SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 26

PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF BIST INSURANCE COMPANIES WITH CRITIC BASED PROMETHEE II METHOD

BIST SİGORTA ŞİRKETLERİNİN CRITIC TEMELLİ PROMETHEE II YÖNTEMİ İLE PERFORMANS ANALİZİ

Tuğba Gökdemir(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0001-6584-2557
Gül Emel(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0002-2921-1368
Pages
598–625
Publication Date
2023-11-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

According to the results of the study, it was seen that Türkiye Sigorta A.Ş. in 2020-2021 and Agesa Hayat Emeklilik A.Ş. in 2022 had the highest performance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The share and impact of the insurance sector in the global economy and financial markets is significant.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Financial performance measurements and monitoring play an important role in the successful operation of insurance companies in dynamic economy and intense competition conditions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:According to the results of the study, it was seen that Türkiye Sigorta A.Ş. in 2020-2021 and Agesa Hayat Emeklilik A.Ş. in 2022 had the highest performance.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2020-2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Finansal Performans Analizi · Finansal Oranlar · CRITIC

Abstract

The share and impact of the insurance sector in the global economy and financial markets is significant. Financial performance measurements and monitoring play an important role in the successful operation of insurance companies in dynamic economy and intense competition conditions. In this study, the financial performance of insurance companies operating in Borsa Istanbul (BIST) will be measured with the CRITIC-PROMETHHE II HYBRID method, one of the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods, using financial ratios for the three-year period covering the years 2020-2022. Seven basic financial ratios have been determined to evaluate the financial performance of the insurance companies under review. The financial data of the companies examined were taken from the financial statements published on the Public Disclosure Platform (KAP) website and the selected financial ratios were calculated for each company. According to the results of the study, it was seen that Türkiye Sigorta A.Ş. in 2020-2021 and Agesa Hayat Emeklilik A.Ş. in 2022 had the highest performance. It has been determined that Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik A.Ş. is in the last place in the performance ranking in all three years. In addition, it has been determined that the most effective financial ratio for the insurance companies considered is the Current Ratio for 2020 and 2022, and the Return on Equity Ratio for 2021. In the literature review, no study was found in which the analysis of the financial performance of insurance companies was examined with the CRITIC-based PROMETHEE II method. In addition, the PROMETHEE method was examined under the title of European School for the first time in domestic literature reviews. With these aspects, it is thought that the study is original and will contribute to the literature.

Özet

Sigorta sektörünün küresel ekonomi ve finans piyasaları içindeki payı ve etkisi önemlidir. Sigorta şirketlerinin dinamik ekonomi ve yoğun rekabet koşullarında başarılı bir şekilde faaliyet göstermelerinde finansal performans ölçümleri ve takibi önemli rol oynamaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Borsa İstanbul (BIST)’de faaliyet gösteren sigorta şirketlerinin finansal performansları 2020-2022 yıllarını kapsayan üç yıllık dönem için finansal oranlar kullanılarak Çok Kriterli Karar Verme (ÇKKV) yöntemlerinden CRITIC temelli PROMETHHE II Hibrit yöntemi ile ölçülecektir. İncelemeye alınan sigorta şirketlerinin finansal performanslarını değerlendirmek için yedi temel finansal oran belirlenmiştir. İncelenen şirketlerin finansal verileri Kamuyu Aydınlatma Platformu (KAP) web sitesinde yayınlanan finansal durum tablolarından alınmış ve her şirket için seçilmiş olan finansal oranlar tek tek hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre 2020-2021 yıllarında Türkiye Sigorta A.Ş.’nin, 2022 yılında ise Agesa Hayat Emeklilik A.Ş.’ nin en yüksek performansa sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Her üç yılda da Anadolu Hayat Emeklilik A.Ş.’nin performans sıralamasında son sırada yer aldığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca ele alınan sigorta şirketleri için en etkili finansal oranın 2020 ve 2022 yılları için Cari Oran, 2021 yılı için ise Özkaynak Karlılığı Oranı olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Literatür incelemesinde sigorta şirketlerinin finansal performansının analizinin CRITIC temelli PROMETHEE II yöntemi ile incelendiği bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Ayrıca yerli literatür taramalarında PROMETHEE yöntemini Avrupa Ekolü başlığı altında inceleyen bir çalışmaya rastlanmamıştır. Bu yönleri ile çalışmanın özgün olup literatüre katkı sağlayacağı açıktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gökdemir, T., Emel, G. (2023). PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF BIST INSURANCE COMPANIES WITH CRITIC BASED PROMETHEE II METHOD. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 26, 598–625. https://doi.org/10.53092/duiibfd.1311710

