparency b. Accountability c. Responsibility d. Independence e. Fairness Firm Value According to Nurlela and Islahudin (2008) the firm value can be defined as market value. The reason is because the value of the company can provide prosperity or profit for the shareholders to the maxi- mum if the company's stock price increases. The higher the stock price, the higher the profit for the shareholders. Company value can be calculated by comparing the market value of equity and total cor- porate debt with total company assets, which can be formulated as follows: Tobin’s Q = Financial performance According to Munawir (1998) performance is an illustration of the level of achievement of the im- plementation of a company's activities in realizing the goals, objectives, mission, and vision of an organ- ization contained in the strategic planning of a company. While financial performance is work perfor- mance that has been achieved by the company in a certain period and contained in the financial state- ments of the company concerned. Financial performance is used as a reflection of the company's ability to allocate sources of funds owned by the company. Financial performance in this study is measured using return on assets, which can be formulated as follows: ROA = x 100% Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 21 Managerial ownership According to Christiawan and Tarigan (2007) managerial ownership is a condition in which the manager has a share of the company or in other words the manager is at the same time as a shareholder. While Wahidahwati (2002) defines managerial ownership as the level of ownership of company shares by directors and commissioners who actively participate in decision making in the company. Managerial ownership can be formulated as follows: KM = x 100% Institutional Ownership According to Tarjo (2008) institutional ownership is the ownership of shares of companies owned by institutions such as insurance companies, banks, investment companies, and other institutional owner- ship. Meanwhile, according to Widiastuti, et al. (2003) institutional ownership is ownership of shares by external institutions. Institutional ownership can be formulated as follows: KI = x 100% Firm Size Firm size is seen from the total assets owned by the company that can be used for the company's operating activities. If the company has a large total assets, the management will be more free to use the assets in the company. If viewed from the management side, the ease with which it controls the compa- ny will increase the value of the company (Suharli, 2006). Company size can be formulated as follows: Size = Ln (Total Assets) Debt Ratio (Leverage) Jannati, et al. (2014) states that funds derived from debt are needed by companies because the fi- nancing of a company's operational activities cannot be closed only with funds from within the compa- ny. Kasmir (2014) states that leverage ratio measures the amount of debt used to finance business activi- ties when compared to its own capital, and how much the debt is allocated to finance company assets. Leverage can be formulated as follows: Leverage = HYPOTHESIS H1: Financial performance has a positive effect on firm value. H2: Managerial ownership is able to moderate the relationship of financial performance to firm value. H3: Institutional ownership is able to moderate the relationship between financial performance and firm value Figure 1. Research Model Source: Data processed by the author (2018) Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 22 RESEARCH METHODS The sample of this study was determined through purposive sampling method. The purposive sam- pling method is a method of determining the sample in which the selected sample is in accordance with the criteria set and selected with certain considerations in accordance with the research objectives in order to obtain a representative sample. The criteria for samples in manufacturing companies are: a. All companies included in the manufacturing industry group that listed in Indonesia Stock Exchange and publish consecutive annual reports or financial statements from 2012 to 2016. b. Manufacturing companies that issue financial statements in rupiah. c. The sample used in this study is a manufacturing company that has managerial ownership and insti- tutional ownership during the period 2012-2016. The company displays data and information needed by researchers about the variables in this study in full. Based on these criteria found about 42 manufacturing companies listed in the Indonesia Stock Ex- change during the period 2012-2016 and have complete