Pay Likiditesi ve Finansal Performans Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi: Borsa İstanbul Uygulaması

Abstract

Çalışmanın amacı, pay likiditesi ile finansal performans arasındaki nedensellik ilişkisini ortaya koymaktır. Bu ilişki, BİST 100 endeksinde faaliyet gösteren sanayi firmalarında 2005Q1-2012Q1 periyodu için incelenmiştir. Pay likiditesi hesaplamasında bilgili işlemler dikkate alınarak yatırımcı grubu kurumsal yatırımcılar seçilmiştir. Pay likiditesi ölçütleri, oranı(illiquidity ratio) ve işlem devir hızı oranı(turnover ratio); performans ölçütü ise Piyasa Değeri/Defter Değeri(PD/DD) oranıdır. Çalışmada Dumitrescu ve Hurlin nedensellik testi kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre, Borsa İstanbul’ da pay likiditesi ile finansal performans arasında çift yönlü bir nedensellik ilişkisine rastlanmıştır

Keywords

• likidite, performans, nedensellik

Causality Relationship Between Stock Liquidity and Financial Performance: An Example of Borsa İstanbul

Abstract

The aim of this study is to present the relationship between financial performance and stock liquidity. The relationship has been examined for industry firms which operate in BIST 100 index for the period of 2005Q1-2012Q1. The stock liquidity proxies are Amihud illiquidity ratio and turnover ratio; financial performance proxy is Market Value/Book Value(MV/BV). Dumitrescu and Hurlin causality test is used for determining the relationship. Empirical results show that there is a two-way causality between financial performance and stock liquidity in Borsa Istanbul

Keywords

• liquidity, performance, causality

References

1. Aitken, M., & Comerton-Forde, C. (2003). How should liquidity be measured? Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 11(1), 45–59.
2. Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1), 31–56.
3. Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (1986). Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 17(2), 223–249.
4. Asle, H., Valahzaghard, M., & Ahranjani, B. (2013). A survey on the relationship between stock liquidity with firm performance: A case study of Tehran Stock Exchange. Management Science Letters, 3(2).
5. Baltagi, B. (2008). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data. John Wiley & Sons.
6. Becker-Blease, J. R., & Paul, D. L. (2006). Stock liquidity and investment opportunities: evidence from index additions. Financial Management, 35(3), 35–51.
7. Blommestein, H. (1998). The Impact of institutional investors on financial markets. Institutional Investors in the New Financial Landscape, 29.
8. Bloomfield, R., O’hara, M., & Saar, G. (2005). The “make or take” decision in an electronic market: Evidence on the evolution of liquidity. Journal of Financial Economics, 75(1), 165–199.

9. Breen, W. J., Hodrick, L. S., & Korajczyk, R. A. (2002). Predicting equity liquidity. Management Science, 48(4), 470–483.
10. Choi, I. (2001). Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance, 20(2), 249–272.
11. Chowhdry, B., & Nanda, V. (1991). Multimarket trading and market liquidity. Review of Financial Studies, 4(3), 483–511.
12. Cornell, B., & Sirri, E. R. (1992). The reaction of investors and stock prices to insider trading. The Journal of Finance, 47(3), 1031–1059.
13. Datar, V. T., Y Naik, N., & Radcliffe, R. (1998). Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test. Journal of Financial Markets, 1(2), 203–219.
14. Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. The Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359.
15. Domowitz, I., Glen, J., & Madhavan, A. (2001). Liquidity, volatility and equity trading costs across countries and over time. International Finance, 4(2), 221–255.
16. Dumitrescu, E.-I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29(4), 1450–1460.
17. Edmister, R. O., & Subramanian, N. (1982). Determinants of brokerage commission rates for institutional investors: A note. The Journal of Finance, 37(4), 1087–1093.
18. Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383–417.
19. Fang, V. W., Noe, T. H., & Tice, S. (2009). Stock market liquidity and firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 150–169.
20. Granger, C. W. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 424–438.
21. Hachmeister, A. (2007). Informed Traders as Liquidity Providers (Vol. 66). Germany: Springer.
22. Hansen, S., & Sungsuk, K. (2013). Influence of Stock Liquidity to Firm Value in Indonesian Stock Market. The 2013 IBEA, International Conference on Business, Economics, and Accounting 20 – 23 March 2013, Bangkok - Thailand.
23. Huang, T., Wu, F., Yu, J., & Zhang, B. (2013). The Value Impact of Stock Liquidity: an International Evidence.
24. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.
25. Jieting, C., Yucan, L., & Xiaomin, G. (2011). Empirical Research on the Relation Between Stock Liquidity and firm Performance (pp. 1–5). Presented at the International Conference on Services Systems and Services Management - ICSSSM.
26. Levine, R. (1997). Financial Development and Economic Growth: Views and Agenda. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(2), 688–726.
27. Maddala, G. S., & Wu, S. (1999). A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 61(S1), 631–652.
28. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175.
29. Persaud, A. (2003). Liquidity Black Holes. Risk Books.
30. Tarı, R. (2011). Ekonometri (7. Baskı.). Kocaeli: Umuttepe Yayınları.
31. TÜYİD Yatırımcı İlişkiler Derneği & MKK Merkezi Kayıt Kuruluşu. (2013). Borsa Trendleri Raporu (No. Sayı:6).