Analysis of the Studies for the Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in Finance Sector

Öz

Making decisions today is one of the most important problems in almost every area. In particular, when the number of criteria and alternatives increase, the decision becomes more difficult. Multi-criteria decision-making methods are methods developed to solve this problem effectively. These methods are used in many different sectors such as construction, energy and health. In parallel with these, it is seen that the related methods are frequently preferred in the field of finance. The aim of this study is to analyze the studies conducted for the application of multi criteria decision making methods in the financial sector. In this framework, 7 basic multi-criteria decision-making methods (AHP, ANP, DEMATEL, TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE and MOORA) were included in the study. As a result of the examinations, it is seen that the mentioned methods are generally taken into consideration in terms of performance measurement, efficiency analysis, evaluation of financial projects and selection of the most successful stock. On the other hand, it has been determined that DEMATEL method is preferred more in comparison with AHP and ANP methods in the calculation of the weights of the selected criteria. In addition, the MOORA, TOPSIS and VIKOR methods are used to rank different alternatives. Considering these issues, it is thought that a new study performed by ELECTRE method will contribute to the literature because this approach is not used much in finance field. However, it is evident that handling other methods under hesitant or type-2 fuzzy logic will increase the originality of the study.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Finance,Multiple Criteria Decision Making Methods,Literature Analysis

Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemlerinin Finans Sektöründeki Uygulamasına Yönelik Yapılmış Çalışmaların Analizi

Öz

Günümüzde karar vermek hemen her alanda önemli sorunlardan birini oluşturmaktadır. Özellikle kriterlerin ve alternatiflerin sayısının çoğaldığı durumlarda, karar vermek daha da zor hale gelmektedir. Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri belirtilen bu sorunun etkin bir şekilde çözülmesi amacıyla geliştirilmiş olan yöntemlerdir. Bahsi geçen bu yöntemler inşaat, enerji ve sağlık gibi çok farklı sektörlerde kullanılmaktadır. Bunlara paralel olarak, ilgili yöntemlerin finans alanında da sıklıkla tercih edildiği görülmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı çok kriterli karar verme yöntemlerinin finans sektöründeki uygulamasına yönelik yapılmış olan çalışmaların analiz edilmesidir. Bu çerçevede, 7 temel çok kriterli karar verme yöntemi (AHP, ANP, DEMATEL, TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE ve MOORA) inceleme kapsamına alınmıştır. Yapılan incelemeler neticesinde, adı geçen yöntemlerin genel olarak, performans ölçümü, etkinlik analizi, finansal projelerin değerlendirilmesi ve en başarılı hisse senedi seçimi gibi konularda dikkate alındığı görülmektedir. Öte yandan, belirtilen bu amaçlara yönelik seçilen kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının hesaplanmasında DEMATEL yönteminin özellikle son yıllarda AHP ve ANP yöntemlerine kıyasla daha fazla tercih edildiği belirlenmiştir. Buna ek olarak, farklı alternatiflerin sıralanmasında ise genellikle MOORA, TOPSIS ve VIKOR yöntemlerinin kullanıldığı anlaşılmaktadır. Bu hususlar dikkate alındığında, finans alanında çok fazla kullanılmayan ELECTRE yöntemiyle yapılacak yeni bir çalışmanın literatüre katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir. Bununla birlikte, diğer yöntemlerin de sezgisel veya tip-2 bulanık mantık altında ele alınmasının çalışmanın orijinalliğini arttıracağı ortadadır. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Finans,Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri,Literatür Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Abdi, F. (2018). Hospital leanness assessment model: A Fuzzy MULTI-MOORA decision making approach. Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering, 11(3), 37-59.
2. Ahmad, N. S. M. (2015, September). Using Profit and Loss Sharing (PLS) of Islamic Finance for Financing Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Libya: Setting Up A Road Map. In Proceedings of International Academic Conferences (No. 2704904). International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
3. Apan, M., Öztel, A., & İslamoğlu, M. (2018). Comparative Empirical Analysis of Financial Failures of Enterprises with Altman Z-Score and VIKOR Methods: BIST Food Sector Application. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 12(1), 77-101.
