The Effect of Profit Sharing Financing, TPF and Capital on Net Profit through Revenue Sharing on Buses

The development of Islamic banking in Indonesia has progressed significantly, which can be seen from the publication of Bank Indonesia (BI). This also further supports the commitment of BI in the development of Islamic banks (Rahmati, 2018). There are 14 Islamic Commercial Banks and 20 Islamic business units with total assets of 5,143 trillion. The increase in the number of Islamic banks in Indonesia shows that public trust in Islamic banks in managing customer funds is increasing. Moreover, Bank Indonesia has launched the National Non-Cash Movement (GNNT) since 2014 which aims to bring Indonesia into the era of people without money or Cashless Society (Dianto, 2020). This also proves that Islamic banks contribute greatly to the economic activities of the community according to Islamic sharia, providing easy and fintech-based services according to Islamic sharia. The general objective of Islamic banks is to accelerate the economic growth of the community by conducting commercial banking activities, finance, investing in accordance with sharia to make a profit. To make a profit, Islamic banks carry out their business activities by collecting (funding) and channeling (financing) funds to people who are short of funds (deficit). One of the funds collected by the bank comes from the community called Abstract

third party funds (DPK) and capital becomes a source of funds for the bank to carry out its operational activities. The DPK collected will be channeled back in the form of financing with the aim of making a profit. DPK is collected in the form of savings, current accounts and time deposits.
According to Muhammad (2004) the source of funds for Islamic banks other than DPK is paid-in capital. Capital is a fund that is given by the owner or shareholder. Capital can be channeled for productive things, namely financing. The more sources of funds the bank has, the more financing is channeled, the bank will get revenue and will increase the bank's net profit.
Following is table 1, especially 4 (four) Islamic Commercial Banks, data on profit sharing, TPF, capital, revenue sharing and net income fluctuated from 2014 to 2019.  Rp. 67,194 and the lowest was in the 2016 BJBS (414,714) With an increase in the net profit of Islamic banks from the financing offered by Islamic banks, it proves that the public believes in investing their funds in Islamic banks. The purpose of this study was to determine the direct effect of profit sharing financing, TPF, and capital on net income and to determine the direct and indirect effect of profit sharing financing, TPF, capital on intervening net income or mediating revenue sharing. Based on table 1.1, the occurrence of fluctuations in production sharing financing, TPF, capital, revenue sharing and net income is interesting to do.

Profit
The general objective of Islamic banks is to encourage and accelerate the economic growth of the community to carry out banking, commercial, financial and investment activities in accordance with Islamic sharia. The main objective of conventional banks is to achieve the maximum possible profit or profit. The profit referred to in this research is net income. Net income is the difference in income after deducting expenses and is the increase in capital for the activities of a bank or company. Profit is an indicator to measure the performance of a bank or company. Net income is presented in the financial statements in the income statement by juxtaposing income and expenses. To get profit, the bank must carry out its operational activities. The factors that affect the net profit of the bank are the activities of the bank to collect funds from the public, namely third party funds (TPF) and their own capital. TPF and capital are the main sources of bank funds to carry out their operational activities. Deposits and capital will be channeled by the bank back to people who lack funds in the form of profit sharing (mudharabah and musyarakah) financing, sale and purchase contract financing (al bai ', lease contract financing (ijarah) and in the form of other services such as administrative costs (Yani, 2019).

Revenue Sharing
The income generated from the financing agreement, after deducting operating costs, must be shared between the bank and the funding customers, namely investors, savers, and shareholders according to the profit sharing ratio agreed upon at the beginning of the contract. Income is the income received by the bank in cash from the results of investment in productive assets. The productive assets channeled by Islamic banks will generate income from sale and purchase contracts to generate margins, lease or ijarah contracts to generate rental income, and production sharing financing to generate revenue sharing. Profit sharing income is the sharing of business results between the owner of the capital and the customer according to the portion of the capital of each party and the ratio agreed upon at the beginning of the contract. Profit sharing income is obtained from two mudharabah and musyarakah financing contracts. Profit sharing income obtained by the bank will affect the increase in the bank's net profit.

