AN ANALYSIS REGARDING THE IMPACT OF RIGHTS ISSUE ANNOUNCEMENTS IN BORSA ISTANBUL

Year 2021, Volume: 16 Issue: 1, 1 - 21, 01.07.2021

Murat İşıker , Oktay Taş

Abstract

The main purpose of the paper is to measure market reaction to rights issue announcements in Borsa İstanbul. Also, the study aims to examine the factors behind the market reaction. The event study methodology is conducted to analyse the announcements made between 2010-2019 retrieved from Public Disclosure Platform (PDP). Consistent with the existing literature, a negative market reaction to the rights offering announcements is detected. However, the market reaction turns to be positive when firms apply for private placements. The negative reaction is also eliminated when firms apply bonus issues simultaneously with rights issues. The study provides evidence regarding the validity of information asymmetry and pecking order theory for Borsa Istanbul for the case of rights offerings. In addition, the announcement content of PDP announcements allows us to investigate the factors that may trigger the market reaction. However, we cannot document any difference for the market reaction according to commitment type, the use of proceeds, industrial classification and issue sequence. The paper’s originality can be attributed to investigating the information content of PDP announcements with the current data regarding the rights offerings and its market reaction.

Keywords

Information Asymmetry, Pecking Order Theory, Announcement Effect, Borsa Istanbul, Rights Issue

BORSA İSTANBUL’DAKİ BEDELLİ SERMAYE ARTIRIMI HABERLERİNİN ETKİLERİ ÜZERİNE BİR ÇALIŞMA

Abstract

Çalışmamızın amacı, Borsa İstanbul’daki yatırımcıların bedelli sermaye artırımı duyurusu yapan şirketlere verdiği tepkiyi ölçmek ve tepkinin nedenlerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Çalışma, 2010 – 2019 yılları arasında Kamu Aydınlatma Platformu (KAP) ile halka duyurulan bedelli ihraç haberlerininin halka açık şirketlerin hisse senedi fiyatlarına olan tepkisini olay yöntemi kullanarak incelemektedir. Önceki çalışmalarla tutarlı olarak, bedelli sermaye artırım duyurularının yatırımcılar tarafından olumsuz algılandığı tespit edilmiştir. Tahsisli yapılan bedelli ihraçlarında ise piyasa tepkisi olumlu gerçekleşmektedir. Bedelsiz sermaye artırımının bedelli ihracı ile birlikte yapılması piyasa tepkisini olumlu yönde etkilemektedir. Borsa İstanbul için bedelli sermaye artırımları kapsamında bilgi asimetrisinin ve finansal hiyerarşi teorisinin varlığına ilişkin kanıtlar sunulmaktadır. Ek olarak, KAP haberlerindeki bilgi içeriği sayesinde farklı analizler yapılabilmiştir. Piyasa tepkisinin, sermaye artışına taahhüt verilmesine ya da kullanım amacına göre farklılaşmadığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca, sıklıkla bedelli sermaye artırşı yapan şirkelerin ve sektörel karşılaştırmanın da piyasa tepkisi açısından anlamlı olarak ayrışmadığı söylenebilmektedir. KAP haber içeriklerinin güncel verilerle detaylı olarak incelenmesi ve buna yönelik analizler yapılması çalışmamızın özgün yanları arasında bulunmaktadır.

Keywords

Bedelli Sermaye Artırımı, Bilgi Asimetrisi, Finansal Hiyerarşi Teorisi, Duyuru Etkisi, Borsa İstanbul

