SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 14 Sayı: 28

A HYBRID APPROACH TO FINANCIAL SOLVENCY: A COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND ISLAMIC BANKING IN TURKEY

Erdi Bayram(MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0003-4478-7231
Ümit Hasan Gözkonan(MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, REKTÖRLÜK)0000-0002-7187-6304
Selim Baha Yıldız(MANİSA CELÂL BAYAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İŞLETME FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-0750-0556
Abdelbari El Khamlichi(Chouaib Doukkali University)0000-0002-3580-6990
Pages
603–623
Publication Date
2023-12-29
🏛️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)

The findings reveal a robust and healthy level of financial soundness among the analyzed banks, notably highlighting the superior performance of private conventional banks in financial soundness rankings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the financial soundness indicators of both conventional banks (referred to as deposit banks) and Islamic banks (referred to as participation banks) operating in Turkey are analyzed using different methods.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research utilizes financial ratios from the years 2017 to 2022, with the chosen financial ratios aligned with the Bankometer method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal a robust and healthy level of financial soundness among the analyzed banks, notably highlighting the superior performance of private conventional banks in financial soundness rankings.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:finansal sağlamlık · islami bankacılık · ÇKKV

Abstract

In this study, the financial soundness indicators of both conventional banks (referred to as deposit banks) and Islamic banks (referred to as participation banks) operating in Turkey are analyzed using different methods. The research utilizes financial ratios from the years 2017 to 2022, with the chosen financial ratios aligned with the Bankometer method. Ranking methods such as ARAS, CoCoSo, COPRAS, MABAC and TOPSIS are applied, and the ranking results are combined with the Borda Count method. The findings reveal a robust and healthy level of financial soundness among the analyzed banks, notably highlighting the superior performance of private conventional banks in financial soundness rankings. Importantly, this research makes a valuable contribution by showcasing the financial stability exhibited by both the conventional and Islamic banking sectors in Turkey, even when subjected to different methods, even in the face of adverse global conditions, such as those observed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Özet

Çalışmada Türkiye’deki konvansiyonel (mevduat-ticari) bankalar ile İslami (Katılım) bankaların finansal sağlamlık performansı farklı yöntemlerle incelenmiştir. Yapılan analizlerde 2017-2022 yıllarına ait Bankometer yönteminde yer alan finansal oranlar kullanılmış ve ARAS, CoCoSo, COPRAS, MABAC ve TOPSIS sıralama metodları uygulanmıştır. Sıralama sonuçları BORDA Sayım yöntemiyle birleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, analiz edilen bankaların finansal açıdan sağlam ve sağlıklı olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra finansal sağlamlık sıralamasında özel sermayeli konvansiyonel bankaların daha yüksek skorlara ulaştığı görülmektedir. Öte yandan çalışmanın sonuçları, ilgili analiz dönemi göz önüne alındığında, COVID-19 salgını süreci ve sonrasındaki olumsuz küresel koşullar karşısında dahi gerek konvansiyonel gerekse de İslami bankaların finansal sağlamlık göstergeleri açısından iyi durumda olduğunu göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bayram, E., Gözkonan, Ü. H., Yıldız, S. B., Khamlichi, A. E., *, E. B. (2023). A HYBRID APPROACH TO FINANCIAL SOLVENCY: A COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL AND ISLAMIC BANKING IN TURKEY. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 14 Sayı: 28, 603–623. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2023.025