information regarding variables of managerial ownership and institutional ownership. The number of observations used for this study were 210 data using balanced data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive statistics Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Research Variables Source: Data processed by the author using eviews 9 (2018) Based on the results in table 1, the average value of the firm value variable is proxied by the TQ ra- tio of 1.349129 and the standard deviation value of the TQ ratio is 1.009640. The average TQ ratio that is greater than the standard deviation value of the TQ ratio indicates the low variability of the TQ ratio in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the IDX during the study period. Financial performance variables proxied by ROA have an average value of 0.050528. The average value indicates that the total net income in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period was 5.05% of the total assets owned by the company. The average value of ROA is 0.050528 smaller than the standard deviation ROA value of 0.065981 which indicates that the ROA ratio experienced a fluctuating movement and had a high variability during the study peri- od in samples of manufacturing companies listed on the IDX. The average value of managerial ownership variables (KM) is 0.052104 which indicates that the total managerial shareholding in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period was 5.21% of the total number of shares in the company in circulation. The vari- able average value of 0.052104 is smaller than the standard deviation of 0.075675 which indicates that managerial ownership in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period has a high variability. The average value of institutional ownership variable (KI) is 0.688505 which indicates that the total institutional share ownership in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period amounted to 68.85% of the total number of shares outstanding. The variable average value is 0.688505 far greater than the standard deviation of 0.228849 indicating the low varia- bility of institutional ownership in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period. The firm size variable (FSIZE) has an average value of Rp10,546 trillion and a standard deviation of Rp37,309 trillion. This indicates that the size of the manufacturing company during the study period has a high variability because the standard deviation value is much higher than the average value. Leverage variable (LEV) has an average value of 0.453906. The average value indicates that the total leverage in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period was 45.39% of the total assets owned by the company. The standard deviation value of 0.193943 Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 TQ ROA KM KI FSIZE (juta) LEV Mean 1.349129 0.050528 0.052104 0.688505 10,546,069 0.453906 Median 0.999786 0.038206 0.016206 0.730449 1,178,661 0.476873 Maximum 7.111081 0.321145 0.365991 0.992417 261,855,000 0.863772 Minimum 0.304145 -0.097143 0.000023 0.018059 94,956 0.073823 Std. Dev. 1.009640 0.065981 0.075675 0.228849 37,309,053 0.193943 Observations 210 210 210 210 210 210 23 is much smaller than the average value of 0.453906 which indicates the low variability of leverage in the sample of manufacturing companies listed on the Stock Exchange during the study period. Multicollinearity Test Table 2. Research Variable Multicollinearity Test Results Source: Data processed by the author using eviews 9 (2018) Based on Table 2 it can be seen that there is no correlation coefficient between variables greater than 0.90, so it can be said that there is no correlation between the independent variables and the control vari- ables used in this study. Estimation Method Table 3. Chow Test Results Source: Data processed by the author using eviews 9 (2018) Table 4.Hausman Test Results Source: Data processed by the author using eviews 9 (2018) Based on the results of the chow test in table 3, the probability values on models 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 of 0,000 are smaller than 0.05 so the test must proceed to the Hausman test. Based on table 4 the proba- bility values obtained from the Hausman test on models 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are smaller than 0.05. So, the results show that the best model for this research is to use the fixed effect model approach. T-test (Hypothesis) Hypothesis testing is done to find out whether the independent variables partially or individually can affect the dependent variable. Determination of acceptance or rejection of hypotheses is carried out in the following ways: 1. If the significance level ≤0.01; 0.05; and 0.10, Ha is accepted and Ho is rejected (hypothesis is ac- cepted). This means that partially independent variables have a significant effect on the dependent variable or moderating variables are able to moderate the relationship between the independent vari- able and the dependent variable. 