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Acer, A., Genç, T., & Dinçer, E. (2020). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bireysel emeklilik şirketlerinin performansının ENTROPİ ve COPRAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi, İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 153-169
  2. Alenjagh, R. S. (2013). Performance evaluation and ranking of insurance companies in tehran stock exchange by financial ratios using ANP and PROMETHEE, European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(3), 3478-3486.
  3. Akyüz, G. Ç. (2022). Hayat dışı sigorta şirketlerinin finansal performans analizinde TOPSIS ve MABAC yöntemlerinin değerlendirilmesi. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 37(4), 891-912.
  4. Aydın, Y. (2019), Türkiye'de hayat emeklilik sigorta sektörünün finansal performans analizi, Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 4(1), ss.107-118.
  5. Bayramoğlu, M. & Başarır, Ç. (2016). Borsa istanbul’da işlem gören sigorta şirketlerinin karşılaştırmalı finansal performans analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 16(4), 135-144.
  6. Blin, M., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2001). Multi-criteria methodology contribution to the software quality evaluation. Software Quality Control, 9 (2), 113-132.
  7. Brans, J. P. (1982). Lingenierie de la decision: elaboration dinstruments daide a la decision la methode PROMETHEE, Universite Laval, Colloque D'aide a la Decision, Quebec, Canada, 183-213.
  8. Brans, J. P. & Vincke, P. H. (1985). A preference ranking organization method, Management Science, 31(6), 647-656
  9. Bülbül, S. E. & Köse, A. (2016). Türk sigorta sektörünün PROMETHEE yöntemi ile finansal performans analizi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 38(1), 187-210. doi: 10.14780/iibd.29194.
  10. Chen, S. Y. & Lu, C. C. (2014). Assessing the competitiveness of insurance corporations using fuzzy correlation analysis and improved fuzzy modified TOPSIS. Expert Systems, 3, 392–404. doi:10.1111/ exsy.12099
  11. Chan, A., & Afşari, A. (2019). Application of PROMETHEE method for green supplier selection. Uluslararası Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 271-285.
  12. Demir, G. (2022). Hayat dışı sigorta sektöründe kurumsal performansın PSI-SD tabanlı MABAC metodu ile ölçülmesi: Anadolu sigorta örneği. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7 (1), 112-136. doi: 10.30784/epfad.1072645
  13. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems - the CRITIC method. Comput. Oper. Res., 22, 763-770
  14. Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2021). MARCOS technique under intuitionistic fuzzy environment for determining the COVID-19 pandemic performance of insurance companies in terms of Healthcare Services. Applied Soft Computing, 104,107199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107199
  15. Fan, C. K., & Cheng, S. W. (2009). Using analytic hierarchy method and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution to evaluate curriculum in department of risk management and ınsurance. Journal of Social Sciences, 19(1), 1–8.
  16. Houshmand Neghabi, Z. H., Morshedian Rafiee, S. M., & Soleymani, Z. (2012). A comparative analysis on ranking insurance firms using RBC and CAMELS. Management science letters, 2, 2545–2550. doi:10.5267/j.msl.2012.07.010
  17. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. California: California Management Review. Volume 39, Issue 1, https://doi.org/10.2307/41165876
  18. Khodamoradi, S., Safari, A., & Rahimi, R. (2014). A hybrid multi-criteria model for ınsurance companies rating. International Business Research, 6(7).
  19. Krishnan, A. R., Kasim, M. M., & Ghazali, M. F. (2021). A modified CRITIC method to estimate the objective weights of decision criteria. Computer science and symmetry/asymmetry, 1-2.
  20. KPMG. (2022, 8 5). https://kpmg.com/tr/tr/home/gorusler/2022/08/sigorta-sektorel-bakis.html. Sigorta Sektörel Bakış 2022: https://kpmg.com/tr/tr/home/gorusler/2022/08/sigorta-sektorel-bakis.html.
  21. Kuang, H., Kilgour, M., & Hipel, K. (2015). Grey-based PROMETHEE II with application to evaluation of source water protection strategies. Information sciences,volume 294, 376-389. doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.09.035.
  22. Li, L.-H., & Mo, R. (2015). Production task queue optimization based on multi-attribute evaluation for complex product assembly. PLoS one. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134343
