Sahiplik Yapısı ile FinansalPerformans Arasındaki İlişkinin Borsaİstanbul 30 Endeksi’ndeki ŞirketlerdeTest Edilmesi

Öz

Çalışmada, 2009-2015 periyodunda BIST 30 Endeksi’nde faaliyet gösteren 18 şirketin sahiplik yapıları ile finansal performansları arasındaki ilişki panel veri analiz yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Sahiplik yapısı; en büyük ortağın sermaye payı (EBOSP), en büyük iki ortağın sermaye payı (EB2OSP), en büyük üç ortağın sermaye payı (EB3OSP) ve halka açıklık oranı (HAO) ile temsil edilirken, finansal performans ise aktif karlılık oranı (ROA), özsermaye karlılığı (ROE) ve Tobin’s Q (TQ) değerleri ile temsil edilmiştir. Analiz sonucunda, ROA esas alınarak oluşturulan Model 1’de, EBOSP ve HAO ile finansal performans arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif ilişki tespit edilmiştir. ROE esas alınarak oluşturulan Model 2’de ise HAO ile finansal performans arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir. TQ esas alınarak oluşturulan Model 3’te ise EB2OSP ile finansal performans arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif bir ilişki tespit edilirken, EB3OSP ile finansal performans arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve pozitif bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sahiplik Yapısı,ROA,ROE,Tobin’s Q,Finansal Performans,BIST 30 Endeksi

Testing the Relationship Between the Ownership Structure and Financial Performance in the Istanbul Stock Exchange 30 Index

Öz

The study investigates the relationship between the ownership structure and the financial performance of 18 companies operating in the BIST 30 Index bet ween 2009-2015 by using the panel data analysis method. The ownership struc ture is represented by the capital share of the largest shareholders (CSLS), the capital share of the two largest shareholders (CS2LS), the capital share of the three largest shareholders (CS3LS) and the free float rate (FFR), while the finan cial performance is characterized by the return on assets (ROA), return on equ ity (ROE) and Tobin’s Q (TQ) values. According to the analysis results, a statisti cally significant and negative relationship has been detected between CSLS and FFR in Model 1 which is based on ROA. Besides, a statistically significant and nega tive relationship was observed between FFR and the financial performance in Model 2 which is based on ROE. A statistically significant and negative relati onship has been exposed between CS2LS and financial performance, while a statisti cally significant and positive relationship has been revealed between CS3LS financial performance in model 3 which is based on TQ

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ownership Structure,ROA,ROE,Tobin’s Q,Financial Performance

Kaynakça

1. ALİPOUR, M. and AMJADİ, H.; (2013), “The Effect Of Owner- ship Structure on Corporate Performance Of Listed Companies in Tehran Stock Exchange: An Empirical Evidence of Iran”, In- ternational Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (13), pp. 55.
2. ARELLANO, M.; (1987), “Practitioners’Corner: Computing Ro- bust Standard Errors for Within-groups Estimators”, Oxford bul- letin of Economics and Statistics, 49 (4), pp. 431-434.
3. BAYRAKDAROĞLU, A.; (2010), “Mülkiyet Yapısı ve Finansal
4. Performans: İMKB Örneği”, Ekonomi Bilimleri Dergisi, 2 (2), ss. 20. BHARGAVA, A., FRANZİNİ, L. and NARENDRANATHAN, W.; (1982), “Serial Correlation and The Fixed Effects Model”, The Review of Economic Studies, 49 (4), pp. 533-549.
5. BREUSCH, T. S. and PAGAN, A. R.; (1980), “The Lagrange
6. Multiplier Test and İts Applications to Model Specification in Econometrics”, The Review of Economic Studies, 47 (1), pp. 253. BROWN, M. B. and FORSYTHE, A. B.; (1974), “The Small
7. Sample Behavior of Some Statistics Which Test The Equality of Several Means”, Technometrics, 16 (1), pp. 129-132. CHALLAYE, F.; (1994), Mülkiyet Tarihi, Düşünen Adam Yayınları, İstanbul.
8. DOĞAN, M. ve TOPAL, Y.; (2015), “Sahiplik Yapısının Fir- ma Performansı Üzerine Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği”, Süleyman

9. Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (4), ss. 165-177. DRİSCOLL, J. C. and KRAAY, A. C.; (1998), “Consistent Co- variance Matrix Estimation With Spatially Dependent Panel
10. Data”, Review of economics and statistics, 80 (4), pp. 549-560. FAZLZADEH, A., HENDİ, A. T. and Mahboubi, K.; (2011), “The
11. Examination of The Effect of Ownership Structure on Firm Per- formance in Listed Firms of Tehran Stock Exchange Based on The Type of The İndustry”, International Journal of Business and Management, 6 (3), pp. 249- 266. FROOT, K. A.; (1989), “Consistent Covariance Matrix Estima- tion With Cross-Sectional Dependence and Heteroskedasticity in Financial Data”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analy- sis, 24 (03), pp. 333-355.
12. HAMADİ, M.; (2010), “Ownership Concentration, Family Con- trol and Performance of Firms”, European Management Re- view, 7, pp. 116- 131.
13. HAUSMAN, J. A.; (1978), “Specification Tests in Economet- rics”, Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 1271.
14. KAKİLLİ ACARAVCI, S., KANDIR, S. Y. ve ZELKA, A.; (2015)
15. “Kurumsal Yönetimin BIST Şirketlerinin Performanslarına Etki- sinin Araştırılması”, Niğde Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), ss. 171-183. KAPOPOULOS, P. and LAZARETOU, S.; (2007), “Corporate
16. Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: Evidence From Greek Firms”, Corporate Governance, 15 (2), pp. 144-158. LEVENE, H.; (1960), “Robust Tests For Equality of Varianc- es1”, Contributions to Probability And Statistics: Essays in
17. Honor of Harold Hotelling, 2, pp. 278-292. LEVİN, A., LİN, C. F. and CHU, C. S. J.; (2002), “Unit Root
18. Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties”, Journal of econometrics, 108 (1), pp. 1-24. MOULTON, B. R. and RANDOLPH, W. C.; (1989), “Alternative
19. Tests of The Error Components Model”, Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, pp. 685-693. ÖNEM, H. B. ve DEMİR, Y.; (2015), “Mülkiyet Yapısının Firma
20. Performansına Etkisi: BIST İmalat Sektörü Üzerine Bir Uygu- lama”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Vizyoner Dergisi, 6 (13), ss. 31-43. PERRİNİ, F., ROSSİ, G. and ROVETTA, B.; (2008), “Does
21. Ownership Structure Effect Performance? Evidence From the Italian Market”, Corporate Governance, 16 (4), pp. 312- 325. PERVAN, M., PERVAN, I. and TODORİC, M.; (2012), “Firm
22. Ownership and Performance: Evidence for Croatian Listed Firms”, International Scholarly and Scientific Research & In- novation 6 (1), pp. 81- 87. ROGERS, W.; (1994), “Regression Standard Errors in Clus- tered Samples”, Stata Technical Bulletin, 3 (13).
23. THOMSEN, S. and PEDERSEN, T.; (2000), “Ownership Struc- ture and Economic Performance in The Largest European
24. Companies”, Strategic Management Journal, 21 (6), pp. 689- TÜKENMEZ, N. M., GENÇYÜREK, A. G. ve KABAKCI, C. Ç.; (2016), “Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Sahiplik Yoğunlaşması ile Finansal Performans İlişkisinin İncelenmesine Yönelik Ampirik
25. Bir Çalışma”, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Der- gisi, 30 (3), ss. 625- 644. WELCH, E.; (2003), “The Relationship Between Ownership
26. Structure and Performance in Listed Australian Companies”, Australian Journal of Management, 28 (3), pp. 287- 305.