SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2

BORSA İSTANBUL’DA ŞİRKET YATIRIM VE BEKLENEN HİSSE GETİRİLERİ

CORPORATE INVESTMENT AND EXPECTED STOCK RETURNS

Pınar EVRİM MANDACI
Asil AZİMLİ
Pages
299–315
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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)

Therefore, we can conclude that the corporate investment effect cannot be used to predict the expected returns

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper, we try to investigate the relationship between the investments and the stock returns of the companies which are traded in Borsa Istanbul (BIST) during the period from July 2006 to December 2015.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results of the univariate portfolio analysis indicate that the corporate investment premium is economically large such as the value weighted (equally weighted) average monthly premium on the zero-investment portfolio of low corporate investment stocks is 0.57 (0.61) % however, it is not statistically significant.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, we can conclude that the corporate investment effect cannot be used to predict the expected returns
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2006 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this paper, we try to investigate the relationship between the investments and the stock returns of the companies which are traded in Borsa Istanbul (BIST) during the period from July 2006 to December 2015. The results of the univariate portfolio analysis indicate that the corporate investment premium is economically large such as the value weighted (equally weighted) average monthly premium on the zero-investment portfolio of low corporate investment stocks is 0.57 (0.61) % however, it is not statistically significant. The intercept estimates from traditional factor models justify this conclusion. Therefore, we can conclude that the corporate investment effect cannot be used to predict the expected returns

Özet

Bu çalışmada, Temmuz 2006 - Aralık 2015 döneminde Borsa İstanbul'da işlem gören şirketlerin yatırımları ile hisse senedi getirileri arasındaki ilişki araştırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Tek değişkenli portföy analizi sonuçlarımız şirket yatırım priminin ekonomik açıdan büyük olduğunu göstermektedir, örneğin yatırımları düşük olan şirket hisselerinden oluşan sıfır-yatırım portföyünün değer ağırlıklı (eşit ağırlıklı) aylık ortalama primi % 0.57 (0.61) olarak gözlenmektedir. Buna karşılık, bu prim istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir. Geleneksel faktör modellerinin kaysayı tahminleri bu sonucu doğrulamaktadır. Bu nedenle, şirket yatırım etkisinin beklenen getiriyi tahminlemede kullanılamayacağı sonucuna ulaşılabilir

🔖

Cite This Article

MANDACI, P. E., AZİMLİ, A. (2022). BORSA İSTANBUL’DA ŞİRKET YATIRIM VE BEKLENEN HİSSE GETİRİLERİ. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 2, 299–315. https://ajindex.com/articles/490683

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Ammann, M., Odoni, S. and Oesch, D. (2012). An alternative three-factor model for international markets: Evidence from the European Monetary Union. Journal of Banking and Finance, 36(7), 1857-1864.
  2. Chiah, M., Chai, D., Zhong, A. and Li, S. (2016). A better model? An empirical investigation of the Fama-French Five-factor Model in Australia. International Review of Finance, 16(4), 595-638.
  3. Cooper, M., Gulen, H. and Schill, M. (2008). Asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 63(4), 1609-1651.
  4. Fairfield, P. M., Whisenant, S. and Yohn, T. (2003). Accrued earnings and cash flows: Implication for future profitability and market mispricing. The Accounting Review, 78(1), 353-371.
  5. Fama, E. and French, K. (2006). Profitability, investment and average returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3), 491-518.
  6. Fama, E. and French, K. (2015). A five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 116(1), 1-22.
  7. Fama, E. and French, K. (2016). Dissecting anomalies with a five-factor model. The Review of Financial Studies, 29(1), 69-103.
  8. Fama, E. and French, K. (2017). International test of a five-factor asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(3), 441-463.
  9. Gray, P. and Johnson, J. (2011). The relationship between asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Banking and Finance, Guo, B., Zhang, W., Zhang, Y. and Zhang, H. (2017). The five factor asset pricing model test for the Chinese stocks market. Pacific-Basin asset pricing model test for the Chinese stock market, 43, 84-106.
  10. Hou, K., Xue, C. and Zhang, L. (2016). Digesting anomalies: An investment approach. The Review of Financial Studies, 28(3), 650-705.
  11. Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1994). Contrarian investment, extrapolation, and risk. The Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1541-1578.
  12. Miller, M. and Modigliani, F. (1961). Dividend policy, growth, and the valuation of shares. The Journal of Business, 34(4), 411-433.
  13. Newey, W. and West, K. (1987). A simple, positive semi-definitive, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation covariance matrix. Econometrica, 55(3), 703-708.
  14. Nichol, E. and Dowling, M. (2014). Profitability and investment factors for the UK asset pricing models. Economic Letters, 125(3), 364-366.
  15. Papanastasopoulos, G. (2017). Asset growth anomaly in Europe: Do profits and loses matter? Ecconomic Latters, 156, 106-109.
  16. Sharpe, W. (1964). Capital asset pricing: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk. The J