Journals / İzmir İktisat Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1

The Relationship Between Risk and Performance in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Türk İmalat Sanayinde Risk ve Performans Arasındaki İlişki

Pages
29–56
Publication Date
2017-07-13
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)

Panel estimation results demonstrate that performance effects risk positively when degree of total leverage or financial leverage is used as risk indicator and negatively when degrees of operating leverage is used as risk indicator.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Theoretical approaches make different prediction related to the nature of the relationship between risk and performance.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using Two Stage System Generalized Moment Method proposed by Arellano and Bover (1995) and Blundell and Bond (1998) this paper investigates risk and performance relationship in Turkish Manufacturing Industry for the period from 2008 to 2013.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Panel estimation results demonstrate that performance effects risk positively when degree of total leverage or financial leverage is used as risk indicator and negatively when degrees of operating leverage is used as risk indicator.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Risk · Performans · Türk İmalat Sanayi

Abstract

Theoretical approaches make different prediction related to the nature of the relationship between risk and performance. Traditional finance theory and behavioural firm theory give controversial explanation about this relationship. Using Two Stage System Generalized Moment Method proposed by Arellano and Bover (1995) and Blundell and Bond (1998) this paper investigates risk and performance relationship in Turkish Manufacturing Industry for the period from 2008 to 2013. The degrees of total leverage, operating leverage and financial leverage are used as risk indicators. Net profit margin, return on assets, return on equity are performance variables. Panel estimation results demonstrate that performance effects risk positively when degree of total leverage or financial leverage is used as risk indicator and negatively when degrees of operating leverage is used as risk indicator. These results support the traditional finance theory when total risk or financial risk is taken into account and behavioural firm theory when operational risk is considered as risk proxies.

Özet

Teorik yaklaşımlar risk ve performans ilişkinin doğasına yönelik farklı sonuçlar öngörürler. Geleneksel finans teorisi ve davranışsal firma teorisi bu ilişkiye yönelik olarak tartışmalı açıklamalar getirirler. Bu çalışmada Arellano ve Bover (1995) ile Blundell ve Bond (1998) tarafından geliştirilen İki Aşamalı Sistem Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodu kullanılarak 2008-2013 dönemi için Türk İmalat Sanayinde risk ve performans ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışmada risk göstergesi olarak toplam kaldıraç derecesi, faaliyet kaldıraç derecesi ve finansal kaldıraç derecesi kullanılmıştır. Performans değişkeni göstergeleri ise net kȃr marjı, aktif kȃrlılık oranı ve öz sermaye kȃrlılık oranlarıdır. Panel veri tahmin sonuçları toplam kaldıraç derecesi veya finansal kaldıraç derecesi risk göstergesi olarak dikkate alındığında performansın riski pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Risk göstergesi olarak faaliyet kaldıracı derecesi dikkate alındığında ise performansın riski negatif yönde etkilediği görülmüştür. Bu sonuç, toplam risk ve finansal risk söz konusu olduğunda geleneksel teorinin, buna karşın iş riski dikkate alındığında ise davranışsal firma teorisini desteklemektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AĞAZADE, S., KARAKAYA, A., PERÇİN, S. (2017). The Relationship Between Risk and Performance in Turkish Manufacturing Industry. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 1, 29–56. https://ajindex.com/articles/29967

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. AL MANASEER, M. F. A., AL-HINDAWI, R. M., AL-DAHIYAT, M. A., SARTAWI, I. I. (2012), “The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Performance of Jordanian Banks”, European Journal of Scientific Research, 67(3), 349-359.
  2. ANDERSEN, T. J., DENRELL, J., BETTIS, R. A. (2007), “Strategic Responsiveness and Bowman's Risk–return Paradox”, Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 407-429.
  3. ANDERSON, T. W., HSIAO, C. (1981), “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76(375), 598-606.
  4. ANDERSON, T. W., HSIAO, C. (1982), “Formulation and Estimation of Dynamic Models Using Panel Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 18, 47-82.
  5. ARELLANO M., BOND, S. (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel: Monte Carlo Evidence and An Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297.
  6. ARELLANO M., BOVER, O. (1995), “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29-51.
  7. BALTAGI, B. H. (2005),
  8. Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, John Wiley&Sons, Ltd., England. BLUNDELL R., BOND S. (1998), “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143.
  9. BLUNDELL, R., BOND, S. (2000), “GMM Estimation with Persistent Panel Data: An Application to Production Functions”, Econometric Reviews, 19, 321–340.
  10. BOND, S. (2002), “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, CEMMAP Working Paper, No: Cwp0209, 1-36.
  11. BOWMAN, E. H. (1980), “A Risk–Return Paradox for Strategic Management”, Sloan Management Review, 21, 17-31.
  12. BOWMAN, E. H. (1984), “Content Analysis of Annual Reports for Corporate Strategy and Risk”, Strategic Managemen Interfaces, 14(1) 61-71.
  13. BROMILEY, P. (1991), “Testing a Casual Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 37–59.
  14. CHARI, A., CHEN, W., DOMINGUEZ, K. M. E. (2012), “Foreign Ownership and Firm Performance: Emerging Market Acquisitions in the United States”, IMF Economic Review, 60(1), 1-42.
  15. CHOI, I. (2001), “Unit Root Tests for Panel Data”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 249-272.
  16. CORE, J. E., HOLTHAUSEN, R. W., LARCKER, D. F. (1999), “Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance” Journal of Financial Economics, 51, 371-406.
  17. DE YOUNG, R., ROLAND, K. P. (1999), Product Mix and Earnings Volatility at Commercial Banks: Evidence from a Degree of Leverage Mod