SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Maliye ve Finans Yazıları / 2019 / Sayı: 111

The Effect of Global Financial Crisis on the Change in Differences Between State Banks and Private Banks’ Liquidity Behavior: The Case of Turkish Deposit Banking

Küresel Finansal Krizin Devlet Bankaları ve Özel Sermayeli Bankaların Likidite Davranışının Değişimine Etkisi: Türk Mevduat Bankacılığı Örneği

Onur ÖZDEMİR
Fatih KAYHAN
Pages
403–434
Publication Date
2019-04-30
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)

Empirical findings indicate that, contrary to the privately owned rivals, state-run deposit banks lowered their liquid assets in their balance sheets more than their private rivals and in return, they lent more for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences of crisis in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this paper is to analyze whether the 2008 global financial crisis significantly changed the differences between public and private deposit banks’ liquidity behavior in Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The sample of this study covers public and private deposit banks which are operational in Turkey from 2005 to 2015 on the basis of quarterly released bank data.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Empirical findings indicate that, contrary to the privately owned rivals, state-run deposit banks lowered their liquid assets in their balance sheets more than their private rivals and in return, they lent more for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences of crisis in Turkey.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Finansal Varlık · Özel ve Kamu Sermayeli Bankacılık · Küresel Finansal Kriz

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze whether the 2008 global financial crisis significantly changed the differences between public and private deposit banks’ liquidity behavior in Turkey. The sample of this study covers public and private deposit banks which are operational in Turkey from 2005 to 2015 on the basis of quarterly released bank data. Empirical findings indicate that, contrary to the privately owned rivals, state-run deposit banks lowered their liquid assets in their balance sheets more than their private rivals and in return, they lent more for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences of crisis in Turkey.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2008 küresel finansal krizinin Türkiye’de kamu ve özel sermayeli bankaların likidite davranışı farkını önemli oranda değiştirip değiştirmediğini tespit etmektir. Analizde kullanılan örneklem 2005-2015 arası çeyrek dönem verileri temelinde Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren kamu ve özel sermayeli mevduat bankalarını kapsamaktadır. Ampirik bulgular göstermektedir ki; Türkiye’de, özel sermayeli muadillerinin aksine, kamu mevduat bankaları, kriz sonrasında krizin ülke ekonomisindeki olumsuz etkisini sınırlama güdüsü ile hareket ederek aktiflerine oranla daha fazla kredi plase etmişler ve likidite oranlarını göreceli olarak azaltmışlardır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZDEMİR, O., KAYHAN, F. (2019). The Effect of Global Financial Crisis on the Change in Differences Between State Banks and Private Banks’ Liquidity Behavior: The Case of Turkish Deposit Banking. Maliye ve Finans Yazıları, Sayı: 111, 403–434. https://ajindex.com/articles/228838

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Adams-Kane, J., Caballero, J., & Lim J. (2014), Foreign Bank Behavior during Financial Crises, IDB Working Paper Series, No. IDB-WP-512. Akgüç, Ö. (2006), Kredi Taleplerinin Değerlendirilmesi. İstanbul:
  2. Arayış. Alper, K., Atasoy, H., Karaşahin, R., & Mutluer-Kurul, D. (2011), Arzın Merkezine Seyahat: Bankacılarla Yapılan Görüşmelerden Elde Edilen Bilgilerle Türk Bankacılık Sektörünün Davranışı, TCMB Çalışma Tebliği, No: 11/24. Alper, K., Hulagu T., & Keleş G. (2012), An Empirical Study on Liquidity and Bank Lending, TCMB Working Paper, No: 12/04. Alper, K., Binici, M., Demiralp, S., Kara, H., & Özlü, P. (2016),
  3. Reserve Requirements, Liquidity Risk, and Bank Lending Behavior, Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Paper, No: 1612. Angrist, J. D. & Pischke, J. S. (2008),
  4. Mostly Harmless Econometrics, An Empiricist's Companion, Princeton University, Princeton. Angrist, J.D., & Pischke, J. S. (2015), Mastering Metrics The Path from Cause to Effect, Princeton University, Princeton. Aysan, A.F., Disli, M., Duygun, M., & Ozturk, H. (2017),
  5. Islamic Banks, Deposit Insurance Reform, and Market Discipline: Evidence from a Natural Framework, Journal of Financial Services Research, 51(2), 257-282.
  6. Bakır, C. (2009), Wobbling but Still on its Feet: The Turkish Economy in the Global Financial Crisis, South European Society and Politics, 14(1), 71–85.
  7. Berger, A. N., Bouwman, C. H. S., Kick, T., & Schaeck, K. (2011), Bank risk taking and liquidity creation following regulatory interventions and capital support, Discussion Paper 2011-088,
  8. Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research. Brei, M., & Schclarek, A. (2013), Public bank lending in times of crisis, Journal of Financial Stability, 9(4), 820-830.
  9. Brooks, P. K. (2007), The Bank Lending Channel of Monetary Transmission: Does it Work in Turkey? IMF Working Papers, No: 07/272. Coleman, N. & Feler, L. (2015), Bank ownership, lending, and local economic performance during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Journal of Monetary Economics, 71, 50-66.
  10. Cull, R. & Peria M. S. M. (2013), Bank ownership and lending patterns during the 2008-2009 financial crisis: Evidence from Latin America and Eastern Europe, Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(12), 4861-4878. Dell’Ariccia, G., Detragiache, E., & Rajan, R. (2008),
  11. The Real Effects of Banking Crises, Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17(1), 89-112.
  12. Demirgüç-Kunt A., Detragiache, E., ve Gupta, P. (2006), Inside the crisis: An empirical analysis of banking systems in di