İnovasyon ödülü duyurularının banka pay getirileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi

Year 2021, , 1296 - 1306, 13.10.2021

Serkan Kandır , Gözde Elbir Mermer

https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.856105

Abstract

Çalışmada, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren iki ticari bankanın kazandığı uluslararası inovasyon ödülü duyurularının pay getirileri üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Olay çalışması yönteminden yararlanılmıştır. Olay çalışması, pay fiyatlarının önemli olaylar karşısında nasıl uyum sağladığını incelemekte ve dolayısıyla kamuya duyurulan önemli bir olayın pay getirileri üzerindeki etkisini ölçmektedir. Olay çalışması yöntemi ile bir olayın firma değeri üzerindeki etkisi finansal piyasalara ait veriler kullanılarak ölçülmektedir. 2012 ile 2018 yılları arasında yapılan 7 adet inovasyon ödülü duyurusu, olay günleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu ödüller, Amerika Birleşik Devletleri merkezli bir araştırma kuruluşu olan Bank Administration Institute (BAI) tarafından bankacılıkta inovasyon ödülleri adı altında verilmektedir. Olay penceresi, olay günlerinin beş gün öncesi ve beş gün sonrası dikkate alınarak oluşturulmuştur. Zaman çizelgesinde olay penceresinin uzunluğu (Tolay) 11 gün, tahmin döneminin (Ttahmin) uzunluğu ve olay öncesi penceresinin uzunluğu 244 gün olarak ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada incelenen dönemin toplam uzunluğunun 250 gündür. Analiz sonuçları, inovasyon ödülü açıklamalarının pay getirileri üzerinde önemli bir etki oluşturmadığını göstermiştir. Ulaşılan bu sonuç, pay piyasasının yarı güçlü formda etkin olduğunu ifade etmektedir. Çalışmada ulaşılan, ödül duyurularının pay getirileri üzerinde önemli bir etkiye sahip olmadığını gösteren sonuç, Tuck (2005b), çalışması ile aynı yöndedir.

Keywords

pay getirileri, inovasyon ödülleri, olay çalışması

Investigating the impact of innovation award announcements on bank stock returns

Abstract

Aim of this study is to investigate the impact of international innovation award announcements on stock returns of a commercial bank. Event study method is employed. Event studies examine how fast stock prices adjust to specific significant economic events. The event study approach is used to quantify the impact of an event on a company's value using data from the financial markets. 7 innovation award announcements made between 2012 and 2018 are determined as event days. These awards are presented under the name of innovation in Banking Awards by the Bank Administration Institute (BAI), a United States-based research organization. Event window is composed by determining five days before (-5) and after (+5) the event day. In the timeline, the length of the event window (Tevent) is 11 days. The length of the forecast period (Tforecast) and the pre-event window are 244 days. The total length of the period studied is 250 days. Analysis results recommend that innovation award announcements do not have a substantial impact on stock returns. This result shows that stock market appears to be efficient in semi-strong form. The study's finding, that award announcements had no meaningful impact on stock returns, is similar to Tuck's research (2005b).

