Analysis of initial public offerings in Borsa Istanbul with CRITIC-based OCRA and COPRAS methods

Öz

The main purpose of the study is to propose the Operational Competitiveness Rating Analysis (OCRA) and COmplex Proportional ASsessment (COPRAS) methods to measure the financial competitiveness of companies in initial public offerings. For this, in the first stage, the financial competitiveness of the companies that were offered to the public for the first time in 2021 on Borsa Istanbul was calculated according to the OCRA method. Then, as a proof of the accuracy of the findings obtained, they were compared with the findings calculated according to the COPRAS method. For these calculations, 19 alternative companies and 10 generally accepted criteria were used. In addition, the CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method, which is an objective evaluation criterion, was used to determine the importance weights of the criteria. The relationship between the ranking scores obtained from the methods was examined with the Spearman rank correlation. Accordingly, there is a strong positive correlation of 74.20 percent between the ranking scores of the two methods before a ranking is made. In addition, after ranking the scores from high to low, there is a positive absolute rank correlation relationship. The results obtained are statistically significant.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Initial Public Offerings
• OCRA
• COPRAS

Proje Numarası

Yok

Borsa İstanbul’da ilk halka arzların CRITIC tabanlı OCRA ve COPRAS yöntemleri ile analizi

Öz

Çalışmanın temel amacı, ilk halka arzlarda şirketlerin finansal rekabet gücünün ölçümü için Operational Competitiveness Rating Analysis (OCRA) ve Complex Proportional ASsessment (COPRAS) yöntemlerinin önerilmesidir. Bunun için ilk aşamada, Borsa İstanbul’da 2021 yılında ilk kez halka arz edilen şirketlerin OCRA yöntemine göre finansal rekabet güçleri hesaplanmıştır. Daha sonra, elde edilen bulguların doğruluğunun bir kanıtı olarak COPRAS yöntemine göre hesaplanmış bulgular ile karşılaştırılmıştır. Bu hesaplamalar için 19 alternatif şirket ve genel kabul görmüş 10 kriter kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca, kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının belirlenmesi konusunda objektif bir değerlendirme ölçütü olan Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Yöntemlerden elde edilen sıralama skorlarının arasındaki ilişki spearman sıra korelasyonu ile incelenmiştir. Buna göre, iki yöntemin sıralama skorları arasında bir sıralama yapılmadan önce yüzde 74,20 oranında pozitif yönlü kuvvetli bir ilişki vardır. Buna ilaveten, skorlar arasında büyükten küçüğe sıralama yapıldıktan sonra pozitif yönlü mutlak bir sıra korelasyon ilişki yaşanmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, istatistiksel olarak anlamlıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İlk Halka Arzlar
• OCRA
• COPRAS

Destekleyen Kurum

Yok

Proje Numarası

Yok

Teşekkür

Yok

Kaynakça

1. Aggarwal, R., Leal, R., & Hernandez, L. (1993). The aftermarket performance of initial public offerings in Latin America. Financial Management, 42-53.
2. Akgüç, Ö. (2013). Mali Tablolar Analizi. Genişletilmiş 15. Baskı. İstanbul.
3. Altın, H. (2020a). A Comparison of the City Life Quality Index for European Cities Using the WASPAS and VIKOR Methods. Journal of Business Economics and Finance, 9(2), 97–117. https://doi.org/doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1217
4. Altın, H. (2020b). A Comparative Analysis of CE-Topsis and CE-Maut Methods. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences, 11(3), 18–51. https://doi.org/doi:10.4018/IJSDS.2020070102
5. Altın, H. (2020c). Analysis of The Economic Freedom Index With Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods. Uluslararası Ekonomi İşletme ve Politika Dergisi, 4(2), 441–460. https://doi.org/doi:10.17261/Pressacademia.2020.1217
6. Baloyi, V. D., & Meyer, L. D. (2020). The development of a mining method selection model through a detailed assessment of multi-criteria decision methods. Results in Engineering, 8, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2020.100172
7. Barry, C. B., & Jennings, R. H. (1993). The opening price performance of initial public offerings of common stock. Financial Management, 54-63.
8. Borsa İstanbul (2023, 20 Temmuz). https://www.borsaistanbul.com/tr/sayfa/150/halka-arz adresinden 20 Temmuz 2023 tarihinde alınmıştır.

