Assessment of the Health Level of Information Technology-Based Joint Financing Service Providers

COPY REGULATION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 38/PADK.06/2025 CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF THE HEALTH LEVEL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY-BASED JOINT FINANCING SERVICE PROVIDERS BY THE GRACE OF ALMIGHTY GOD THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, Considering : a. that in connection with the mandate of the provisions of Article 167 paragraph (3), Article 171 paragraph (3), and Article 177 paragraph (8) of Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 40 of 2024 concerning Information Technology-Based Joint Financing Services, it is necessary to regulate the assessment of the health level of information technology-based joint financing services. b. that based on the considerations referred to in letter a, it is necessary to establish a Regulation of the Board of Commissioners of the Financial Services Authority concerning the assessment of the health level of information technology-based joint financing services. Recalling :

1. Law Number 21 of 2011 concerning the Financial Services Authority (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2011 Number 111, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5253) as amended by Law Number 4 of 2023 concerning the Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2023 Number 4, Supplement to the State Gazette Number 6845);
2. Law Number 4 of 2023 concerning the Development and Strengthening of the Financial Sector (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2023 Number 4, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 6845);
3. Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 40 of 2024 concerning Information Technology-Based Joint Financing Services (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2024 Number 53/OJK, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 121/OJK);

• 2 - This copy is in accordance with the original Head of Legal Development Directorate Legal Department signed Aat Windradi

4. Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 49 of 2024 concerning Supervision, Determination of Supervision Status, and Follow-up Supervision of Financing Institutions, Venture Capital Companies, Microfinance Institutions, and Other Financial Services Institutions (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2024 Number 62/OJK, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 130/OJK); DECIDES: Establishes : REGULATION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF THE HEALTH LEVEL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY-BASED JOINT FINANCING SERVICE PROVIDERS. Article 1 The provisions regarding the assessment of the health level of information technology-based joint financing services are as stipulated in the Appendix to this Regulation of the Board of Commissioners of the Financial Services Authority. Article 2 This Regulation of the Board of Commissioners of the Financial Services Authority shall come into force on the date of its enactment. Enacted in Jakarta on December 8, 2025 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF SUPERVISION OF FINANCING INSTITUTIONS, VENTURE CAPITAL COMPANIES, MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS, AND OTHER FINANCIAL SERVICES INSTITUTIONS FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA, AGUSMAN signed.

-17- APPENDIX REGULATION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA NUMBER 38/PADK.06/2025 CONCERNING ASSESSMENT OF THE HEALTH LEVEL OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY-BASED JOINT FINANCING SERVICE PROVIDERS

• 1 - I. GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. Information Technology-Based Joint Financing Services, hereinafter abbreviated as LPBBTI, is the provision of financial services to bring together funders and fund recipients in carrying out financing, both conventionally and based on Sharia principles, directly through an electronic system using the internet.
2. LPBBTI Provider, hereinafter referred to as Provider, is an Indonesian legal entity that provides, manages, and operates LPBBTI.
3. Sharia Principles are Islamic legal principles based on fatwas and/or statements of sharia compliance issued by institutions authorized to issue fatwas in the sharia field.
4. Sharia Business Unit, hereinafter abbreviated as UUS, is a work unit of a conventional Provider's head office that carries out part of its business activities based on Sharia Principles and/or functions as the parent office of an office that conducts business based on Sharia Principles.
5. Funding is the disbursement of funds from funders to fund recipients with a promise to be paid or returned according to a certain period in LPBBTI transactions.
6. Paid-up Capital is the paid-up capital as referred to in the law concerning limited liability companies for Providers in the form of a limited liability company or the sum of principal savings, mandatory savings, and grants as referred to in the laws and regulations concerning cooperatives for Providers in the form of a cooperative legal entity.
7. Equity is equity based on financial accounting standards applicable in Indonesia.
8. Health Level is the result of assessing the Provider's condition based on capital, Funding quality, management, profitability, and liquidity.
9. Composite Rating is the final rating resulting from the assessment of the Provider's Health Level. II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR ASSESSING THE HEALTH LEVEL OF LPBBTI PROVIDERS
10. The general principles for assessing the Provider's Health Level are as follows: a. risk-oriented; b. proportionality; c. materiality and significance; and d. comprehensive and structured.
11. What is meant by risk-oriented as referred to in number 1 letter a, includes: a. the assessment of the Provider's Health Level is based on the Provider's risks and the impact on the Provider's overall performance; b. the assessment of the Provider's Health Level is carried out by identifying internal and external factors that can increase risk or affect the Provider's financial performance currently and in the future. In identifying internal and external factors,