2. If the significance level is> 0.10, Ha is rejected and Ho is accepted (hypothesis is rejected). This means partially the independent variable does not have a significant influence on the dependent vari- able or the moderating variable is not able to moderate the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variable. Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 ROA FSIZE LEV ROA 1.000000 0.148855 -0.497457 FSIZE 0.148855 1.000000 0.188459 LEV -0.497457 0.188459 1.000000 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Cross-section Chi-square 375.30787 7 360.44236 8 366.078709 358.769025 351.842155 344.271151 Probability 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Cross-section random 18.76699 1 34.778133 20.936407 34.351081 23.506166 35.406268 Probability 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24 Table 5. T-test (Partial) Source: Data processed by the author using eviews 9 (2018) Influence of Financial Performance on Firm Value Based on table 5 the value of financial performance coefficient (ROA) without the control variable is 1.7021 with a probability value of 0.0204 smaller than 0.05. In table 5 also shows the coefficient of fi- nancial performance with the inclusion of control variables, namely company size (FSIZE) and leverage (LEV) is 1.5271 with a probability value of 0.0373 smaller than 0.05. It can be concluded that the inde- pendent variables of financial performance have a positive and significant effect at a significance level of 5% with or without a control variable. Thus, the first hypothesis (H1) states that financial perfor- mance has a positive effect on firm value. This is in line with the research of Alghifari, et al. (2013) and Marsha and Murtaqi (2017) which state that financial performance has a positive and significant effect on firm value. They argue that the value of the company will increase along with the financial perfor- mance of a company. While the results of the research by Suranta and Merdistuti (2004) and Munawaroh (2014) precisely state that financial performance has a significant negative effect on firm value. The Influence of Firm Size and Leverage as Control Variables on Firm Value Based on table 5 shows that the firm size as a control variable (FSIZE) has a coefficient value of - 0.3971 with a probability value of 0.0029 smaller than 0.01. It can be concluded that firm size has a negative and significant effect on the 1% significance level. This is in line with research conducted by Kausar, et al. (2014) and Khan (2012) which states that firm size has a negative effect on firm value. Kausar, et al. (2014) stated that the size of a company that has a negative effect on firm value indicates that the larger the size of a company, the more inefficient the company is in using its assets to increase the value of the company. While the research of Rudangga and Sudiarta (2016) and Obradovich and Gill (2012) precisely states that firm size has a significant positive effect on firm value. Based on table 5 shows that the leverage as a control variable (LEV) has a coefficient value of 0.8545 with a probability value greater than 0.1. This illustrates that leverage does not have an influence on the value of the company. The size of the leverage ratio cannot affect the value of the company. These results are in line with research conducted by Manurung, et al. (2016) and Prasetyorini (2013) which states that leverage does not have a significant relationship to firm value. Prasetyorini (2013) as- sumes that leverage has no significant effect on the value of the company because the company in fi- nancing its assets tends to use its own capital derived from retained earnings and share capital rather than using debt. Whereas Dewi and Tarnia (2011) and Cahyanto, et al. (2014) precisely states that lever- age has a positive and significant effect on firm value. Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 Fixed Effect Model Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 C 0,0000 0,0011 0,0000 0,0009 0,0000 0,0016 (1,2631) (11,9673) (1,1976) (12,2248) (1,6184) (11,6452) ROA 0,0204** 0,0373** 0,0219** 0,0349** 0,9018 0,8688 (1,7021) (1,5271) (2,2140) (2,0566) (0,2456) (0,3227) ROA*KM - - 0,4488 0,4406 - - - - (-5,5190) (-5,5667) - - ROA*KI - - - - 0,3856 0,4621 - - - - (2,5953) (2,1636) FSIZE - 0,0029*** - 0,0023*** - 0,0052*** - (-0,3971) - (-0,4102) - (-0,3749) LEV - 0,1416 - 0,1193 - 0,1550 - (0,8545) - (0,9155) - (0,8279) Number of Firms 42 42 42 42 42 42 Number of Observation 210 210 210 210 210 210 Adjusted R 2 0,8513 0,8576 0,8509 0,8579 0,8522 0,8577 * ***Sig. ≤ 1%; **Sig. ≤ 5%; *Sig. ≤ 10% 25 The Effect of Managerial Ownership in Moderating the Relationship of Financial Performance on Firm Value Based on table 5 the interaction coefficient value between financial performance (ROA) and mana- gerial ownership (KM) without the control variable is -5.5190 with a probability value of 0.4488 greater than 0.1. In table 5 also shows the interaction coefficient between financial performance (ROA) and managerial ownership (KM) with the control variable of -5.5667 with a probability value of 0.4406 greater than 0.1. It can be concluded that the interaction between financial performance and managerial ownership with or without a control variable has a probability value of more than 0.1. This illustrates that managerial ownership is not able to moderate the relationship of financial performance on firm val- ue. These results are in line with research conducted by Yuniasih and Wirakusuma (2009) and Pertiwi and Pratama (2012) which state that managerial ownership is not able to moderate the effect of financial performance on firm value. Contrary to the results of research by Wijaya and Linawati (2015) and He- der and Priyadi (2017) which stated that managerial ownership was able to moderate the effect of finan- cial performance on firm value. Yuniasih and Wirakusuma (2009) assume this is possible because the structure of managerial owner- ship in Indonesia is still very small and dominated by family ownership. The results also indicate that the market does not use information regarding managerial ownership in conducting investment assess- ments. In addition, Pertiwi and Pratama (2012) stated that shareholders have not been able to give full confidence in the company's operations to company management. This proves that the ownership of shares by managers in manufacturing companies listed on the IDX for the period 2012-2016 has not been able to harmonize the interests between agents and principals so that agency problems cannot be resolved and the management has not made policies that can enrich shareholders. The Influence of Institutional Ownership in Moderating the Relationship of Financial Perfor- mance on Firm Value Based on table 5 the interaction coefficient value between financial performance (ROA) and institu- tional ownership (KI) without the control variable is 2.5952 with a probability value of 0.3856 greater than 0.1. In table 5 also shows the interaction coefficient value between financial performance (ROA) and institutional ownership (KI) with the control variable of 2.1636 with a probability value of 0.4621 greater than 0.1. It can be concluded that the interaction between financial performance and institutional ownership with or without a control variable has a probability value of more than 0.1. From these results indicate that institutional ownership cannot moderate the relationship between financial performance variables and firm value. This is in line with research conducted by Wijaya and Linawati (2015) and Heder and Priyadi (2017) which state that institutional ownership is not able to moderate the relation- ship of financial performance on firm value. Contrary to the research of Dewi and Tarnia (2011) and Sunarwijaya (2016) which states that institutional ownership is able to moderate the effect of financial performance on firm value. Heder and Priyadi (2017) assume this is likely to occur because of a familial relationship between institutional investors and top management of the company, such as directors and commissioners, so the market tends to assume that the company issues its policies in accordance with the interests of institu- tional investors. In addition, Wijaya and Linawati (2015) assume that high institutional ownership will not necessarily improve control within the company because existing institutions tend to cooperate with management to achieve personal interests so that financial performance does not increase and impact on company value. This proves that when institutions act as the majority and the public as minority share- holders, the majority does not address agency problems between managers and investors. The majority in this case institutional investors control