Keywords

stock returns, innovation awards, event study

References

• Abarbanell, J.S. & Bernard V.L. (1992). Tests of analysts’ overreaction / underreaction to earnings information as an explanation for anomalous stock price behavior, Journal of Finance, 47(3), 1181-1207.
• Bank Administration Institute (2016), 20 Temmuz 2016 tarihinde https://www.bai.org/conferences-events/innovation-awards adresinden erişildi.
• Borsa İstanbul (2016), 15 Haziran 2016 tarihinde http://www.borsaistanbul.com/veriler/verileralt/gunluk-bulten-arsiv adresinden erişildi.
• Bowman, R.G. (1983). Understanding and conducting event studies. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 10, 561–584.
• Brown, S.J. & Warner, J.B. (1980). Measuring security price performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 8, 205-258.
• Bu, X. Z., Chen, R. Q., & Xiao, S. X. (2007, September). An empirical study of China quality award on firm's market value-based on the data from Chinese stock market. In 2007 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, IEE Explore, 4229-4232.
• Bushee, B.J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. Accounting Review, 73(3), 305-333.
• Chan, L.K.C., Lakonishok, J. & Sougiannis, T. (2001). The stock market valuation of research and development expenditures. Journal of Finance, 56(6), 2431-2457.
• Cho, H. & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value, Strategic Management Journal, 26, 555–575.
• Corrado, C.J. (2011). Event studies: A methodology review. Accounting and Finance, 51, 207-234.
• Corrado, C.J. & Truong, C. (2008). Conducting event studies with Asia-Pacific security market data. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 16, 493-521.
• Corredor, P. & Goni, S. (2010). Quality awards and performance: Is there a relationship? TQM Journal, 22(5), 529-538.
• Eberhart, A.C., Maxwell, W.F. & Siddique, A.R. (2004). An Examination of the long-term abnormal stock returns and operating performance following R&D increases. Journal of Finance, 59, 623-650.
• Ehie, I.C. & Olibe, K. (2010). The Effect of R&D investment on firm value: An examination of US manufacturing and service industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 127-135.
• Eng, L.L. & Shackell, M. (2001). The implications of long-term performance plans and institutional ownership for firms' research and development (R&D) investments. Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 16, 117-139.
• Eroğlu, C., Kurt, A. C. & Elwakil, O. S. (2016). Stock market reaction to quality, safety and sustainability awards in logistics. Journal of Business Logistics, 37(4), 329-345.
• Fama, E.F. (1970). Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.
• Feeny, S. & Rogers, M. (2003). Innovation and performance: Benchmarking Australian firms. Australian Economic Review, 36(3), 253–264.
• Foster, T.W. & Vickrey, D. (1978). The information content of stock dividend announcements. Accounting Review, 53(2), 360-370.
• Graves, S.B. (1988). Institutional ownership and corporate R&D in the computer industry. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), 417-428.
• Hall, B.H. & Hall, R.E. (1993). The value and performance of U.S. corporations. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 1-49.
• Hendricks, K.B. & Singhal, V.R. (1996). Quality awards and the market value of the firm: An empirical investigation. Management Science, 42(3), 415-436.
• Jaffe, A.B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R & D: evidence from firms' patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984-1001.
• Kothari, S.P. & Warner, J.B. (2007). Econometrics of event studies. B.E. Eckbo (Yay. Haz.). Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance Volume 1 içinde (ss.3-36). Hollanda: Elsevier/North-Holland.
• Lin, C. & Su, C. (2013). The Taiwan national quality award and market value of the firms: An empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 144, 57-67.
• McWilliams, A. & Siegel, D. (1997). Event studies in management research: Theoretical and empirical issues. Academy of Management Journal, 40(3), 626-657.
• Mitchell, M.L. & Netter, J.M. (1994). The role of financial economics in securities Fraud cases: Applications at the securities and exchange commission. The Business Lawyer, 49(2), 545-590.
• Oke, A. (2007). Innovation types and ınnovation management practices in service companies. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27(6), 564-587.
• Oslo Manual. (2018). The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities. Guıdelines for Collecting, Reporting And Using Data on Innovation. 4th Edition. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264304604-en.pdf?expires=1593351493&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=99D45BF212690F4747B22B19944A407C. Erişim Tarihi: 28.06.2020.
• Pakes, A. (1985). On patents, R & D, and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy, 93(2), 390-409.
• Patell, J.M. (1976). Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior: Empirical test. Journal of Accounting Research, 14(2), 246-276. Przasnyski, Z. H., & Tai, L. S. (1999). Stock market reaction to Malcolm Baldridge national quality award announcements: does quality pay?, Total Quality Management, 10(3), 391-400.
• Salinger, M. (1992). Standard errors in event studies. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 27(1), 39-53.
• Sharpe, W.F. (1963). A simplified model for portfolio analysis. Management Science, 9(2), 277-293.
• Tuck, C.E. (2005a). A quality award and stock market reaction: Evidence from Malaysia. Total Quality Management, 16(6), 681-691. Tuck, C.E. (2005b). A quality award and stock market reaction: Evidence from the European Union. Total Quality Management, 16(8-9), 979-986.
• Xia, Y., Singhal, V.R. & Zhang, G.P. (2015). Product design awards and the market value of the firm. Production and Operations Management, 25(6), 1038-1055.
• Zhang, G.P., Yu, J. & Xia, Y. (2014). The payback of effective ınnovation programs: Empirical evidence from firms that have won innovation awards. Production and Operations Management, 23(8), 1401-1420.