Türkiye’deki Birleşme/Devralma İşlemleri ile Makroekonomik Göstergeler Arasındaki İlişkilerin İktisadi Bir Analizi

Year 2022, Volume: 24 Issue: 3, 1517 - 1544, 28.12.2022

Berkay Kurdoğlu İbrahim Şahin

https://doi.org/10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1096945

Abstract

Mevcut çalışmada, Türkiye’de 2002-2021 yılları arasında gerçekleşen birleşme ve devralma işlemleri ile makroekonomik göstergeler arasındaki ikili ilişkilerin mevcudiyeti ve yapısı araştırma konusu yapılmaktadır. Makroekonomik etkileri temsil etmesi bakımından, gayrisafi yurtiçi hasıla, Borsa İstanbul 100 Endeksi (BIST100), Amerikan doları döviz kuru ve ithalat ile ihracatın toplam sayısal değerinin milli gelire oranı şekilde hesaplanılabilen ticari dışa açıklık oranı dikkate alınmıştır. Birleşme ve devralma işlemlerinin nicel büyüklüğü, ilgili dönemdeki yoğunlaşma faaliyetlerinin toplam işlem değeri temel alınarak elde edilmiştir. Çalışmada, ikili ilişkilerin etüt edilebilmesi amacıyla ilk olarak eşbütünleşme yaklaşımlarından ARDL Sınır Testi kullanılmıştır. Akabinde Toda-Yamamoto nedensellik analizi ve değişkenler arasındaki dinamik etkileşimleri gözlemleyebilmek adına zamanla değişen Granger nedensellik sınamalarından yararlanılmıştır. Elde edilen ampirik bulgular, BİST100 ve döviz kuru ile Türkiye’deki yoğunlaşma işlem hacmi arasında incelenen dönemin büyük bir bölümünde pozitif bir ilişki ortaya koymaktadır.Diğer taraftan ticari dışa açıklık oranı için belirli periyotlar hariç olmak üzere istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişkiye rastlanılmazken; milli gelirdeki nedensellik ilişkisinin de zamana bağlı olarak farklılaştığı gözlemlenmiştir.

Keywords

Birleşme ve Devralmalar, Makroekonomik Göstergeler, Rekabet Hukuku

An Economic Analysis of the Relationships Between Mergers/Acquisitions and Macroeconomic Indicators in Turkey

Abstract

This study aims to examine the existence and structure of the multivariate relationship between merger and acquisition transactions and macroeconomic indicators in Turkey between 2002-2021. In order to represent the macroeconomic effects, the gross domestic product, the Istanbul Stock Exchange 100 Index, the US dollar currency, and the commercial trade openness ratio, which can be calculated as the ratio of the total value of imports and exports to national income, were taken into account. The size of mergers and acquisitions is obtained based on the total transaction value of these activities in the relevant period. In the study, ARDL Bound Test, which is one of the cointegration approaches, was first used in order to study the bilateral relations between aforementioned variables. After that, for the purpose of observing the static and dynamic causality relationship between the variables, Toda-Yamamoto and time-varying Granger causality tests were used. Our empirical findings reveal a positive and significant relationship by the stock market index and the exchange rate over the merger and acqusation transactions volume in Turkey for the most of the period examined. On the other hand, while no statistically significant relationship was found for the trade openness ratio except some specific periods, it has been observed that the causality relationship in national income also differs depending on time.