Profit Sharing Financing
According to Kasmir, financing is the provision of funds by Islamic banks based on an agreement or agreement between the bank and the customer which requires the financed party to return the funds after a certain period of time in exchange for profit sharing. According to Ismail, from the financing side, if the customer gets a large income, then the Islamic bank and the customer will also get a large income. If the income received by Islamic banks and customers is small, the income earned by Islamic banks is also small. Profit sharing financing is the financing of the mudharabah and musyarakah profit sharing contracts. This means that if the mudharabah financing channeled by the bank is high, the Islamic bank and its customers will also get high revenue sharing. Conversely, if Islamic banks channel a little mudharabah financing, then the Islamic banks and customers will get a low profit sharing as well. Profit sharing income obtained by Islamic banks will have an effect on increasing bank profits.

Third Party Fund (DPK)
DPK is one of the sources of bank funds collected from the public in the form of savings, current accounts and time deposits. According to Law 21 of 2008, DPK is a deposit of funds entrusted by a customer to a sharia bank with a wadi'ah contract and other contracts that do not conflict with Islamic law in the form of savings, time deposits and demand deposits. The collected deposits will be channeled by the bank in the form of financing in order to achieve the maximum possible profitability and minimum risk and to keep the bank's liquidity safe. According to Ikit, the more funds collected from the public, the higher the amount of funds channeled in the form of financing. From TPF that is distributed in the form of financing, the bank will get income and it will affect the bank's profit (Ikit, 2018):

Capital
Capital is a fund given to or given by the owner as proof of his participation in the activities of a sharia bank. The owners will receive the results of operations in the form of dividends. Capital funds can be used for productive things in the form of financing and the owner of the capital will receive income in the form of dividends. Capital serves as a buffer and absorber of bank failures or losses and protects the interests of ownership account holders.

III. Research Methods
This research is a quantitative research. This study was analyzed using path analysis. The data used in this study are secondary data from the financial statements of 10 Islamic Commercial Banks in Indonesia through the websitewww.ojk.co.idfrom 2014 to 2019. The population of this study is Islamic Commercial Banks consisting of 14 Islamic banks. The sample of this research that was selected there were 10 Islamic Commercial Banks in Indonesia.

Model Selection Test
The model selection test is choosing the most appropriate method for this study using three approaches, namely the commen effect, fixed effect and random effect. To maintain the correct method of the three approaches, the chow test, hausman test and Lagrange multiplier test were used. After the chow test and yield test have not found the most appropriate method, so to determine the most appropriate method is used the Lagrange multiplier test. The lagrange multiplier test results are as follows: The results of the lagrange multiplier model I test show that the probability value is greater than 0.05, namely 0.4461> 0.05, so the right model for model I is the random effect model. The result of the Lagrange multiplier model II test shows that the probability value is greater than 0.05, namely 0.0807> 0.05, so the appropriate model for model II is the random effect model. Based on the results of the Lagrange multiplier test model I and model II, the appropriate method for this study is the random effect model.

Classic Assumption Test a. Normality Test
The results of the normality test in model I can be seen in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Model I Normality Test Results
Source: Output eviews 9, data processed in June 2020 The results of the normality test in model I are declared normal because the probability value is greater than 0.05, namely 0.522> 0.05. Furthermore, the model II normality test can be seen in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. Model II Normality Test Results
Source: Output eviews 9, data processed in June 2020 The results of the normality test in model II are declared normal because the probability value is greater than 0.05, namely 0.505> 0.05. Based on table 4 above, it shows that there is no independent variable data (profit sharing, DPK, and capital) which has a correlation coefficient above 0.80 so that it is concluded that it is free from multicollinearity problems.

b. Multicollinearity Test
The results of the model II multicollinearity test can be seen in table 5 below: Source: Output Eviews 9, data processed in June 2019 Based on table 5 above, it shows that there is no independent variable data (revenue sharing, DPK, capital and revenue sharing) which has a correlation coefficient above 0.80 so that it is concluded that it is free from multicollinearity problems. Based on table 7 above, it can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation problem. The DW value is 1.738225 which in conclusion the DW value is between -2 and +2.

c. Autocorrelation Test
The results of the model II autocorrelation test can be explained in table 8 below: Based on table 8 above, it can be concluded that there is no autocorrelation problem. The DW value is 1.348225 which in conclusion the DW value is between -2 and +2.