• 2 - Providers can assess:

1. internal factors, including: a) vision, mission, strategy, and business direction the Provider aims to achieve; b) organizational culture and characteristics, especially in terms of strategic goal setting requiring changes in organizational structure and business process adjustments; c) organizational capability factors including human resources, complexity of business activities, infrastructure, office network, and management information systems; and d) risk tolerance level, which is the Provider's financial capacity to absorb risk; and
2. external factors, including: a) macroeconomic conditions; b) industry conditions; c) technological developments; and d) level of business competition, c. Providers are expected to be able to detect the root causes of Provider problems earlier and take preventive and corrective measures effectively and efficiently.

3. What is meant by proportionality as referred to in number 1 letter b, includes: a. the use of parameters or indicators in each factor of the Provider's Health Level assessment is carried out by considering the characteristics and complexity of the Provider's business; b. the parameters or indicators for assessing the Provider's Health Level in this Regulation of the Board of Commissioners of the Financial Services Authority are the minimum standards that must be used in assessing the Provider's Health Level; and c. in addition to the parameters or indicators as referred to in letter b, Providers may use additional parameters or indicators in accordance with the characteristics and complexity of their business in assessing the Provider's Health Level so as to better reflect the Provider's condition.
4. What is meant by materiality and significance as referred to in number 1 letter c, includes: a. Providers need to pay attention to the materiality and significance of the Provider's Health Level assessment factors, namely capital, Funding quality, profitability, liquidity, and management, as well as the significance of the assessment parameters or indicators for each factor in concluding the assessment results and determining the factor rating; and b. the determination of materiality and significance is based on an analysis supported by adequate data and/or information regarding the Provider's risks and financial performance.
5. What is meant by comprehensive and structured as referred to in number 1 letter d, includes: a. the assessment process is carried out thoroughly and systematically and focuses on the Provider's main problems; b. the analysis is carried out in an integrated manner, by considering the interrelationships between risks and between the Provider's Health Level assessment factors; and

• 3 - c. the analysis must be supported by key facts and relevant ratios to show the level, trend, and/or level of problems faced by the Provider. III. PROCEDURES FOR ASSESSING THE HEALTH LEVEL OF LPBBTI PROVIDERS