References

• Adaoglu, C. (2006). Market reaction to “unsweetened” and “sweetened” rights offerings in an emerging Europe-an stock market. Journal of Multinational Financial Management., 16, 249-268.
• Ahern, K. R. (2009). Sample selection and event study estimation. Journal of Empirical Finance., 16(3), 466-482.
• Alhashel, B. S., & Alojayan, H. H. (2015). Drivers of price reaction to rights issue announcements in the Kuwait Stock Exchange. Applied Economics, 47 (59), 6425–6437.
• Ariff, M., Khan, W. A., & Baker, K. H. (2007). Are share price reactions to rights offerings sensitive to different economic conditions?. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 1(2), 10-20.
• Armitage, S. (1998). Seasoned equity offers and rights issues: a review of the evidence. The European Journal of Finance, 4(1), 29-59.
• Aslanoglu, S , Ozkan, S , Elci, S . (2020). Sermaye şirketlerinde bedelli sermaye artırımı yapılmasında rüçhan hakkını kullanamayan ortakların özkaynak hesapları açısından durumunun incelenmesi . Journal of Economics Finance and Accounting, 7(2), 134-154.
• Autore, D. M., Bray, D. E., & Peterson, D. R. (2009). Intended use of proceeds and the long-run performance of seasoned equity issuers. Journal of Corporate Finance, 15(3), 358-367.
• Bae, S. C., & Jo, H. (1999). The impact of information release on stock price volatility and trading volume: The rights offering case. Review of quantitative finance and accounting, 13(2), 153-169.
• Balachandran, B., Faff, R., & Theobald, M. (2008). Rights offerings, takeup, renounceability, and underwriting status. Journal of Financial Economics, 89(2), 328-346.
• Balachandran, B., Faff, R., Theobald, M., & Van Zijl, T. (2012). Rights offerings, subscription period, share-holder takeup, and liquidity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 47(1), 213-239.
• Bohren, Ø., Eckbo, B. E., & Michalsen, D. (1997). Why underwrite rights offerings? Some new evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 46(2), 223-261.
• Cetinyilmaz, E. (2017). Pre-emptive right in joint stock companies. http://www.erdem-erdem.av.tr/publications/newsletter/preemptive-right-in-joint-stock-companies/,Erişim Tarihi: 1 Haziran, 2021.
• Cun, E. (2010). Stock price reactions to rights issues: Evidence from the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İZMİR
• David, T., & Ginglinger, E. (2016). When cutting dividends is not bad news: The case of optional stock divi-dends. Journal of Corporate Finance, 40, 174-191.
• Eckbo, B. E., & Masulis, R. W. (1992). Adverse selection and the rights offer paradox. Journal of financial eco-nomics, 32(3), 293-332.
• Eriş, N. (2009). Bedelli ve bedelsiz sermaye artırımlarının yatırımcı davranışları üzerindeki etkisi: imkb şir-ketleri üzerinde ampirik bir çalışma (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, ANKARA.
• Ginglinger, E., Matsoukis, L., & Riva, F. (2013). Seasoned equity offerings: Stock market liquidity and the rights offer paradox. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 40(1-2), 215-238.
• Holderness, C. G., & Pontiff, J. (2016). Shareholder nonparticipation in valuable rights offerings: New findings for an old puzzle. Journal of Financial Economics, 120(2), 252-268.
• Huang, H. H., & Chan, M. L. (2013). The initial private placement of equity and changes in operating perfor-mance in Taiwan. Accounting & Finance, 53(3), 711-730.
• Holderness, C. G. (2018). Equity issuances and agency costs: The telling story of shareholder approval around the world. Journal of Financial Economics, 129(3), 415-439.
• Isiker, M. & Tas, O. (2021), “Does leverage level matter for return anomaly during rights issue announcements? The case of Islamic countries”, Islamic Economic Studies, doi: 10.1108/IES-07-2020-0023
• Iqbal, A. (2008). The importance of the sequence in UK rights issues. Journal of Business Finance & Account-ing, 35(1‐2), 150-176.
• Kabir, R., & Roosenboom, P. (2003). Can the stock market anticipate future operating performance? Evidence from equity rights issues. Journal of Corporate Finance, 9(1), 93-113.
• Kang, J. K., & Stulz, R. M. (1996). How different is Japanese corporate finance? An investigation of the infor-mation content of new security issues. The Review of Financial Studies, 9(1),109-139.
• Kim, J. H., & Song, K. (2020). The choice of SEO method in Korea: Rights vs. public offers. Journal of Finan-cial Markets, 100532. doi: /10.1016/j.finmar.2020.100532.
• Kolari, J. W., & Pynnonen, S. (2011). Nonparametric rank tests for event studies. Journal of Empirical Fi-nance., 18(5), 953-971.
• Kothari, S. P., & Warner, J. B. (2007). Econometrics of Event Studies. In B. E. Eckbo, Handbook of Empirical Corporate Finance (Vol. 1, pp. 3-36). Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Küçüksille, E., & Mizrahi, R. (2015). Bedelli Sermaye Artırımı Duyurularının Halka Açık İşletmelerin Hisse Senedi Performanslarına Etkisi: Borsa İstanbul’da Bir Araştırma. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 17(29), 63-69.
• Lee, C. C., Poon, W. C., & Sinnakkannu, J. (2014). Why are rights offers in Hong Kong so different?. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 26, 176-197.
• Lerskullawat, P. (2011). Seasoned equity offerings in an emerging market: evidence from Thailand (Doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham). https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/3139/, Erişim Tarihi: 1 Ha-ziran 2021.
• Liu, J., Akbar, S., Shah, S. Z. A., Zhang, D., & Pang, D. (2016). Market reaction to seasoned offerings in Chi-na. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 43(5-6), 597-653.
• Massa, M., Vermaelen, T., & Xu, M. (2013). Rights offerings, trading, and regulation: a global perspective. Un-published working paper. London School of Economics.
• Mateus, C., Farinha, J., & Soares, N. (2017). Price discounts in rights issues: why do managers insist on what investors hate? European Business Review. 29(4), 457-475.
• Myers, S. C., & Majluf, N. S. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have infor-mation that investors do not have (No. w1396). National Bureau of Economic Research.
• Slovin, M. B., Sushka, M. E., & Lai, K. W. (2000). Alternative flotation methods, adverse selection, and owner-ship structure: evidence from seasoned equity issuance in the UK. Journal of Financial Economics, 57(2), 157-190.
• Tan, R. S., Chng, P. L., & Tong, Y. H. (2002). Private placements and rights issues in Singapore. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 10(1), 29-54.
• Tepe, M. (2012). Market reaction to rights offering announcements in the Turkish stock market (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). https://open.metu.edu.tr/bitstream/handle/11511/21327/index.pdf?sequence=1, Erişim Tarihi: 4 Mayıs 2021
• Tsangarakis, N. V. (1996). Shareholder wealth effects of equity issues in emerging markets: Evidence from rights offerings in Greece. Financial Management, 25 (3), 21-32.
• Wang, J., Wei, K. J., & Pruitt, S. W. (2006). An analysis of the share price and accounting performance of rights offerings in China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 14(1), 49-72.