the company and make decisions that are not profitable or det- rimental to minority investors so that the public considers institutional investors to have no significant impact. Determination Coefficient The determination coefficient (R2) is useful for measuring how far the model's ability to explain the dependent variable or the dependent variable. This R2 value ranges from 0 to 1. A small value indicates that the ability of the independent variable to explain the dependent variable is very limited. Conversely, the value that approaches one means that the independent variable provides almost all the information needed to predict the dependent variable or can be said to be near perfect. Model 4 regression with fi- nancial performance variables (ROA), managerial ownership (KM), firm size (FSIZE), and leverage (LEV) is the best model because it has the largest adjusted R2 value compared to other regression mod- els, which is 85.79%. Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 26 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION In conclusion, the results show that financial performance has a positive impact on the value of the firm proxied by Tobin’s Q. So, it will confirm the argument that the value of the company will increase along with the financial performance of a company The moderation effect of ownership structure varia- bles could not be found in this study. Finally, for the next research we suggest to clasify the samples into two categories; namely large companies and small companies to avoid data gaps among them. We also suggest to use other variables such as price to book value for company value and return on equity for financial performance variable to confirm the findings in this study. BIBILIOGRAPHY Alghifari, E. S., Triharjono, S., and Juhaeni, Y. S. (2013). Effect of Return on Assets (ROA) Against Tobin’s Q: Studies in Food and Beverage Company in Indonesia Stock Exchange Years 2007- 2011. International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Research (IJSER), Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 722-725. Asmawati and Amanah, L. (2013). Pengaruh Struktur Kepemilikan dan Keputusan Keuangan Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan: Profitabilitas sebagai Variabel Moderating. Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Akuntansi, Vol. 2, No.4. Cahyanto, S. A., Darminto, and Topowijono. (2014). Pengaruh Struktur Modal dan Profitabilitas Ter- hadap Nilai Perusahaan (Studi pada Perusahaan Otomotif dan Komponennya yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia Periode Tahun 2010-2013). Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-9. Christiawan, Y. J. and Tarigan J. (2007). Kepemilikan Manajerial: Kebijakan Hutang, Kinerja, dan Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1-8. Dewi, K. R. C. andSanica, I. G. (2017).PengaruhKepemilikanInstitusional, KepemilikanManajerial, danPengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility TerhadapNilai Perusahaan pada Perusahaan Manufaktur yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia. JurnalIlmiahAkuntansidanBisnis, Vol. 2, No.1. Dewi, R. R. and Tarnia, T. (2011). Pengaruh Kinerja Keuangan Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan dengan Good Corporate Governance sebagai Variabel Moderasi.Jurnal Informasi, Perpajakan, Akuntan- si, dan Keuangan Publik, pp. 115–132. HederandPriyadi, M. P. (2017).PengaruhKinerjaKeuanganTerhadapNilai Perusahaan dengan Good Cor- porate Governance sebagaiVariabelPemoderasi.JurnalIlmudanRisetAkuntansi, Vol. 6, No. 7. Jannati, I. M., Saifi, M., and Endang, M. G. W. (2014). Pengaruh Rasio Leverage Terhadap Profitabili- tas (Studi pada Perusahaan Makanan dan Minuman yang Terdaftar di BEI Periode Tahun 2009- 2011). Jurnal Administrasi Bisnis, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 1-8. Jensen, M. and Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of The Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics(JFE), Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-360. Kasmir.(2014). AnalisisLaporanKeuanganEdisi 1. Jakarta: PT. Rajawali Pers. Kausar, A., Nazir, M. S., and Butt, H. A. (2014). Capital Structure and Firm Value: Empirical Evidence From Pakistan. Asian Journal of Research in Economics and Finance (AJREF), Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11-22. Khan, A. G. (2012). The Relationship of Capital Structure Decisions with Firm Performance: A Study of The Engineering Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Re- porting, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 245-262. Manurung, E. B., Siregar, H., andSaptono, I. T. (2016).Factors Affecting Tobin’s Q Coal Mining Com- pany Registered in Indonesia Stock Exchange.Indonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneur- ship, Vol. 2, No.2, pp. 130-138. Marsha, N. and Murtaqi, I. (2017). The Effect of Financial Ratios on Firm Value in the Food and Bever- age Sector of The IDX. Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 214–226. Miller, M. H. and Modigliani, F. (1961). Dividend Policy, Growth, and The Valuation of Shares. Jour- nal of Business, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 411-433. Munawaroh, A. (2014). Pengaruh Profitabilitas Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan dengan Corporate Social Responsibility sebagai Variabel Moderating. Jurnal Ilmu dan Riset Akuntansi, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 1–17. Munawir, S. (1998). Analisis Laporan Keuangan Teori dan Penerapan (Keputusan Jangka Pendek) Buku Kedua. Yogyakarta: BPFE. Nurlela, R. andIslahudin.(2008). Pengaruh Corporate Social Responsibility TerhadapNilai Perusahaan Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03 27 denganProsentaseKepemilikanManajemensebagaiVariabel Moderating (StudiEmpirispada Perus- ahaan yang Terdaftar di Bursa Efek Jakarta).Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XI, 23-24 Juli. Ponti- anak. Obradovich, J. D. and Gill, A. (2012). The Impact of Corporate Governance and Financial Performance on The Value of American Firm. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 91, pp. 1-14. Pertiwi, T. K. and Pratama, F. M. I. (2012). Pengaruh Kinerja Keuangan, Good Corporate Governance Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan Food and Beverage. Jurnal Manajemen dan Kewirausahaan, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 118–127. Prasetyorini, B. F. (2013). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Leverage, Price Earning Ratio, dan Profitabili- tas Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Ilmu Manajemen, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 183-196. Rudangga, I. G. N. G. and Sudiarta, G. M. (2016). Pengaruh Ukuran Perusahaan, Leverage, dan Profita- bilitas Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. E-Jurnal Manajemen Unud, Vol. 5, No. 7, pp. 4394-4422. Sharpe, W. F. (1997). Investasi Edisi Bahasa Indonesia Jilid 1 dan 2. Jakarta: Renhallindo. Suharli, M. (2006).StudiEmpirisTerhadapFaktor yang MempengaruhiNilai Perusahaan pada Perusahaan Go Public di Indonesia.JurnalMaksi, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 23-41. Sukirni, D. (2012). Kepemilikan Manajerial, Kepemilikan Institusional, Kebijakan Dividen dan Ke- bijakan Hutang Analisis terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. Accounting Analysis Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1–12. Sunarwijaya, I. K. (2016). Pengaruh Kepemilikan Institusional pada Hubungan Positif Antara Profitabil- itas dan Nilai Perusahaan. Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 93–108. Suranta, E. and Merdistuti, P. P. (2004). Income Smoothing, Tobin’s Q, Agency Problem, dan Kinerja Perusahaan. Simposium Nasional Akuntansi IV, 2-3 Desember,Denpasar-Bali. Sutedi, A. (2012). Good Corporate Governance Edisi 1. Jakarta: SinarGrafika. Tarjo.(2008). PengaruhKonsentrasiKepemilikanInstitusionaldan Leverage TerhadapManajemenLaba, NilaiPemegangSahamserta Cost of Equity Capital.Simposium Nasional Akuntansi XI. Pontianak. Wahidahwati. (2002). Kepemilikan Manajerial dan Agency Conflicts: Analisis Perasamaan Simultan Non Linear dari Kepemilikan Manajerial, Penerimaan Resiko, Kebijakan Utang, dan Kebijakan Dividen. Prosiding Simposium Nasional Akuntansi V, pp. 601-623. Semarang. Widiastuti, M., Midiastuty, P. P., and Suranta, E. (2013). Dividend Policy and Foreign Ownership. Sim- posium Nasional Akuntansi XIV, pp. 3401-3423. Wijaya, A. and Linawati, N. (2015). Pengaruh Kinerja Keuangan Terhadap Nilai Perusahaan. FINESTA, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 46–51. Yuniasih, N. W. andWirakusuma, M. G. (2009).PengaruhKinerjaKeuanganTerhadapNilai Perusahaan denganPengungkapan Corporate Social Responsibility dan Good Corporate Governance sebagai- VariabelPemoderasi.JurnalIlmiahAkuntansidanBisnis, Vol. 4, No. 1. Luthfiah,A,A., Suherman. (2018). Journal of Business and Behavioural Entrepreneurship Volume.2 Nomor.1 2018 p (18-27)  The Effects Of Financial Performance Toward Firm Value With Ownership Structure As Moder- ating Variable (The Study On Manufacturing Companies Listed In Indonesia Stock Exchange In The Period Of 2012-2016).  https://doi.org/10.21009/JOBBE.001.2.03