SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Hitit Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Volume: 13 Issue: 2

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

BANKALARIN RİSK ÜSTLENMELERİNDE ORTAKLIK YAPISININ ETKİSİ VAR MI? TÜRKİYE ÖRNEĞİ

Mehmet Oğuz Köksal(Akademi Eğitim)0000-0002-0037-7671
Şenol Babuşçu(BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2870-6358
Adalet Hazar(Başkent Üniversitesi)0000-0002-1483-8360
Pages
385–407
Publication Date
2020-12-31
🏛️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:Araştırma Makalesi
📍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, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 385–407. https://doi.org/10.17218/hititsosbil.773170

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (39)

  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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Clarke, G. R. G., Cull, R., & Shirley, M. M. (2005). Bank privatization in developing countries: A summary of lessons and findings. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29, 1905–1930. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2005.03.006
  13. Demsetz, H. and Lehn, K. (1985), The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 1155-1177. doi.org/10.1086/261354
  14. Dong, Y., Meng,C., Michael Firth,M., Wenxuan Hou,W. (2014). Ownership structure and risk-taking: comparative evidence from private and state-controlled banks in China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 120-130. doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.03.009
  15. Erginbay, U. (2015). Panel Veri Ekonometrisi Üzerine Genel Bir Bakış. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.4966.1920
  16. Fungacova, Z., Solanko, L. (2008). Risk taking by Russian banks: Do location, ownership and size matter?. BOFIT Working Paper No. 21/2008. Retrieved from: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/risk-taking-by-russian-banks-do-location-ownership-and-size-matter
  17. Garcia-Marco, T., & Robles-Fernández, M.D. (2008). Risk-taking behaviour and ownership in the banking industry: The Spanish evidence. Journal of Economics and Business, 60(4), 332–354. doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2007.04.008
  18. Greenee, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, 5th Ed., New York: Prentice Hall.
  19. Haw, I. M., Ho, S. M., Hu, B., & Wu, D. (2010). Concentrated control, institutions, and banking sector: An international study. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34, 485–497. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.08.013
  20. Iannotta, G., Nocera, G., Sironi, A. (2007). Ownership structure, risk and performance in the European banking industry. Journal of Banking and Finance, 31, 2127–2149. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.07.013
  21. Iannotta, G., Nocera, G., Sironi, A.(2013). The impact of government ownership on bank risk. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22, 152-176. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2012.11.002
  22. Isik, I., & Hassan, M. K. (2002). Cost and profit efficiency of the Turkish banking industry: An empirical investigation. The Financial Review, 37(2), 257–279. doi.org/10.1111/1540-6288.00014
  23. Jensen, M.C., Meckling, W.H., 1976. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency cost and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-9257-3_8
  24. John, K., Litov, L., & Yeung, B. (2008). Corporate governance and risk-taking. Journal of Finance, 63, 1679–1728. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2008.01372.x
  25. Kennedy, P. (2006). Ekonometri Klavuzu, (çev. Muzaffer Sarımeşeli ve Şenay Açıkgöz), 5. Baskı, Gazi Yayınevi.
  26. Kwan, H.K. (2004). Risk and return of publicly held versus privately owned banks. Economic Policy Review, 10, 97–107. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=787884
  27. Laeven,L., 1999, Risk and efficiency in East Asian banks.World Bank Discussion Paper, No:2255. doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-2255
  28. Laeven,L., Levine,R.(2006). Corporate governance, regulation, and bank risk taking, Working Paper, 1-56. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ross_Levine/publication/267566498_Corporate_Governance_Regulation_and_Bank_Risk_Taking/links/5523c95b0cf2b351d9c336a9/Corporate-Governance-Regulation-and-Bank-Risk-Taking.pdf
  29. Laeven, L., & Levine, R. (2009). Bank governance, regulation, and risk taking. Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 259–275. doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.09.003
  30. Liu,Y., Brahma,S., Boateng, A. (2019). Impact of Ownership Structure and Ownership Concentration on Credit Risk of Chinese Commercial Banks. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2(16), 253-272. doi.org/10.1108/IJMF-03-2019-0094
  31. Micco, A., Ugo, P., Monica, Y. (2007). Bank ownership and performance: Does politics matter? Journal of Banking and Finance, 31, 219–241. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2006.02.007
  32. Nichols, D., Wahlen, J., Wieland, M. (2009). Publicly-traded versus privately-held: implications for conditional conservatism in bank accounting. Review of Accounting Studies, 14, 88–122. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11142-008-9082-3
  33. Pazarlıoğlu, M. V., Özlem K. G. (2007). Telekomünikasyon Yatırımları ve Ekonomik Büyüme. Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 44(508), 35-43. Retrieved from: http://www.ekonomikyorumlar.com.tr/files/articles/152820004080_4.pdf Saunders, A., Strock, E., Travlos, N. (1990). Ownership structure, deregulation, and bank risk taking. Journal of Finance, 45 (2), 643–654. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1990.tb03709.x
  34. Shehzad, C. T., de Haan, J., & Scholtens, B. (2010). The impact of bank ownership concentration on impaired loans and capital adequacy. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(2), 399–408. doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.08.007
  35. Shirley, M., & Nellis, J. (1991). Public enterprise reform: The lessons of experience. World Bank discussion papers, No. WDP 119. Retrieved from: http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/156711468779074142/pdf/multi-page.pdf
  36. Shleifer, A., Vishny, R. (1986). Large shareholders and corporate control. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 461–488. doi.org/10.1086/261385
  37. Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W. (1997). A survey of corporate governance. Journal of Finance, 52, 737–783. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04820.x
  38. Srairi,S. (2013). Ownership structure and risk-taking behaviour in conventional and islamic banks: evidence for mena countries. Borsa Istanbul Review, 13, 115-127. doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2013.10.010
  39. Swamy, P. A. V. B. and Arora, S. S. (1972). The Exact Finite Sample Properties of the Esitmator of Coefficients in the Error Components Regression Model, Econometrica, 40(2), 261- 275. doi: 10.2307/1909405