4. Bağcı, H., & Kaharaman, Y. E. (2018). Electre Yöntemi Kullanılarak Leasing Şirketlerinin Performanslarının Değerlendirilmesi. Aksaray Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 59-67.
5. Bahremand, M., & Karimi, R. (2017). Evaluation of Financial Flow Strategies in the Projects Supply Chain by Fuzzy VIKOR Method Case Study. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, 16(4), 524-533.
6. Baltussen, R., & Niessen, L. (2006). Priority setting of health interventions: the need for multi-criteria decision analysis. Cost effectiveness and resource allocation, 4(1), 14.
7. Baltussen, R., Youngkong, S., Paolucci, F., & Niessen, L. (2010). Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences. Health Policy, 96(3), 262-264.
8. Bhattarai, S., & Yadav, S. R. (2009). AHP application in banking: unfolding utility in a situation of financial crisis. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

9. Bots, P. W., & Hulshof, J. A. (2000). Designing multi‐criteria decision analysis processes for priority setting in health policy. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 9(1‐3), 56-75.
10. Brauers, W. K., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2006). The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy. Control and Cybernetics, 35, 445-469.
11. Diaby, V., Campbell, K., & Goeree, R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: a bibliometric analysis. Operations Research for Health Care, 2(1-2), 20-24.
12. Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2018). Determining Influencing Factors of Currency Exchange Rate for Decision Making in Global Economy Using MARS Method. In Geopolitics and Strategic Management in the Global Economy(pp. 261-273). IGI Global.
13. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., Pınarbaşı, F., & Çetiner, İ. T. (2019). Measurement of Economic and Banking Stability in Emerging Markets by Considering Income Inequality and Nonperforming Loans. In Maintaining Financial Stability in Times of Risk and Uncertainty (pp. 49-68). IGI Global.
14. Dincer, H. (2015a). Measuring the Interest and Non-interest Income based Efficiency of the Turkish Banking Sector using Fuzzy AHP and DEA Method. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 5(1), 109-131.
15. Dincer, H. (2015b). Profit-based stock selection approach in banking sector using Fuzzy AHP and MOORA method. Global Business and Economics Research Journal, 4(2), 1-26.
16. Dincer, H., & Hacioglu, U. (2013). Performance evaluation with fuzzy VIKOR and AHP method based on customer satisfaction in Turkish banking sector. Kybernetes, 42(7), 1072-1085.
17. Dincer, H., & Hacioglu, U. (2015). A comparative performance evaluation on bipolar risks in emerging capital markets using fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS and VIKOR approaches. Engineering Economics, 26(2), 118-129.
18. Dincer, H., Hacioglu, U., & Yuksel, S. (2016a). Performance assessment of deposit banks with CAMELS analysis using fuzzy ANP-moora approaches and an application on Turkish banking sector. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 6(2), 32-56.
19. Dincer, H., Hacioglu, U., & Yuksel, S. (2016b). Balanced scorecard-based performance assessment of Turkish banking sector with analytic network process. International Journal of Decision Sciences & Applications-IJDSA, 1(1), 1-21.
20. Dincer, H., Hacioglu, U., & Yuksel, S. (2016d). Performance assessment of deposit banks with CAMELS analysis using fuzzy ANP-moora approaches and an application on Turkish banking sector. Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management, 6(2), 32-56.
21. Dincer, H., Hacioglu, U., Tatoglu, E., & Delen, D. (2016b). A fuzzy-hybrid analytic model to assess investors' perceptions for industry selection. Decision Support Systems, 86, 24-34.
22. Dinçer, H., & Gorener, A. (2011). Performance evaluation using AHP-VIKOR and AHPTOPSIS approaches: The case of service sector. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 29(3), 244-260.
23. Dinçer, H., & Hacıoğlu, Ü. (2014). A Comparative Hybrid Method in Technical Analysis for Stock Selection Process in Banking Sector by Fuzzy AHP-Topsis and Vikor Method. In Global Strategies in Banking and Finance (pp. 187-204). IGI Global.