Keywords

Mergers and Acqusitions, Macroeconomic Environment, Competition Law

References

• Aizenman, J. (2004). Financial Opening and Development: Evidence and Policy Controversies. American Economic Review, 65-70.
• Antelo, S. I., & Mangin, J.-P. L. (2010). An analysis of the risk-return relationship in the Spanish capital market using a structural equation model. Applied Economics Letters, 17(14), 1397-1403.
• Antunes, J. N. (2017). The macroeconomic determinants of M&A activity in the United Kingdom. Lisbon: Nova School of Business and Economics.
• Arora, V., & Shi, S. (2016). Energy consumption and economic growth in the United States. Applied. Applied Economics, 48(39), 1-11.
• Balcılar, M., Özdemir, Z., & Arslantürk, Y. (2010). Economic growth and energy consumption causal nexus viewed through a bootstrap rolling window. Energy Economics, 32(6), 1398-1410.
• Becketti, S. (1986). Corporate mergers and the business cycle. Economic Review, 71, 13-26. Bilgili, F. (1998). Stationarity and Cointegration Tests: Comparison of Engle-Granger and Johansen Methodologies. Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences(13), 131-141.
• Choi, S. H., & Jeon, B. N. (2010). The impact of the macroeconomic environment on merger activity: evidence from US time-series data. Applied Financial Economics, 21(4), 233-249.
• Clarke, R., & Ioannidis, C. (1996). On the relationship between aggregate merger activity and the stock market: some further empirical evidence. Economics Letters, 53(3), 349-356.
• Cook, S. (2007). On the Relationship between Mergers and Economic Activity: Evidence from an. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications,, 379(2), 628-634.
• Corrao, M. (2012). United States Mergers & Acquisitions Market Dynamics: What drives deal flow in each industry? Northwestern University. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University.
• Doytch, N., & Cakan, E. (2011). Growth Effects of Mergers and Acquisitions: A Sector-level Study of OECD countries. Journal of Applied Economics and Business Research, 1(3), 120-129.
• Enders, W. (2015). Applied Econometric Time Series (4th Edition b.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. (1987). Co-Integration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation, and Testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251-276.
• F.Baum, C., Hurn, S., & Otero, J. (2021). The dynamics of U.S. industrial production: A time-varying Granger causality perspective. Econometrics and Statistics, (baskıda).
• Figlewski, S., Frydman , H., & Liang, W. (2012). Modeling the effect of macroeconomic factors on corporate default and credit rating transitions. International Review of Economics & Finance, 21(1), 87-105.
• Finn, F., & Hodgson, A. (2005). Takeover Activity in Australia: Endogenous and Exogenous Influences. Accounting and Finance, 45(3), 375-394.
• Geroski, P. A. (1984). On the Relationship between Aggregate Merger Activity and the Stock Market. European Economic Review, 25(2), 223-233.
• Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric Models and Cross-spectral Methods. Econometrica,, 37(3), 424-438.
• Guerard, J. (1989). Mergers, stock prices, and industrial production: Further evidence. Economics Letters, 30(2), 161-164.
• Harford, J. (2005). What drives merger waves? Journal of Financial Economics, 77(3), 529-560.
• Haug, A. (2002). Temporal Aggregation and the Power of Cointegration Tests: a Monte Carlo Study. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), 399-412.
• Hyytinen, A., & Pajarinen, M. (2002). Financing of Technology-Intensive Small Business: Some Evidence on the Uniqueness of the ICT Industry. Etla, Helsinki: The Research Institute of the Finnish.
• Ji, X. (2016). How the GDP will affect M&A deals in U.S. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Carbondale.
• Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on co integration with application to the demand for money. Journal of Economics and Statistics, 52(2), 169-210.
• Kim, J., & Zheng, T. (2014). A Review of Merger and Acquisition Wave Literature: Proposing Future Research in the Restaurant Industry. Hospitality Review, 31(3), 93-117.
• Kurdoğlu, B. (2021). Rekabet İktisadı Perspektifinden Teşebbüslerin Fiyatlama Davranışına Ekonometrik Bir Yaklaşım. Rekabet Kurumu. Yayımlanmamış Uzmanlık Eseri, Rekabet Kurumu: Ankara.
• Lont, R. (2014). The relationship between macro-economic fundamentals and M&A. Groningen: University of Groningen.
• Melicher, R. W., Ledolter, J., & D'Antonio, L. (1983). A Time Series Analysis of Aggregate Merger Activity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(3), 423-30.
• Moftah, N. A., & Dilek, S. (2021). Toda-Yamamoto Causality Test Between Energy Consumption And Economic Growth: Evidence From A Panel Of Middle Eastern Countries. Journal of Emprical Economics and Social Sciences, 3(1), 56-78.
• Nelson, R. L. (1959). Merger Movements in American Industry, 1895-1956. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds Testing Approaches to the Analysis of Level Relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
• Phillips, P. C., Shi, S.-P., & Yu, J. (2015a). Testing for Multiple Bubbles: Historical Episodes of Exuberance and Collapse in the S&P 500. International Economic Review, 56(4), 1043-1077.
• Phillips, P. C., Shi, S.-P., & Yu, J. (2015b). Testing for multiple bubbles:Limit theory ofreal-time detectors. International Economic, 56(4), 1079-1134.
• Resende, M. (2008). Mergers and Acquisitions Waves in the UK: A Markov-Switching Approach. 18(13), 1067-1074.
• Shi, S., Hurn, S., & Phillips, P. (2020). Causal Change Detection in Possibly Integrated Systems: Revisiting the Money–Income Relationship. Journal of Financial Econometrics, 18(1), 158-180.
• Shi, S., Phillips, P., & Hurn, S. (2018). Change Detection and the Causal Impact of the Yield Curve. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 39(6), 966-987.
• Shin, Y., Smith, R. J., & Pesaran, M. H. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289-326.
• Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (2003). Stock Market Driven Acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 70(3), 295-311.
• Steiner, P. O. (1975). Mergers: Motives, Effects, Policies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
• Swanson, R. (1998). Demonstrating the Financial Benefit of Human Resource Development: Status And Update on the Theory and Practise. uman Resource Development Quarterly, 9(3), 285-295.
• Thoma, M. (1994). Subsample instability and asymmetries in money-income causality. Subsample instability and asymmetries in money-income causality, 64(1-2), 279-306.
• Toda, H. Y., & Yamamoto, T. (1995). Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. Journal of Econometrics, 66(1-2), 225-250.
• Uddin, M., & Boateng, A. (2011). Explaining the trends in the UK cross-border mergers & acquisitions: An analysis of macro-economic factors. International Business Review, 20(5), 547-556.