Comparing the Financial Performance of Banks in Turkey By Using Promethee Method

Öz

The present study aims to compare the financial performance of state-owned banks, private banks and foreign banks in Turkey for pre-crisis and post-crisis period by using the PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations) method. In the study, banks are analyzed between 2006 and 2012 years. In order to determine the effects of the recent financial crisis time period is divided into two: pre-crisis period (2006-2008) and post crisis (2009-2012) periods. In the study 5 main and 12 sub- financial ratios are selected to evaluate the bank performance. The selected ratios are organized into 5 categories (capital, assets, management, earnings and liquidity) in accordance with the CAMEL framework. The deposit banks are ranked based on their financial performance for both before and after the crisis. Research results reveal that state-owned banks were affected significantly by the recent financial crisis. State-owned banks were selected as the best alternative for 2006-2008 period. But for 2009-2012 period state-owned banks went down to the last position whereas the foreign banks went up to first position.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Banks, Financial Performance, Financial ratios, PROMETHEE method

Kaynakça

1. Albayrak, Y. E., Erkut, H (2005) ‘Banka Performans Değerlendirmede Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreç
2. Yaklaşımı ’ İTÜ Dergisi/D Mühendislik, 4, (6): 47-58. Al-Shemmeri T., Al-Kloub, B., Pearman, A. (1997) ‘Model choice in multicriteria decision aid’,
3. European Journal of Operational Research, 97 : 550–560. Arshadi, N., E.C. Lawrence (1987) ‘An Empirical Investigation of New Bank Performance’ Journal of Banking and Finace, 11: 33-48.
4. Avkıran (2011) ‘Association of DEA super-effiency estimates with financial ratios: Investigating the case of Chinese bank’ Omegai, 39(3): 323-334
5. Aysan, A.F. and Ceyhan S.P. (2008) ‘What Determines The Banking Sector Performance in
6. Globalized Financial Markets? The Case of Turkey’ Physica A, 387:1593–1602
7. The Banks Association of Turkey, www.tbb.org.tr Bayrakdaroğlu, A. and Ege, İ. (2008) ‘Türkiye’deki Bankaların Performansının Analitik Hiyerarşi
8. Süreci ile Değerlendirilmesi Üzerine Bir Model Önerisi’ TÜİK- 17. İstatistik Araştırma Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı: 32-49