1. Providers assess the Health Level with an assessment scope covering the factors of: a. capital; b. Funding quality; c. profitability; d. liquidity; and e. management.
2. The initial stage of the Health Level assessment is carried out by quantifying the components of each factor as referred to in number 1.
3. The results of the quantitative assessment of the components of each factor as referred to in number 2 are ranked based on the guidelines for determining factor ratings.
4. The Health Level assessment establishes 5 (five) Composite Ratings with the following categories: a. Composite Rating 1 (very healthy); b. Composite Rating 2 (healthy); c. Composite Rating 3 (sufficiently healthy); d. Composite Rating 4 (less healthy); and e. Composite Rating 5 (unhealthy). with a smaller Composite Rating indicating a healthier Provider condition.
5. Providers must meet a Health Level requirement of at least Composite Rating 3.
6. The assessment of each factor is carried out using quantitative and qualitative aspects based on a comprehensive and structured analysis, considering adjustments or judgment to the conclusion of the factor rating if necessary.
7. The final Health Level assessment is determined based on an analysis of each Health Level assessment factor, including an analysis of the capital factor, Funding quality factor, liquidity factor, profitability factor, management factor, and an overall Health Level analysis. The said analysis is part of a comprehensive and structured Health Level assessment that includes at least current information on the Provider's condition, key problems being faced, including the interrelationships between factors, which can be considered in making adjustments to the conclusion of the Composite Rating if necessary (judgment).
8. The final Health Level assessment as referred to in number 7 uses the Provider Health Level assessment worksheet format as stipulated in section X.1. Guidelines for Determining Composite Ratings and Provider LPBBTI Health Level Assessment Worksheet Format, which is an integral part of this Regulation of the Board of Commissioners of the Financial Services Authority. IV. ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL FACTOR
9. The assessment of the capital factor includes an assessment of the components of adequacy, projection, and capital's ability to anticipate risk.
10. The assessment of the capital factor as referred to in number 1 is carried out using quantitative and qualitative approaches.
11. The assessment using a quantitative approach as referred to in number 2, is carried out at least on parameters or indicators for fulfilling the provisions: a. have a minimum Equity at all times of at least Rp.12,500,000,000.00 (twelve billion five hundred million rupiah); and b. maintain an Equity to Paid-up Capital ratio of at least 50% (fifty percent). What is meant by the Equity to Paid-up Capital ratio is the comparison between the amount of the Provider's Equity and the amount of Paid-up Capital. This ratio shows the amount of capital that must be prepared to anticipate the Provider's failure in managing Equity.
12. The assessment using a qualitative approach as referred to in number 2, is carried out through an analysis, among others, of the quantitative parameters as referred to in number 3, considering adjustments or judgment, to produce a comprehensive and structured conclusion of the factor rating.
13. The capital factor is determined based on a comprehensive and structured analysis of the capital parameters or indicators as referred to in number 3, considering the materiality and significance of each parameter or indicator, and taking into account other problems affecting the Provider's capital.
14. Providers determine the capital factor rating categorized into 5 (five) ratings, namely: a. rating 1; b. rating 2; c. rating 3; d. rating 4; and e. rating 5, with a smaller capital factor rating indicating a better condition.
15. Providers assess the capital factor using parameters or indicators as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.2.A. Guidelines and Worksheets for Capital Factor Assessment.
16. The determination of the capital factor rating is carried out as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.2.B. Guidelines and Worksheets for Capital Factor Assessment.
17. Providers assess the capital factor using the Health Level assessment worksheet as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.2.C. Guidelines and Worksheets for Capital Factor Assessment. V. ASSESSMENT OF FUNDING QUALITY FACTOR
18. The assessment of the Funding quality factor includes an assessment of the following components: a. quality of productive assets and concentration of risk exposure; and b. adequacy of policies and procedures, documentation systems, and

• 5 - performance in handling problematic productive assets.

2. Productive assets as referred to in number 1 are Funding facilitated by the Provider.
3. The assessment of the Funding quality factor as referred to in number 1 is carried out using quantitative and qualitative approaches.
4. The assessment using a quantitative approach as referred to in number 3 is carried out through: a. assessment of productive asset quality parameters or indicators, carried out on the Funding quality component, fulfilling the provision that Providers must maintain a non-performing Funding ratio of at most 5% (five percent). The non-performing Funding ratio is calculated by comparing the outstanding position of Funding in default for more than 90 (ninety) calendar days with the total outstanding position of Funding; b. assessment of risk exposure concentration parameters or indicators carried out on the ratio of Funding per user (funder and fund recipient) component. This ratio is calculated by comparing the total outstanding position of Funding with the total active funders and the total outstanding position of Funding with the total active fund recipients.
5. The Funding quality assessment as referred to in number 1 consists of: a. current; b. under special attention; c. substandard; d. doubtful; and e. non-performing.
6. The Funding quality assessment as referred to in number 5 is determined based on the timeliness of principal and/or interest payments for Funding or service fees/returns.
7. The criteria for Funding quality as referred to in number 5 refer to the provisions regulated in Article 171 paragraph (2) of Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 40 of 2024 concerning Information Technology-Based Joint Financing Services.
8. The assessment using a qualitative approach as referred to in number 3, is carried out through an analysis, among others, of the quantitative parameters or indicators as referred to in number 4, considering adjustments or judgment, to produce a comprehensive and structured conclusion of the factor rating.
9. Providers determine the Funding quality factor rating categorized into 5 (five) ratings, namely: a. rating 1; b. rating 2; c. rating 3; d. rating 4; and e. rating 5, with a smaller Funding quality factor rating indicating a better condition.
10. Providers assess the Funding quality factor using parameters or indicators as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.3.A. Guidelines and Worksheets for Funding Quality Factor Assessment.
11. The determination of the Funding quality factor rating is carried out as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.3.B. Guidelines and Worksheets for Funding Quality Factor Assessment.
12. Providers assess the Funding quality factor using the Health Level assessment worksheet as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.3.C. Guidelines and Worksheets for Funding Quality Factor Assessment. VI. ASSESSMENT OF PROFITABILITY FACTOR
13. The assessment of the profitability factor includes an assessment of the following components: a. productive asset's ability to generate profit; and b. operational efficiency level.
14. Productive assets as referred to in number 1 are productive assets owned by the Provider.
15. The assessment of the profitability factor as referred to in number 1 is carried out using quantitative and qualitative approaches.
16. The assessment of the profitability factor as referred to in number 1 letter a is carried out using a quantitative approach to parameters or indicators, namely: a. return on asset (ROA); b. return on equity (ROE); and c. return on Disbursement (ROD).
17. The assessment of the profitability factor as referred to in number 1 letter b is carried out using a quantitative approach to the parameter or indicator of operational expense to operational income ratio (BOPO).
18. The assessment using a qualitative approach as referred to in number 3, is carried out through an analysis, among others, of the quantitative parameters as referred to in number 4 and number 5, considering adjustments or judgment, to produce a comprehensive and structured conclusion of the factor rating.
19. Providers determine the profitability factor rating categorized into 5 (five) ratings, namely: a. rating 1; b. rating 2; c. rating 3; d. rating 4; and e. rating 5, with a smaller profitability factor rating indicating a better condition.
20. Providers assess the profitability factor using parameters or indicators as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.4.A. Guidelines and Worksheets for Profitability Factor Assessment.
21. The determination of the profitability factor rating is carried out as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.4.B. Guidelines and Worksheets for Profitability Factor Assessment.
22. Providers assess the profitability factor using the Health Level assessment worksheet as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.4.C. Guidelines and Worksheets for Profitability Factor Assessment.

