Journals / Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2

IS OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE EFFECTIVE IN TAKING RISKS OF BANKS? THE CASE OF TURKEY

BANKALARIN RİSK ÜSTLENMELERİNDE ORTAKLIK YAPISININ ETKİSİ VAR MI? TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Pages
385–407
Publication Date
2020-12-31
DOI
—
🏛️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)

In the framework of the data obtained from the analysis, there was no effect of capital ownership and capital concentration on the risk taking tendency of the banks in the Turkish Banking Sector.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the relationship between the capital ownership and risk taking tendency of banks is analysed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data of each bank for the end of 2008-2017 are taken into consideration.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the framework of the data obtained from the analysis, there was no effect of capital ownership and capital concentration on the risk taking tendency of the banks in the Turkish Banking Sector.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008-2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Risk Üstlenme · Ortaklık Yapısı · Konsantrasyon

Abstract

In this study, the relationship between the capital ownership and risk taking tendency of banks is analysed. The data of multi-branch deposit banks from the banks operating during the analysis period were included in the study. The data of each bank for the end of 2008-2017 are taken into consideration. A total of 2800 variables consisting of 14 different variables belonging to 20 deposit banks covering 10 years were used in the analysis. From the 20 banks taken into account in the analysis; 3 are public, 11 are domestic private and 6 are foreign banks with private capital. One of the most striking points in the study is that the derivative financial instruments / equity variable included in the analysis as an independent variable and 3 risk indicators are in a meaningful relationship. In the framework of the data obtained from the analysis, there was no effect of capital ownership and capital concentration on the risk taking tendency of the banks in the Turkish Banking Sector.

Özet

Bu çalışmada, sermaye sahipliği ile bankaların risk alma eğilimi arasındaki ilişki incelenmiştir. Analiz döneminde faaliyet gösteren bankalardan çok şubeli mevduat bankalarının verileri çalışmaya alınmıştır. Her bankanın 2008-2017 sonu verileri dikkate alınmaktadır. Analizde, 10 yılı kapsayan 20 mevduat bankasına ait 14 farklı değişkenden oluşan toplam 2800 değişken kullanılmıştır. Analizde dikkate alınan 20 bankadan; 3'ü kamu, 11'i yerli özel ve 6'sı özel sermayeli yabancı bankalardır. Çalışmadaki en çarpıcı noktalardan biri, bağımsız bir değişken olarak analize dahil edilen türev finansal araçlar / özkaynak değişkeninin ve 3 risk göstergesinin anlamlı bir ilişki içinde olmasıdır. Analizden elde edilen veriler çerçevesinde, sermaye sahipliği ve sermaye yoğunluğunun Türk Bankacılık Sektöründeki bankaların risk alma eğilimi üzerinde bir etkisi olmamıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÖKSAL, M. O., BABUŞÇU, Ş., HAZAR, A. (2020). IS OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE EFFECTIVE IN TAKING RISKS OF BANKS? THE CASE OF TURKEY. Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 2, 385–407. https://ajindex.com/articles/102415

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Aghion, P., Tirole, J., (1997). Formal and real authority in organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 55, 1–27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/262063
  2. Altunbas, Y., Evans L., Molyneux,P. (2001). Bank ownership and efficiency. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33(4), 926-954. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2673929?seq=1
  3. Altunbas, Y., Gardener, E. P.M., Molyneux, P., & Moore, B. (2001). Efficiency in European banking. European Economic Review, 45(10), 1931–1955. doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(00)00091-X Anderson, R. C., Fraser, D. R.(2000), Corporate control, bank risk taking, and the health of the banking industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 24, 1383-1398. doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(99)00088-6 Angkinand,A., Wihlborg,C. (2010). Deposit insurance coverage, ownership, and banks’ risk-taking in emerging markets. Journal of International Money and Finance, 29, 252–274. doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2009.08.001 Barry,T.A., Lepetit,L., Tarazi,A.(2011). Ownership structure and risk in publicly held and privately owned banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35, 1327-1340. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.004 Berger, A., Clarke, G., Cill, R., Klapper, L., Udell, G. (2005). Corporate governance and bank performance: a joint analysis of the static, selection, and dynamic effects of domestic, foreign, and state ownership. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29, 2179–2221. doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3632
  4. Bliss, R., Flannery, M. (2002). Market discipline in the governance of US bank holding companies: monitoring vs. influencing. European Finance Review, 6(3), 361– 396. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022021430852
  5. Bonin, J.P., Hasan, I., Wachtel, P. (2005). Bank performance, efficiency and ownership in transition countries. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29, 31–54. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.06.015 Caprio, G., Martinez-Peria, M.S. (2000). Avoiding disaster: policies to reduce the risk of banking crises. Egyptian Center for Economic Studies (ECES).Working Paper 47. Publication Number: ECESWP47-E Retrieved from: http://www.eces.org.eg/cms/NewsUploads /Pdf/2019_1_7-22_22_38SSS.pdf Claessens, S., Demirguc-Kunt, A., Huizinga, H. (2001). How does foreign entry affect the domestic banking market?, Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 891–911. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2894623
  6. Clarke, G. R. G., Cull, R., & Shirley, M. M. (2005). Bank privatization in developing countries: A summary of lessons and findings. Journal of Banking & Fi