  23. Işık, Ö. (2019). Türkiye’de hayat dışı sigorta sektörünün finansal performansının CRITIC tabanlı TOPSIS ve MULTIMOORA yöntemiyle değerlendirilmesi, BMIJ, 7(1), 542-562, http://dx.doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v7i1.1090.
  24. Mandić, K., Delibašić, B., Knežević, S., & Benković, S. (2017). Analysis of the efficiency of ınsurance companies ın serbia using the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Research-Ekonomskaistraživanja, 30(1), 550565.
  25. Mateo, J. R. (2012). Multi-Criteria analysis in the renewable energy ındustry. London: springer-verlag london limited.
  26. Motameni, A., Fatahi, V., & Karimi, S. M. (2012). Performance evaluation of insurance companies by hybridizing balanced scorecard approach and fuzzy MADM. Scientific Information Database, 51–69. retrieved from http://en.journals.sid.ir/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=290776
  27. Perçin, S., & Sönmez, Ö. (2018). Bütünleşik ENTROPİ ağırlık ve TOPSIS yöntemleri kullanılarak türk sigorta şirketlerinin performansının ölçülmesi. Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, 18.EYİ Özel Sayısı, 565-582. doi: 10.18092/Ulikidince.347924.
  28. Puelz, R. (1991). A process for selecting a life insurance contract,J. Risk Insurance. 58(1), 138-146
  29. Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review, Renew, 8(4), 365-381.
  30. Rahmati, S., & Darestani, S. A. (2022). Performance evaluation of insurance sector using balanced scorecard and hybrid BWM-TOPSIS: evidence from Iran. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, 36(3), 382-402.
  31. Rao, D.T. (2000). Privatisation and foreign participation in (life) insurance sector. Economic and Political Weekly, 1107-1120.
  32. Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS and PROMETHEE II methods. Symmetry 2020, 12(9), 1549, 1-55.; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549
  33. Tae, P., Woo, L., & Yang, Z. (2018). Multi-criteria decision making in maritime studies and logistics applications and cases. Springer, USA: International series in operations research & management science.
  34. Taşcı, M. Z. (2023). Piyasa çarpanlarıyla performans analizi: BIST sigorta şirketleri. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 13(2), 1211-1224. doi: 10.30783/nevsosbilen.1277228
  35. Tsai, H. Y., Huang, B. H., & Wang, A. S. (2008). Combining ANP and TOPSIS concepts for evaluation the performance of property-liability insurance companies. Journal Of Social Sciences, 4, 56–61. doi:10.3844/jssp.2008.56.61
  36. TSB. (2023, 3 5). Mali tablolar ve istatistikler. https://www.tsb.org.tr/tr/istatistikler.
  37. Venkateswarlu, R., & Bhishma Rao, G.S.S. (2016). Profitability evaluation and ranking of Indian non-life insurance firms using GRA and TOPSIS. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(22), 153-170. Retrieved from https://journal-of-insurance-and-financial-management.com/
  38. Wang, J., Jing, Y., & Zhang, C. E. (2010). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Rev 13:2263–2278. Renew Sust Energy, 2263-64.
  39. Yücenur, G. N., & Demirel, N. C. (2012). Group decision making process for insurance company selection problem with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 3702–3707. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.065
  40. Zhengkui, L., & Jian, W. (2012). Research on regional insurance industy’s social responsibility evaluation model and its application. Advances in Information Sciences & Service Sciences, 4, 388–396. doi:10.4156/aiss.vol4.issue1.49
  41. Acer, A., Genç, T., & Dinçer, E. (2020). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren bireysel emeklilik şirketlerinin performansının ENTROPİ ve COPRAS yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi, İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(1), 153-169
  42. Kuang, H., Kilgour, M., & Hipel, K. (2015). Grey-based PROMETHEE II with application to evaluation of source water protection strategies. Information sciences,volume 294, 376-389. doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2014.09.035.
  43. Sałabun, W., Wątróbski, J., & Shekhovtsov, A. (2020). Are MCDA methods benchmarkable? a comparative study of TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS and PROMETHEE II methods. Symmetry 2020, 12(9), 1549, 1-55.; https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12091549
  44. Tae, P., Woo, L., & Yang, Z. (2018). Multi-criteria decision making in maritime studies and logistics applications and cases. Springer, USA: International series in operations research & management science.