Multiple Regression Analysis Statistical Test a. Coefficient of Determination (R2)
The R2 value in model I is 0.961 or 96.1%. This means that the influence of independent variables (profit sharing financing, TPF, and capital on the dependent variable (net income) is 96.1%, while the remaining 3.9% is influenced by other variables not included in this study.
The R2 value in model II is 0.226 or 22.6%. This means that the influence of the independent variables (financing for results, DPK, capital, and revenue sharing) on the dependent variable (net income) is 22.6%, while the remaining 77.4% is influenced by other factors not included in this study. Based on table 12 above, the profit sharing variable has no effect on net income where t count <t table is 1.071719 <1.67303 and the probability value> 0.05 is 0.2886> 0.05. TPF has an effect on net income where t count> t table is 3.421006> 1.67303 and the probability value <0.05 is 0.0012 <0.05. The capital variable has no effect on the net income variable where t count <t table is -1.384739 <1.67303 and the probability value> 0.05 is 0.1718> 0.05. Profit sharing variable has no effect on net income where t count <t table is -1.101404 <0.2756 and the probability value> 0.05 is 0.2756> 0.05.

Direct Influence
Based on the results of the path analysis regression test from model I and model II, the results of the direct effect test can be seen in the coefficient value of table 13.

Indirect Influence
The mediating variable (intervening) in this study is revenue sharing. To calculate the indirect effect, the Sobel formula is used. This sobel test is used to calculate the effect of sharing financing, TPF, and capital on net income through revenue sharing. The calculation of the indirect effect can be seen below: To test the significance of the indirect effect, we need to calculate the t value of the coefficients ab, cd, and ef with the following formula: From the table above, it can be concluded that the value of t arithmetic <from t table so that the variables of revenue sharing, TPF and capital have no effect on net income through revenue sharing.

V. Conclusion
Based on the results of data analysis and the discussion described above, the following conclusions can be drawn: The profit sharing variable has a positive effect on revenue sharing. Profit sharing financing that is managed properly is able to provide revenue sharing for the bank if the distribution of the financing in return runs smoothly. This research is in line with Muhammad Afif Darwis' research, that profit sharing financing has a positive and significant effect on revenue sharing.
TPF has no effect and is not significant for revenue sharing. DPK is one of the sources of bank funds collected in the form of savings, current accounts and time deposits and will be distributed in the form of financing. TPF has no effect on revenue sharing because of the decrease in savings, current accounts and time deposits. The proof is that in BMI 2016 current accounts, savings and time deposits decreased by -46.9%, -7.6% and -6. Dubai Syariah, giro is worth 0. Another reason DPK does not affect revenue sharing is because of the risk of displacement caused by customers moving their funds which is driven by the real profit sharing rate that is lower than the interest rate. Islamic banks must be more careful in managing the financing for these results.
Capital has a negative and significant effect on revenue sharing. A negative sign indicates the relationship is reversing. If there is a lot of capital, the channeled financing is small and the profit sharing income obtained is also small. The amount of capital owned by the bank is not balanced with the amount of financing channeled by the bank, resulting in idle funds. Unemployed funds can be seen from the Financing Depsit Ratio (FDR Another reason for profit sharing financing has no effect on net income is due to nonperforming financing as seen from the Net Performing Financing (NPF) ratio. Bank Indonesia sets a maximum NPF rate of 5%. The NPF BMI was 7.11%. At Bank Victoria Syariah in 2016 the NPF was 7.21%. In the 2017 and 2018 BRIS, the NPF was 6.43% and 6.73%. At Bank Jabar Banten Syariah in 2015, 2016, 2017 the NPF was 6.93%, 17.91%, and 22.04%. In BSM 2015 NPF 6.06%. At Panin Dubai Syariah Bank 2017 NPF 12.52%. At Bank Syariah Bukopin NPF in 2017 and 2018 amounted to 7.85% and 5.71%. TPF variable has a positive and significant effect on net income. The more TPF that is channeled in the form of financing, the TPF will have an effect on increasing profits.The more the amount of funds raised, the more the amount of funds channeled will also be raised. This means that the more funds collected, the bank can provide a lot of financing. From this financing, income will be obtained and will increase bank profits.
The variable of capital has no and insignificant effect on net income.The amount of capital owned by the bank is not balanced in providing profit sharing financing, so that the profit sharing received from profit sharing financing is not balanced with the profit sharing that must be given to customers who own capital, in the end this will affect the decline in profits that will be obtained by the bank. Capital has no effect on net income, also because Islamic banking financing is still dominated by murabahah financing. Comparison of murabahah financing and profit sharing financing can be seen in OJK publications. In 2017 BRIS murabahah financing was Rp. 15,083,878,000,000, and in 2018 Rp. 16,008,953,