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, R., Elhoseny, M., Abouhawash, M., Nam, Y., & M. Abdelaziz, N. (2021). Efficient MCDM model for evaluating the performance of commercial banks: A case study. Computers, Materials & Continua, 67(3), 2729-2746. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmc.2021.015316
  2. Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). New methods and applications in multiple attribute decision making (MADM). Cham: Springer.
  3. Asad, M., Ahmad, I., Haider, S. H., & Salman, R. (2018). A critical review of Islamic and conventional banking in digital era: A case of Pakistan. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.7), 57. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.7.20382
  4. Beheshtinia, M. A., & Omidi, S. (2017). A hybrid MCDM approach for performance evaluation in the banking industry. Kybernetes, 46(8), 1386-1407. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-03-2017-0105
  5. Budiman, T., Herwany, A., & Kristanti, F. T. (2017). An evaluation of financial stress for Islamic banks in Indonesia using a bankometer model. GATR Journal of Finance and Banking Review, 2(3), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.35609/jfbr.2017.2.3(3)
  6. Çakır, S., & Perçin, S. (2013). Çok kriterli karar verme teknikleriyle lojistik firmalarinda performans ölçümü. Ege Akademik Bakış, 13(4), 449.
  7. Çekin, S. E. (2019). Türkiye’de finans sisteminin yapısı ve dönüşüm gereksinimi. Seta Analiz, 290. https://setav.org/assets/uploads/2019/07/A290.pdf
  8. Çalış, N., Kevser, M., & Sakarya, Ş. (2022). Katılım bankalarının finansal sağlamlığının bankometer ve z-skor yöntemleriyle analizi. Adam Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(2), 301-321. https://doi.org/10.31679/adamakademi.1065747
  9. Çi̇ftaslan, M. E., & Rençber, Ö. F. (2022). IDOCRIW ve CoCoSo yöntemleri ile sistemik önemli bankaların performans analizi: Türkiye örneği. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 21(Özel Sayı), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.1135258
  10. Erari, A., Salim, U., Idrus, M. S., & Djumahir (2013). Financial performance analysis of pt. bank Papua: application of cael, z-score and bankometer. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 7(5), 8-16. https://doi.org/10.9790/487X-0750816
  11. Erben Yavuz, A. (2023). Finansal sağlamlık: Türk bankacılık sektörünün bankometer ile incelenmesi. Uluslararası Akademik Birikim Dergisi, 6(özel sayı), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10004532
  12. Evans, O., Leone, A. M., Gill, M., & Hilbers, P. (2000). Macroprudential Indicators of Financial System Soundness. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781557758910.084
  13. Ginevicius, R., & Podviezko, A. (2013). The evaluation of financial stability and soundness of Lithuanian banks. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 26(2), 191-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2013.11517616
  14. Gül, S., & Bektaş, S. (2021). Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren konvansiyonel bankaların finansal istikrar performanslarının finansal sağlamlık göstergeleri ile değerlendirilmesi: entropi ve aras yöntemleri ile analizi. Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute. https://doi.org/10.30794/pausbed.993857
  15. Gülay, G., Öncü, E., Karşili, H., & Gündüz, V. (2021). BİST kurumsal yönetim endeksinde yer alan bankaların performans analizi. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, 11(4), 2001-2018. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1015447
  16. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9
  17. Ismail, F., Majid, M.S., & Rahim, R. (2013). Efficiency of islamic and conventional banks in Malaysia. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 11(1), 92-107. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-03-2013-0011
  18. Jaffar, M., & Manarvi, I. (2011). Performance comparison of Islamic and conventional banks in Pakistan. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 11(1), https://globaljournals.org/GJMBR_Volume11/7_Performance_comparison_of_Islamic_and_Conventional_banks_in_Pakistan.pdf.
  19. Karadağ, M. M. (2021). BİST’te işlem gören mevduat bankalarının imf finansal sağlamlık göstergeleri açısından topsis ve entropi yöntemleri ile analizi. Maliye Finans Yazıları, 116, 119-142. https://doi.org/10.33203/mfy.970497
  20. Kattel, I. K. (2015). Evaluating the financial solvency of selected commercial banks of Nepal: an application of bankometer. Journal of Advanced Academic Research, 1(1), 88-95. https://doi.org/10.3126/jaar.v1i1.13518
  21. Khan, M., & Ahmad, S. (2013). Customer satisfaction level of Islamic bank and conventional bank in Pakistan. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 11(1), 31-40. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3730478
  22. Kibritçi Artar, O., & Atılgan Sarıdoğan, A. (2012). The effect of the global financial crisis on the financial structure of the banking sector in the Turkish economy. The Journal of Marmara Social Research, 2, 1-17.
  23. Özbek, Ö. E., Hazar, A., & Babuşçu, Ş. (2021). COVID-19 öncesi ve sonrası Türk bankacılık sektörünün bankometer yöntemi ile analizi. Ufuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(20), 7-26.
  24. Pamucar, D., & Cirovic, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC). Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
  25. Permata, M., & Purwanto, E. (2018). Analysis of cAMEL, z-score, and bankometer in assessment soundness of banking listed on the indonesia stock exchange (IDX) from 2012-2015. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 13(5), 1311-1324.
  26. Rao, S. H., Kalvakolanu, S., & Chakraborty, C. (2021). Integration of ARAS and MOORA MCDM techniques for measuring the performance of private sector banks in India. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 29(Supp02), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488521400158
  27. Salman, A., & Nawaz, H. (2018). Islamic financial system and conventional banking: A comparison. Arab Economic and Business Journal, 13(2), 155-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aebj.2018.09.003
  28. Sarıay, M. A. İ. (2023). İşletmelerin finansal sağlamlığının belirlenmesinde finansal oranlarla oluşturulan çok değişkenli modellerin karşılaştırılması: BİST’te işlem gören toptan ticaret sektöründe bir uygulama. Muhasebe ve Vergi Uygulamaları Dergisi, 16(1), 77-98. https://doi.org/10.29067/muvu.1202858
  29. Selimler, H., & Karadağ, M. M. (2020). Türkiye ve seçilmiş ülkelerde mevduat kabul eden kuruluşların finansal sağlamlık göstergelerinin entropi ve edas yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi. Florya Chronicles of Political Economy, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.17932/IAU.FCPE.2015.010/fcpe_v06i1005
  30. Wanke, P., Azad, M. A. K., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Efficiency factors in OECD banks: A ten-year analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 64, 208-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.07.020
  31. Wu, W. W. (2012). An integrated solution for benchmarking using DEA, gray entropy, and borda count. The Service Industries Journal, 32(2), 321-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2011.517833
  32. Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458
  33. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision-making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10
  34. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., & Sarka, V. (1994). The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1(3), 131-139.