24. Dinçer, H., & Yüksel, S. (2018). Comparative Evaluation of BSC-Based New Service Development Competencies in Turkish Banking Sector with the Integrated Fuzzy Hybrid MCDM Using Content Analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20(8), 2497-2516.
25. Dinçer, H., & Yüksel, S. (2018). Financial Sector-Based Analysis of the G20 Economies Using the Integrated Decision-Making Approach with DEMATEL and TOPSIS. In Emerging Trends in Banking and Finance (pp. 210-223). Springer, Cham.
26. Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2016c). Managerial and Market-Based Appraisal of Agriculture Banking Using ANP and ELECTRE Method. Management and Organizational Studies, 3(3), 29.
27. Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2017a). Balanced scorecard based performance measurement of European airlines using a hybrid multicriteria decision making approach under the fuzzy environment. Journal of Air Transport Management, 63, 17-33.
28. Dinçer, H., Hacıoğlu, Ü., & Yüksel, S. (2017b). A Strategic Approach to Global Financial Crisis in Banking Sector: A Critical Appraisal of Banking Strategies Using Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy Topsis Methods. International Journal of Sustainable Economies Management (IJSEM), 6(1), 1-21.
29. Dinçer, H., Yuksel, S., & Bozaykut-Buk, T. (2018). Evaluation of Financial and Economic Effects on Green Supply Chain Management With Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach: Evidence From Companies Listed in BIST. In Handbook of Research on Supply Chain Management for Sustainable Development (pp. 144-175). IGI Global.
30. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Çetiner, İ. T. (2019b). Strategy Selection for Organizational Performance of Turkish Banking Sector With the Integrated Multi-Dimensional Decision-Making Approach. In Handbook of Research on Contemporary Approaches in Management and Organizational Strategy (pp. 273-291). IGI Global.
31. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Eti, S. (2018). Bankacılık Sektöründe Dengeli Skorkart Yaklaşımına Göre Yeni Hizmet Geliştirme Ölçümü: Performans Değerlemede Bütünleşik Bulanık Karar Verme Model Önerisi. 1. Uluslararası Bankacılık Kongresi, 602-621
32. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Kartal, M. T. (2016f) Evaluating the Corporate Governance Based Performance of Participation Banks in Turkey with the House of Quality Using an Integrated Hesitant Fuzzy MCDM.
33. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Martínez, L. (2019a). Balanced scorecard-based Analysis about European Energy Investment Policies: A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making approach with Quality Function Deployment. Expert Systems with Applications, 115, 152-171.
34. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S., & Şenel, S. (2018). Analyzing the Global Risks for the Financial Crisis after the Great Depression Using Comparative Hybrid Hesitant Fuzzy Decision-Making Models: Policy Recommendations for Sustainable Economic Growth. Sustainability, 10(9), 3126.
35. Doumpos, M., & Figueira, J. R. (2019). A multicriteria outranking approach for modeling corporate credit ratings: An application of the Electre Tri-nC method. Omega, 82, 166-180.
36. Ercan, M., & Onder, E. (2016). Ranking Insurance Companies in Turkey Based on Their Financial Performance Indicators Using VIKOR Method. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 6(2), 104-113.
37. Gurumurthy, A., & Kodali, R. (2008). A multi-criteria decision-making model for the justification of lean manufacturing systems. International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3(2), 100-118.
38. Gündoğdu, A. (2015). Measurement of financial performance using TOPSIS method for foreign banks of established in Turkey between 2003-2013 years. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(1), 139-151.
39. Haralambopoulos, D. A., & Polatidis, H. (2003). Renewable energy projects: structuring a multi-criteria group decision-making framework. Renewable energy, 28(6), 961-973.
40. Hoe, L. W., Din, M. A., Siew, L. W., & Wai, C. J. (2018). Evaluation on the performance of suppliers in Malaysia with TOPSIS model. Journal of Fundamental and Applied Sciences, 10(6S), 406-415.
41. İşseveroğlu, G., & Sezer, O. (2015). Financial performance of pension companies operating in Turkey with TOPSIS analysis method. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 5(1), 137-147.
