Türk İmalat Sanayinde Risk ve Performans Arasındaki İlişki

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 1, 29 - 56, 13.07.2017

Seymur Ağazade , Aykut Karakaya , Selçuk Perçin

https://doi.org/10.24988/deuiibf.2017321538

Öz

Teorik yaklaşımlar risk ve performans ilişkinin doğasına yönelik farklı sonuçlar öngörürler. Geleneksel finans teorisi ve davranışsal firma teorisi bu ilişkiye yönelik olarak tartışmalı açıklamalar getirirler. Bu çalışmada Arellano ve Bover (1995) ile Blundell ve Bond (1998) tarafından geliştirilen İki Aşamalı Sistem Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodu kullanılarak 2008-2013 dönemi için Türk İmalat Sanayinde risk ve performans ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışmada risk göstergesi olarak toplam kaldıraç derecesi, faaliyet kaldıraç derecesi ve finansal kaldıraç derecesi kullanılmıştır. Performans değişkeni göstergeleri ise net kȃr marjı, aktif kȃrlılık oranı ve öz sermaye kȃrlılık oranlarıdır. Panel veri tahmin sonuçları toplam kaldıraç derecesi veya finansal kaldıraç derecesi risk göstergesi olarak dikkate alındığında performansın riski pozitif yönde etkilediğini göstermektedir. Risk göstergesi olarak faaliyet kaldıracı derecesi dikkate alındığında ise performansın riski negatif yönde etkilediği görülmüştür. Bu sonuç, toplam risk ve finansal risk söz konusu olduğunda geleneksel teorinin, buna karşın iş riski dikkate alındığında ise davranışsal firma teorisini desteklemektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Risk, Performans, Türk İmalat Sanayi

The Relationship Between Risk and Performance in Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Öz

Theoretical approaches make different prediction related to the nature of the relationship between risk and performance. Traditional finance theory and behavioural firm theory give controversial explanation about this relationship. Using Two Stage System Generalized Moment Method proposed by Arellano and Bover (1995) and Blundell and Bond (1998) this paper investigates risk and performance relationship in Turkish Manufacturing Industry for the period from 2008 to 2013. The degrees of total leverage, operating leverage and financial leverage are used as risk indicators. Net profit margin, return on assets, return on equity are performance variables. Panel estimation results demonstrate that performance effects risk positively when degree of total leverage or financial leverage is used as risk indicator and negatively when degrees of operating leverage is used as risk indicator. These results support the traditional finance theory when total risk or financial risk is taken into account and behavioural firm theory when operational risk is considered as risk proxies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Risk, Performance, Turkish Manufacturing Industry

