The Impact of Balance Sheet Cleaning on the Relationship Between Non-Performing Loans and Cost Efficiency: Bad Luck or Bad Management? A Case Study of Türkiye

Öz

The study investigates whether balance sheet cleaning provides a benefit to the cost-effectiveness of banks. In this context, the study is based on the “bad luck” and “bad management” hypotheses developed by Berger and DeYoung (1997). Hypotheses; it was developed based on the assumption that there is a negative relationship between the increase in non-performing loans (NPL) and cost-effectiveness. Quarterly data of 10 deposit banks operating in Turkey in the 2012-2021 period were used. Stochastic Boundary Analysis (Batesse & Coelli (1995) was used as cost-effectiveness analysis method and Dumitrescu-Hurlin Panel Causality Test (Dumitrescu, E. I. & Hurlin, C. 2012) was used in causality research. While the results of the analysis supported the “bad management” hypothesis before the balance sheet cleaning, it supported the “bad luck” hypothesis after the balance sheet cleaning. According to this result; balance sheet cleaning reduces the “bad management” effect in banks. Banks have been advised to clean up their balance sheets. Our study is the first to investigate the effect of balance sheet cleaning on bank cost effectiveness under "bad luck" and "bad management" hypotheses and contributes to the literature in this sense. Moreover; in the study, hypotheses were tested using the Dumitrescu-Hurlin Panel Causality Test (2012) and this is also the first in the literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Balance sheet cleaning
• NPL
• cost-efficiency
• bad luck hypothesis
• bad management hypothesis
• JEL CODES: G21, G28, G29, G32

Kaynakça

1. Aiyar, S., Bergthaler, W., Garrido, J.M., Ilyina, A., Jobst, A., Kang, K., Kovtun, D., Liu, Y., Monaghan, D. & Moretti, M. (2015). A strategy for resolving Europe’s problem loans. IMF Staff Discussion Note No 15/19.
2. Babuşcu, Ş., Hazar, A., & İskender, A. (2018). Banka Risk Yönetimi Basel I-II-III-IV Düzenlemeleri. Bankacılık Akademisi Yayınları, 7.
3. Baltagi, B. H., Feng, Q. & Kao, C. (2012). A Lagrange Multiplier test for Cross-sectional Dependence in a Fixed Effects Panel Data Model. Journal of the Econometrics, 170, 164–
4. Batesse, G.E., Coelli, T.J. (1995), A model for Technical Inefficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data”, Emprical Economics, 20, 325-332
5. Berger, A. N., & DeYoung, R. (1997). Problem loans and cost efficiency in commercial banks. Journal of banking & finance, 21(6), 849-870.
6. Bodellini, M. (2019, July). The long ‘journey’of banks from Basel I to Basel IV: has the banking system become more sound and resilient than it used to be?. In Era Forum (Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 81-97). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
7. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The review of economic studies, 47(1), 239-253.
8. Bunda, I., Eyraud, L., & Wang, Z. (2021). How to Assess the Benefits of Nonperforming Loan Disposal in Sub-Saharan Africa Using a Simple Analytical Framework. International Monetary Fund.

9. Coelli, T. J. (1996). Centre for efficiency and productivity analysis (CEPA) working papers. Department of Econometrics Universíty of New England Armidale, Australia, 1-50.
10. Dumitrescu, E. I., & Hurlin, C. (2012). Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Economic Modelling, 29, 1450–1460.
11. Garrido, J., Kopp, E., & Weber, A. (2016). Cleaning-up bank balance sheets: Economic, legal, and supervisory measures for Italy. International Monetary Fund.
12. Ghosh, S. (2018). Bad luck, Bad policy or Bad banking? Understanding the financial management behavior of MENA banks. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 47, 110-128.
13. Jobst, A., & Weber, A. (2016). Profitability and Balance Sheet Repair of Italian Banks. International Monetary Fund.
14. Manz, F., Kiesel, F., & Schiereck, D. (2019). Do NPL portfolio sales help reduce banks’ financing costs?. Economics Letters, 182, 93-97.
15. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagonist tests for cross section dependence in panels. June 2004. Mimeo, University of Cambridge.
16. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross‐section dependence. Journal of applied econometrics, 22(2), 265-312.
17. Podpiera, J., & Weill, L. (2008). Bad luck or bad management? Emerging banking market experience. Journal of financial stability, 4(2), 135-148.
18. Setiawan, C., Hasan, T., Hassan, M. K., & Mohamad, S. (2017). Non-performing loans and bank efficiency of conventional and islamic banks in the organization of islamic cooperation (OIC) countries. Journal of Islamic Economics, Banking and Finance, 113(6223), 1-26.
19. Williams, J. (2004). Determining management behaviour in European banking. Journal of Banking & Finance, 28(10), 2427-2460.
20. www. bddk.org.tr.
21. www. tbb.org.tr.