42. Karmakar, P., Dutta, P., & Biswas, S. (2018). Assessment Of Mutual Fund Performance Using Distance Based Multi-Criteria Decision Making Techniques-An Indian Perspective. Research Bulletin, 44(1), 17-38.
43. Lan, S., & Zhong, R. Y. (2016). An evaluation model for financial reporting supply chain using DEMATEL-ANP. Procedia CIRP, 56, 516-519.
44. Leksono, E. B., Suparno, S., & Vanany, I. (2018). Development of Performance Indicators Relationships on Sustainable Healthcare Supply Chain Performance Measurement Using Balanced Scorecard and DEMATEL. International journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology, 8(1), 115-122.
45. Liu, H. C., Wu, J., & Li, P. (2013). Assessment of health-care waste disposal methods using a VIKOR-based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making method. Waste management, 33(12), 2744-2751.
46. Nobre, F. F., Trotta, L. T. F., & Gomes, L. F. A. M. (1999). Multi‐criteria decision making–an approach to setting priorities in health care. Statistics in Medicine, 18(23), 3345-3354.
47. Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., & Phillips, L. D. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: a multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558-1565.
48. Oktar, S., & Yüksel, S. (2015). Bankacilik Krizlerinin Erken Uyari Sinyalleri: Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(28), 37.
49. Onder, E., & Altintas, A. T. (2017). Financial Performance Evaluation of Turkish Construction Companies in Istanbul Stock Exchange (BIST). International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 7(3), 108-113.
50. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European journal of operational research, 156(2), 445-455.
51. 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.
52. Pineda, P. J. G., Liou, J. J., Hsu, C. C., & Chuang, Y. C. (2018). An integrated MCDM model for improving airline operational and financial performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 103-117.
53. Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning—a review. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 8(4), 365-381.
54. Rezaie, K., Ramiyani, S. S., Nazari-Shirkouhi, S., & Badizadeh, A. (2014). Evaluating performance of Iranian cement firms using an integrated fuzzy AHP–VIKOR method. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21-22), 5033-5046.
55. Rezaei, M., & Ketabi, S. (2016). Ranking the banks through performance evaluation by integrating fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods: A study of Iranian private banks. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 6(3), 19-30.
56. Roshandel, J., Miri-Nargesi, S. S., & Hatami-Shirkouhi, L. (2013). Evaluating and selecting the supplier in detergent production industry using hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Applied mathematical modelling, 37(24), 10170-10181.
57. Saaty, T. L. (1979). Optimization by the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Aır Force Offıce Of Scıentıfıc Researchbollıng Afb Dc.
58. Singh, B. (2017). Applications of MOORA method for benchmarking decision in Indian industries. International Journal of Advanced Operations Management, 9(2), 88-105.
59. Wang, J. J., Jing, Y. Y., Zhang, C. F., & Zhao, J. H. (2009). Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(9), 2263-2278.
60. Wanke, P., Azad, M. A. K., & Barros, C. P. (2016). Predicting efficiency in Malaysian Islamic banks: A two-stage TOPSIS and neural networks approach. Research in International Business and Finance, 36, 485-498.
61. Xu, J. N., & Xi, B. (2004). AHP-ANN Based Credit Risk Assessment for Commercial Banks [J]. Journal of Harbin University of Science and Technology, 3, 030.
62. Yüksel, S., Dinçer, H., & Emir, Ş. (2017). Comparing the performance of Turkish deposit banks by using DEMATEL, Grey Relational Analysis (GRA) and MOORA approaches. World Journal of Applied Economics, 3(2), 26-47.
63. Yüksel, S. (2016). Bankaların Takipteki Krediler Oranını Belirleyen Faktörler: Türkiye İçin Bir Model Önerisi. Bankacılar Dergisi, 98, 41-56.
64. Yüksel, S., & Zengin, S. (2016). Leading Indicators of 2008 Global Crisis: An Analysis with Logit and Mars Methods. Finansal Araştırmalar ve Çalışmalar Dergisi, 8(15), 495-518.
65. Yuksel, S., & Zengin, S. (2017). Influencing Factors of Net Interest Margin in Turkish Banking Sector. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(1), 178-191.