Kaynakça

• AL MANASEER, M. F. A., AL-HINDAWI, R. M., AL-DAHIYAT, M. A., SARTAWI, I. I. (2012), “The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Performance of Jordanian Banks”, European Journal of Scientific Research, 67(3), 349-359.
• ANDERSEN, T. J., DENRELL, J., BETTIS, R. A. (2007), “Strategic Responsiveness and Bowman's Risk–return Paradox”, Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 407-429.
• ANDERSON, T. W., HSIAO, C. (1981), “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76(375), 598-606.
• ANDERSON, T. W., HSIAO, C. (1982), “Formulation and Estimation of Dynamic Models Using Panel Data”, Journal of Econometrics, 18, 47-82.
• ARELLANO M., BOND, S. (1991), “Some Tests of Specification for Panel: Monte Carlo Evidence and An Application to Employment Equations”, Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277-297.
• ARELLANO M., BOVER, O. (1995), “Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 68, 29-51.
• BALTAGI, B. H. (2005), Econometric Analysis of Panel Data, Third Edition, John Wiley&Sons, Ltd., England.
• BLUNDELL R., BOND S. (1998), “Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models”, Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115-143.
• BLUNDELL, R., BOND, S. (2000), “GMM Estimation with Persistent Panel Data: An Application to Production Functions”, Econometric Reviews, 19, 321–340.
• BOND, S. (2002), “Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide to Micro Data Methods and Practice”, CEMMAP Working Paper, No: Cwp0209, 1-36.
• BOWMAN, E. H. (1980), “A Risk–Return Paradox for Strategic Management”, Sloan Management Review, 21, 17-31.
• BOWMAN, E. H. (1984), “Content Analysis of Annual Reports for Corporate Strategy and Risk”, Strategic Managemen Interfaces, 14(1) 61-71.
• BROMILEY, P. (1991), “Testing a Casual Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance”, Academy of Management Journal, 34(1), 37–59.
• CHARI, A., CHEN, W., DOMINGUEZ, K. M. E. (2012), “Foreign Ownership and Firm Performance: Emerging Market Acquisitions in the United States”, IMF Economic Review, 60(1), 1-42.
• CHOI, I. (2001), “Unit Root Tests for Panel Data”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 20, 249-272.
• CORE, J. E., HOLTHAUSEN, R. W., LARCKER, D. F. (1999), “Corporate Governance, Chief Executive Officer Compensation, and Firm Performance” Journal of Financial Economics, 51, 371-406.
• DE YOUNG, R., ROLAND, K. P. (1999), Product Mix and Earnings Volatility at Commercial Banks: Evidence from a Degree of Leverage Model, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Working Papers Series Research Department, (WP-99-6).
• DEEPHOUSE, D. L. WISEMAN, R. M. (2000), “Comparing Alternative Explanations for Accounting Risk-Return Relations”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 42 (4), 463-482.
• DUGAN, M. T., SHRIVER, K. A. (1992), “The Effects of Estimation Period, Industry, and Proxy on the Calculation of the Degree of Operating Leverage,” The Financial Review, 24, 309-321.
• FISHER, I. N., HALL, G. R. (1969), “Risk and Corporate Rates of Return”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83(1), 79-92.
• FLETCHER, J. (2000), “On the Conditional Relationship between Beta and Return in International Stock Returns”, International Review of Financial Analysis, 9(3), 235-245.
• FRAQUELLI, G., VANNONI, D. (2000), “Multidimensional Performance In Telecommunications, Regulation And Competition: Analysing The European Major Players”, Information Economics and Policy, 12, 27-46.
• GOODING, R. Z., GOEL, S., WISEMAN, R. M. (1996), “Fixed Versus Variable Reference Points in the Risk-Return Relationship”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 29(2), 331-350.
• HANSEN, G. S., WERNERFELT, B. (1989), “Determinants of Firm Performance: The Relative Importance of Economic and Organizational Factors”, Strategic Management Journal, 10(5), 399-411.
• HANSEN, L.P. (2002), “Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method of Moments Estimators”, Econometrica, 50, 1029-1054.
• HOQUE, Z., JAMES, W. (2000), “Linking Balancing Scorecard Measures to Size and Market Factors: Impact of Organizational Performance”, Journal of Accounting Management Research, 12, 1-17.
• HSIAO, C. (2003), Analysis of Panel Data, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.
• IM, K. S., PESARAN, M. H., SHIN, Y. (2003), “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels”, Journal of Econometrics, 115, 53-74.
• ITTNER, C. D., LARCKER, D. F., RANDALL, T. (2003), “Performance Implications of Strategic Performance Measurement in Financial Services Firms”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, 715-741.
• ITTNER, C. D., LARCKER, D. F. (1997), “Quality Strategy, Strategic Control Systems, and Organizational Performance”, Accounting Organizations and Society, 22(4), 293-314.
• KAHNEMAN, D., TVERSKY, A. (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
• KARACA, S. S., EKŞI, İ. H. (2012), “The Relationship between Ownership Structure and Firm Performance: An Empirical Analysis over Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) Listed Companies”, International Business Research, 5(1), 172-181.
• LEV, B. (1974), “On the Association between Operating Leverage and Risk”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9, 627-641.
• LIN, C. (2011), “An Examination of Board and Firm Performance: Evidence from Taiwan”, The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 5(4), 17–35.
• LORD, R. A. (1998), “Properties of Time Series Estimates of Degree of Leverage Measures”, The Financial Review, 33, 69-84.
• MANDELKER, G., RHEE, S. G. (1984), “The Impact of the Degree of Operating and Financial Leverage on Systematic Risk of Common Stock”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 19, 45-57.
• MURPHY, K. J. (2001), “Performance Standards in Incentive Contracts”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30, 245-278.
• O’BRIEN, T., VANDERHEIDEN, P. (1987), “Empirical Measurement of Operating Leverage for Growing Firms”, Financial Management, 16, 45-53.
• OBIYO, O. C., LENEE, L. T. (2011), “Corporate Governance and Firm Performance in Nigeria”, International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management, 1(4), 1-12.
• PARK, A., YANG, D., SHI, X., JIANG, Y. (2009), “Exporting and Firm Performance: Chinese Exporters and The Asian Financial Crisis”, NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1-50.
• PESARAN, M. H. (2004), “General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels”, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No: 0435.
• ROODMAN, D. (2009), “How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to “Difference” and “System” GMM in Stata”, The Stata Journal, 9(1), 86-136.
• WINDMEIJER F. (2005), “A Finite Sample Correction for The Variance of Linear Efficient Two-Step GMM Estimator”, Journal of Econometrics, 126(1), 25-51.
• WOOLDRIDGE, J. M. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, The MIT Press, England.
• YASSER, Q. R., ENTEBANG, H., MANSOR, S. A. (2011), “Corporate governance and firm performance in Pakistan: The case of Karachi Stock Exchange (KSE) -30”, Journal of Economic and International Finance, 3(8), 482–491.