• 7 - VII. ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDITY FACTOR

1. The assessment of the liquidity factor includes an assessment of the following components: a. ability to meet short-term, long-term obligations, and the potential for mismatches between short-term and long-term obligations; and b. adequacy of liquidity management policies.
2. The assessment of the liquidity factor as referred to in number 1 is carried out using quantitative and qualitative approaches.
3. The assessment of parameters or indicators of the ability to meet obligations as referred to in number 1 letter a using a quantitative approach, is carried out on parameters or indicators for fulfilling the provisions: a. short-term liquidity ratio; and b. ability to meet long-term obligations.
4. The assessment of the short-term liquidity factor as referred to in number 3 letter a is carried out on the Provider's ability to maintain a liquidity ratio of at least 120% (one hundred twenty percent), which is calculated by comparing current assets and current liabilities.
5. The assessment of the ability to meet long-term obligations as referred to in number 3 letter b is calculated using total assets and total liabilities.
6. The assessment using a qualitative approach as referred to in number 2, is carried out through an analysis, among others, of the quantitative parameters as referred to in number 3, considering adjustments or judgment, to produce a comprehensive and structured conclusion of the factor rating.
7. Providers determine the liquidity factor rating categorized into 5 (five) ratings, namely: a. rating 1; b. rating 2; c. rating 3; d. rating 4; and e. rating 5, with a smaller liquidity factor rating indicating a better condition.
8. Providers assess the liquidity factor using parameters or indicators as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.5.A. Guidelines and Worksheets for Liquidity Factor Assessment.
9. The determination of the liquidity factor rating is carried out as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.5.B. Guidelines and Worksheets for Liquidity Factor Assessment.
10. Providers assess the liquidity factor using the Health Level assessment worksheet as stipulated in the guidelines and worksheets referring to section X.5.C. Guidelines and Worksheets for Liquidity Factor Assessment. VIII. ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT FACTOR
11. The assessment of the management factor includes an assessment of the following components: a. quality of general management, including the fulfillment of commitments to the Financial Services Authority and other parties; b. implementation of risk management, especially management's understanding of Provider risks; c. implementation of good corporate governance; and d. Provider's compliance with Sharia Principles and the implementation of social functions, for Providers carrying out business activities based on Sharia Principles.
12. The assessment of the management factor as referred to in number 1 is carried out using a qualitative approach, considering adjustments or judgment, to produce a comprehensive and structured conclusion of the factor rating.
13. The assessment of the components of the management factor as referred to in number 1 letters a, c, and d is carried out by assessing the implementation of good corporate governance by the Provider's management.
14. Providers must implement good corporate governance principles in every business activity at all levels or organizational tiers.
15. The principles of good corporate governance as referred to in number 4 m

---

[RegAlert note: the English text above is a translation of the first 24,000 characters of a 73,292-character original (33% of the document). The remainder was not translated. The complete original-language text is stored with this document.]