2012/14
2011/13
2011/12
2010/12
2009/11 Makale özeti ve diğer detaylar.
Crisis has a significant affect on all sectors in economies, especially on real sector which is locomotive of economy. In Turkey that has encountered crisis 15 times, the real sector has been affected by these crisis. For this reason, the main topic of the study is the impact of the crisis in Turkey on financial indicators of real sector. There are numerous studies have been done to the causes and the results of banking and financial crises in the world, Some of these are Morris Goldstein and Philip Turner (1996), Gerard Caprio and Daniela Klingebiel (1996), (Diamond, Rajan, 2001), (Kaminsky, Reinhart, 1999), (Kunt, Detragiache, 1997), (Eichengreen, Hausmann, 1999 ), (Eichengreen, Rose, 1998), (Hardy, Pazarbaşıoğlu, 1998), (Rajan, Zingales, 1998) (Douglas, Dybvig, 1983), (Mendis, 1998, Domaç, Perian, 2000), (Quick, Ozkan , 2009). In this context, the subject of these studies is the effects of the crisis in the financial as macro economic aspects. Forming the basis of the economic crisis and its impact on real sector development and growth of the country will be decisive on. Therefore in this study the effects of the crisis on the real sector were performed on several variables. The effects of the crisis on real sector are examined in the industrial basis by using Istanbul Stock Exchange quarterly data which involves 1996-2009 period, 10 industries and 113 companies. The analysis has been performed by using t test and One Way Anova analysis under the main groups data which involves profitability, risk, capital structure, size, growth, asset structure and activities. In the first stage of the study conducted in two stage, it has been investigated that there is a whether significant changes in variable means which shows firm financial indicators by Independent Sample Test in times of crisis. In the second stage, using crisis period data, industrial diversification and impact of the crisis on the sectors have been examined. In the analysis, research hypotheses are formulated as follows: H0:μ1 = μ2 = μ3 averages of the groups are equal, i.e. crisis have no influence on financial ratios. H1:μ1≠μ2≠μ3 average of at least one of the groups is different from the others or independent variables have influence on financial ratios. For the second stage of the analysis performed in order to determine the industrial differentiation, research hypotheses are formulated as follows: H0:μ1 = μ2 = μ3 averages of the groups are equal, i.e. there is not any difference among the groups, H1:μ1≠μ2≠μ3 average of at least one of the groups is different from the others or there is difference among the groups. Results of the analysis revealed that especially technology and communication sectors have showed significant differences from other sectors in term of profitability, risk, capital structure and size have been identified. Generally technology sector has differences from other sectors in term of size, asset structure, activities and capital structure, trade sector has differences from other sector in term of profitability, growth, capital structure and activities. Paper printing sector has differences from other sectors in terms of growth, asset structure and profitability ratios. The chemical industry separated from the other sectors in terms of growth and capital structure. Interestingly, although Metal Goods and Main Metal sectors are close sectors each other, there are differences between each sector in growth, capital structure and activity ratios. While there are differences among Metal, Stone-Soil and Textile sectors in terms of capital structure, profitability and growth ratios, Stone-Soil and Textile sectors are separated each other in profitability and capital structure ratios. As a result, in term of financial indicators which have been used in the analysis, communication, technology, food, trade and textile sectors have most differences from other sectors, in time of crisis. göstergeler açısından haberleşme, teknoloji, gıda, ticaret ve tekstil sektörleri diğer sektörlerle en fazla farklılık gösteren sektörler olarak ortaya çıkmıştır.
Crisis has a significant affect on all sectors in economies, especially on real sector which is locomotive of economy. In Turkey that has encountered crisis 15 times, the real sector has been affected by these crisis. For this reason, the main topic of the study is the impact of the crisis in Turkey on financial indicators of real sector. There are numerous studies have been done to the causes and the results of banking and financial crises in the world, Some of these are Morris Goldstein and Philip Turner (1996), Gerard Caprio and Daniela Klingebiel (1996), (Diamond, Rajan, 2001), (Kaminsky, Reinhart, 1999), (Kunt, Detragiache, 1997), (Eichengreen, Hausmann, 1999 ), (Eichengreen, Rose, 1998), (Hardy, Pazarbaşıoğlu, 1998), (Rajan, Zingales, 1998) (Douglas, Dybvig, 1983), (Mendis, 1998, Domaç, Perian, 2000), (Quick, Ozkan , 2009). In this context, the subject of these studies is the effects of the crisis in the financial as macro economic aspects. Forming the basis of the economic crisis and its impact on real sector development and growth of the country will be decisive on. Therefore in this study the effects of the crisis on the real sector were performed on several variables. The effects of the crisis on real sector are examined in the industrial basis by using Istanbul Stock Exchange quarterly data which involves 1996-2009 period, 10 industries and 113 companies. The analysis has been performed by using t test and One Way Anova analysis under the main groups data which involves profitability, risk, capital structure, size, growth, asset structure and activities. In the first stage of the study conducted in two stage, it has been investigated that there is a whether significant changes in variable means which shows firm financial indicators by Independent Sample Test in times of crisis. In the second stage, using crisis period data, industrial diversification and impact of the crisis on the sectors have been examined. In the analysis, research hypotheses are formulated as follows: H0:μ1 = μ2 = μ3 averages of the groups are equal, i.e. crisis have no influence on financial ratios. H1:μ1≠μ2≠μ3 average of at least one of the groups is different from the others or independent variables have influence on financial ratios. For the second stage of the analysis performed in order to determine the industrial differentiation, research hypotheses are formulated as follows: H0:μ1 = μ2 = μ3 averages of the groups are equal, i.e. there is not any difference among the groups, H1:μ1≠μ2≠μ3 average of at least one of the groups is different from the others or there is difference among the groups. Results of the analysis revealed that especially technology and communication sectors have showed significant differences from other sectors in term of profitability, risk, capital structure and size have been identified. Generally technology sector has differences from other sectors in term of size, asset structure, activities and capital structure, trade sector has differences from other sector in term of profitability, growth, capital structure and activities. Paper printing sector has differences from other sectors in terms of growth, asset structure and profitability ratios. The chemical industry separated from the other sectors in terms of growth and capital structure. Interestingly, although Metal Goods and Main Metal sectors are close sectors each other, there are differences between each sector in growth, capital structure and activity ratios. While there are differences among Metal, Stone-Soil and Textile sectors in terms of capital structure, profitability and growth ratios, Stone-Soil and Textile sectors are separated each other in profitability and capital structure ratios. As a result, in term of financial indicators which have been used in the analysis, communication, technology, food, trade and textile sectors have most differences from other sectors, in time of crisis.
Sayı 3