9. Brau, J. C., & Fawcett, S. E. (2006). Initial public offerings: An analysis of theory and practice. The journal of Finance, 61(1), 399-436.
10. Brigham, E. F. & Houston, J.F. (2015). Fundamentals of Financial Management. Concise Eighth Edition, South Western.
11. Cakranegara, P. A., Budiastuti, A., & Simanjorang, T. M. (2022). Determining the Company Marketing Sales Perfomance Using the Operational Competitiveness Rating Analysis (OCRA) Method. Enrichment: Journal of Management, 12(5), 3996-4002.
12. Chakraborty, R., Ray, A., & Dan, P. J. I. J. (2013). Multi criteria decision making methods for location selection of distribution centers. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations, 4(4), 491-504. https://doi.org.doi.10.5267/j.ijiec.2013.06.006
13. Copeland, T. E. & Weston, J. F. (1992). Financial Theory and Corporate Policy. 3th ed, Addion-Wesley Publishing Company.
14. Chatterjee, P., & Chakraborty, S. (2012). Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Materials & Design, 35, 384-393. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.09.027
15. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770.
16. Elshaboury, N., & Marzouk, M. (2021). Optimizing construction and demolition waste transportation for sustainable construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 28(9), 2411- 2425. http://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-08-2020-0636
17. Erdoğan, S., Aydın, S., Balki, M. K., & Sayin, C. (2020). Operational evaluation of thermal barrier coated diesel engine fueled with biodiesel/diesel blend by using MCDM method base on engine performance, emission and combustion characteristics. Renewable Energy, 151, 698-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.075
18. Gorcun, O. F. (2019). A Hybrid Mcdm Model for Evaluation of Rail Freight Transportation Efficiencies Of Balkan States. Economy & Business Journal, 13(1), 324-340.
19. Görçün, Ö. F. (2021). Efficiency analysis of Black sea container seaports: application of an integrated MCDM approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 48(5), 672-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1783467
20. Hao, Q. (2007). Laddering in initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 85(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2006.05.008
21. Ibbotson, R. G., & Ritter, J. R. (1995). Initial public offerings. Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 9, 993-1016.
22. Kim, J. B., Krinsky, I., & Lee, J. (1995). The aftermarket performance of initial public offerings in Korea. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 3(4), 429-448.
23. Kolb, R. W. & Rodriguez, R. J. (1996). Finansal Yönetim. Sermaye Piyasası Kurulu. Yayın No: 35.
24. Kormaz, T. & Ceylan, A. (2006). İşletmelerde Finansal Yönetim. 9. Baskı, Ekin Kitapevi-Bursa.
25. Kundakcı, N. (2017). An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach for Tablet Computer Selection. European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2(5), 31-43.
26. Kundakçı N. (2019). A comparative analyze based on EATWOS and OCRA methods for supplier evaluation. Alphanumeric Journal, 7(1), 103-112.
27. Madic, M., Antucheviciene, J., Radovanovic, M., & Petkovic, D. (2016). Determination of manufacturing process conditions by using MCDM methods: Application in laser cutting. Engineering Economics, 27(2), 144-150. http://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.27.2.13428
28. Madić, M., Petković, D., & Radovanović, M. (2015). Selection of non-conventional machining processes using the OCRA method. Serbian Journal of Management, 10(1), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm10-6802
29. Mohammed, A., Yazdani, M., Oukil, A., & Santibanez Gonzalez, E. D. (2021). A hybrid MCDM approach towards resilient sourcing. Sustainability, 13(5), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052695
30. Nguyen, N. A. T., Wang, C. N., Dang, L. T. H., Dang, L. T. T., & Dang, T. T. (2022). Selection of cold chain logistics service providers based on a grey AHP and grey COPRAS framework: a case study in Vietnam. Axioms, 11(4), 154. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11040154
31. Ozcalici, M., & Bumin, M. (2020). An integrated multi-criteria decision making model with Self-Organizing Maps for the assessment of the performance of publicly traded banks in Borsa Istanbul. Applied Soft Computing, 90, 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106166
32. Özbek, A. (2015). Efficiency analysis of foreign-capital banks in Turkey by OCRA and MOORA. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(13), 21-30.
33. Parkan, C. (1994). Operational competitiveness ratings of production units. Managerial and Decision Economics, 15(3), 201-221.
34. Parkan, C. (1996). Measuring the performance of hotel operations. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 30(4), 257-292.
35. Parkan, C. (2002). Measuring the operational performance of a public transit company. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 693-720. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210427695
36. Parkan, C. (2005). Benchmarking operational performance: the case of two hotels. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(8), 679-696. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400510627525
37. Parkan, C., & Wu, M. L. (1998). Process selection with multiple objective and subjective attributes. Production Planning & Control, 9(2), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/095372898234415
38. Parkan, C., & Wu, M. L. (1999). Measurement of the performance of an investment bank using the operational competitiveness rating procedure. Omega, 27(2), 201-217.
39. Parkan, C., & Wu, M. L. (1999a). Measuring the performance of operations of Hong Kong's manufacturing industries. European Journal of Operational Research, 118(2), 235-258.
40. Parkan, C., & Wu, M. L. (1999b). Decision-making and performance measurement models with applications to robot selection. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 36(3), 503-523.
41. Parkan, C., & Wu, M. L. (2000). Comparison of three modern multicriteria decision-making tools. International Journal of Systems Science, 31(4), 497-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/002077200291082
42. Parkan, C., Lam, K., & Hang, G. (1997). Operational competitiveness analysis on software development. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(9), 892-905. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600446
43. Sayılgan, G. (2017). Soru Ve Yanıtlarıyla İşletme Finansmanı. 7. Baskı. Siyasal Kitapevi, Ankara.
44. Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., Liu, S., Karabasevic, D., & Popovic, G. (2017). Improved OCRA method based on the use of interval grey numbers. Journal of Grey System, 29(4), 49-60.
45. Thakur, V. (2022). Locating temporary waste treatment facilities in the cities to handle the explosive growth of HCWs during pandemics: A novel Grey-AHP-OCRA hybrid approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 82, 103907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103907
46. Tinic, S. M. (1988). Anatomy of initial public offerings of common stock. The Journal of Finance, 43(4), 789-822.
47. Ulutaş, A. (2019). Supplier selection by using a fuzzy integrated model for a textile company. Engineering Economics, 30(5), 579-590.
48. Ulutaş, A., Popovic, G., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2020). A new hybrid MCDM model for personnel selection based on a novel grey PIPRECIA and grey OCRA methods. Mathematics, 8(10), 1698. https://doi.org.doi:10.3390/math8101698
49. Villacreses, G., Gaona, G., Martínez-Gómez, J., & Jijón, D. J. (2017). Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador. Renewable Energy, 109, 275-286. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.03.041
50. Wijaya, B. K., Sudipa, I. G. I., Waas, D. V., & Santika, P. P. (2022). Selection of Online Sales Platforms for MSMEs using the OCRA Method with ROC Weighting. Journal of Intelligent Decision Support System (IDSS), 5(4), 146-152.