9. Bağcı H., Rençber, Ö.F. ‘Kamu Bankaları ve Halka Açık Özel Bankaların Promethee Yöntemi İle Karlılıklarının Analizi’, Aksaray Üniversitesi, İİBF Dergisi, 6(1), 39-47
10. Beaver, W. (1966) ‘Financial Ratios as Predictors of Failure’ Journal of Accounting Research, 4: 71- 111, Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2490171
11. Brans J. P. and Vincke PH. (1985) ‘A Preference Ranking Organisation Method (The PROMETHEE Method for Multiple Criteria Decision-Making)’ Management Science, 31(6): 647- 656
12. Cole, R.and Gunther, J. (1995), ‘A CAMEL Rating's Shelf Life’: Retrieved from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1293504 Cornett M.M. , Guo L, Khaksari S., Tehranian H.,’The impact of state ownership on performance differencesin privately-owned versus state-owned banks: An international comparison’, Journal of Financial of Intermediation , 19:74-94.
13. Çinko, Murat; AVCI, Emin; (2008) ‘CAMELS Derecelendirme Sistemi ve Türk Ticari Bankacılık
14. Sektöründe Başarısızlık Tahmini, Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi’ BDDK, 2(.2): 25–49 Dinç, S., (2005). ‘Politicians and banks: political influences on government-owned banks in emerging markets’, J.ournal of Financial Economics, 77:453–479.
15. Dinçer, Hasan, Görener, Ali (2011) ‘Performans Değerlendirilmesinde AHP_VIKOR – TOPSIS
16. Yaklaşımları: Hizemt Sektöründe Bir Uygulma’ Mühendislik ve Fen Bilimleri Dergisi Sigma, 29: 244-260
17. Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C. (2009), ‘A Multicriteria Approach to Bank Rating’, European
18. Working Group Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding, 3(19):17-19
19. Ertuğrul, İrfan and KARAKAŞOĞLU, Nilsen (2008) ‘Banka Şube Performanslarının VIKOR
20. Yöntemi İle Değerlendirilmesi’ Endüstri Mühendisliği Dergisi, 20(1): 19-28. Frei, F. X. and Harker, P.T., (1999) ‘Measuring Aggregate Process Performance Using AHP’
21. European Journal Of Operational Research, 116: 436-442. Gilliams, S, Raymaekers,D., Orshoven,V (2005), “Comparing multiple criteria decision methods to extend a geographical information system on afforestation”, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 49 :142–158.
22. Ignatius, J. , Behzadian, M., Malekan, H.S., Latiha, D(2012).,’Financial Performance of İran’s
23. Automotive Sector Based on Promethee II, Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE ICMIT: 35-38.
24. İç, Y. T., Yurdakul, M.(2000) ‘Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHS) Yöntemini Kullanan Bir Kredi
25. Değerlendirme Sistemi’ Gazi Üniv. Müh. Mim. Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1): 1-14. Kantar, E.; Keskin, M; Deviren, B. (2012). ‘Analysis of the effects of the global financial crisis on the Turkish economy, using hierarchical methods’. Physica A , 391: 2342-2352.
26. Kaya, Yasemin Türker (2001) ‘Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe CAMELS Analizi, Bankacılık
27. Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu’ MSPD Çalışma Raporları, 2001/6: 1–20.
28. Kosmidou,K, C. Zopounidis (2008) ‘Measurement of Bank Performance in Greece’, South-Eeastern
29. Europe Journal of Economics: 79-95. Maishanu, M. (2004) ‘A Univariate Approach to Predicting Failure in the Commercial Banking Sub- Sector https://www.academia.edu/260074/A_UNIVARIATE_ APPROACH_TO_PREDICTING_FAILURE_IN_COMMERCIAL_BANKING_SUB-SECTOR
30. Mercan, M., Reisman, A., Yolalan, R. and Emel, A. B.(2003) ‘The Effect of Scale and Mode of
31. Ownership on The Financial Performance of Turkish Banking Sector: Result of a DEA-Based Analysis’ Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37(3): 185–202. 1(1), Retrieved from: Oral, M., Yolalan, R. (1990) ‘ An Emprical Study On Mesauring Efficiency And Profitably Of Bank
32. Branches, Ring Efficiency And Profitably Of Bank Branches’ European Journal Of Operational Resarch, 46 :282-294
33. Participation Banks Book, 2013, http://www.tkbb.org.tr/images/Documents/TKBB.pdf (23.10.2014)
34. Sakarya, Aytekin (2013) ‘İMKB’de İşlem Gören Mevduat Bankalarının Performansları ile Hisse
35. Senedi Getirileri Arasındaki İlişkinin Ölçülmesi: PROMETHEE Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemiyle Bir Uygulama’, Uluslararası Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(2): 99-109. Seçme, N.Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A. and Kahraman, C.(2009) ‘Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish
36. Banking Sector Using Analytic Hierarchy Process and TOPSIS’ Expert Systems with Applications, 36(9):11699–11709.
37. Ta, H. P. and Har K. Y. (2000) ‘A Study of Bank Selection Decisions in Singapore using the Analytical Hierarchy Process’ International Journal of Bank Marketing, 18 (4): 170 – 180.
38. Uzar (2013) ‘Financial Performance Test of Public Banks in Turkey: An Application of
39. PROMETHEE,’ International Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, 5 (2), ISSN: 1309-8055
40. Wirnkar A.D. and Tanko M. (2008) ‘CAMEL(S) and Bank Performance Evaluation: The Way
41. Forward’ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1150968 (28.10.2014)