THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HAZELNUT PRICES AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF COMPANIES AND THE MODERATE EFFECT OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE ON THIS RELATIONSHIP

Abstract

The great majority of hazelnut harvest in the world are grown in Eastern Black Sea region of Turkey and it is very important for region economy. In the past, Fiskobirlik was effective to determine the base price of hazelnut but now it has been determined by the free market based on the harvest amount. In this context, prices are different each year. It is discussed that how this difference price does affect the financial performance of firms. From this point, it is tried to examine the impact of hazelnut prices on the financial performance of firms operating hazelnut industry in Turkey. In the study, companies that are in the hazelnut sector within the 1000 most successful firms registered with Istanbul Chamber of Industry ISO have been analyzed.

Keywords

• Financial Performance,Export,Exchange Rate,Moderator,Hazelnut

FINDIK FİYATLARI İLE ŞİRKETLERİN FİNANSAL PERFORMANSI ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ VE DÖVİZ KURUNUN BU İLİŞKİ ÜZERİNDEKİ MODERATÖR ETKİSİ

Öz

Dünya fındık üretiminin büyük çoğunluğu Türkiye’nin Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde yapılmaktadır ve bölge ekonomisi için çok önemlidir. Geçmişte fındık taban fiyatlarının belirlenmesinde Fiskobirlik etkili olurken günümüzde fiyatlar rekolteye göre serbest piyasada belirlenmektedir Bu bağlamda fiyatlar her yıl farklıdır. Bu farklı fiyatların firmaların finansal performansını nasıl etkilediği tartışılmaktadır. Bu noktadan hareketle çalışmada fındık fiyatlarının Türkiye’de fındık alanında çalışan firmaların finansal performanslarına etkisi araştırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Çalışmada, İstanbul Sanayi Odası’na ISO kayıtlı en başarılı 1000 firma içinde fındık sektöründe yer alan şirketler analiz edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Finansal Performans,İhracat,Döviz Kuru,Moderatör,Fındık

Kaynakça

1. Akseki, U. (2014). Econometric analysis of world hazelnut demand: Panel data analysis (1970- 2010). Ege Strategic Research Journal, 5(1), 65-78.
2. Banker, R. D., Lee, S. Y., Potter, G., & Srinivasan, D. (2000). An empirical analysis of continuing improvements following the implementation of a performance-based compensation plan. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 30, 315-350.
3. Bayramoğlu, Z., & Gündoğmuş, E. (2007). Analysis of world hazelnut market. Journal of Ekonomik Yaklaşım, 18(65), 71-89.
4. Bernard, A.B., & Jensen, J. B. (1999). Exceptional exporter performance: Cause, effect, or both. Journal of International Economics, 47, 1–25.
5. 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.
6. Çamoğlu, S. M., & Saka, G. (2012, November). Türkiye fındık ihracat piyasasında dış ticareti etkileyen faktörlerin analizi.The Turkish Economic Association Third International Conference on Economics, İzmir/Turkey, 1-14.
7. Çelik, Ş. (2014). The analysis of production - price relation in hazelnuts shelled production using Koyck model of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 1(4), 524-530.
8. Erdal, G., & Uzunöz, M. (2008). The Causalıty relationshıp among hazelnut prices of Turkey and Europe and exchange rate. Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 22(2), 47-56.

9. Fidan, H., & Şahinli, M.A. (2010). Profit level and price fixing in hazelnut production. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 20(2), 117-122.
10. General Secretariat of Black Sea Exporters Associations, Access Date: 14.07.2017 http://www. kib.org.tr/tr/birlikler-findik-ve-mamulleri-ihracatcilari-birligi-findik-hakkinda-findik- cesitleri.html.
11. Gujarati, D. N. (2009). Temel ekonometri, (Çev: Ümit Şenesen), İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık.
12. Gutierrez, L. (2003). On the power of panel cointegration tests: A Monte Carlo comparison. Economics Letters, 80, 105–111.
13. Güney, O.İ. (2014). Turkish hazelnut production and export competition. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 24(1), 23-29.
14. Hatırlı, S.A., Öztürk, E., & Aktaş, A.R. (2008). An analysis of price transmission in hazelnut market. Journal of Akdeniz university faculty of agriculture, 21(1), 139-143.
15. 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.
16. International Nut&Dried Fruit (INC). Access Date: 01.07.2017 http://www.nutfruit.org/what- we-do/publications/inc-magazine.
17. Öztürk, D., & Arıcı, Y.K. (2017). Analysis of production and marketing problems of hazelnut producers: A case of Samsun province. Ordu University Journal of Social Sciences Research, 7(1), 21-34.
18. Park, A., et al. (2009). Exporting and firm performance: Chinese exporters and the Asian financial crisis. NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1-50.
19. Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: Asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Cambridge University Press, Econometric Theory, 20(3), 597-625.
20. Sıray, E. (2013). Hazelnut production and trade status. Hazelnut Research Institute, Training Notes, Giresun, 1-8.
21. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012a). Panel veri ekonometrisi (stata uygulamalı). ISBN: 9786053330035, 1. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları
22. Tatoğlu, F. Y. (2012b). İleri panel veri analizi (stata uygulamalı). ISBN: 9786053330394, 1. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınları.
23. Trabzon Exchange Commodity (2014). Project for increasing yield and quality in hazelnut: Hazelnut handbook Access Date: 23.07.2017, http://www.kalitelifindik.org/index. php?sayfa=findik_el_kitabi.138&d=tr
24. Turkish Chamber of Agricultural Engineers (UCTEA). (2016). Hazelnut reports 2016. php?kod=26370&tipi=17&sube=0 Date
25. 07.2017,http://www.zmo.org.tr/genel/bizden_detay.
26. Turkish Grain Board (2016). The 2015 year hazelnut sectorial report. Access Date: 20.01.2017.
27. Zaman, M. (2004). Geographical distribution and production of hazelnut gardens in Turkey. Eastern Geographical Review, 9(11), 49-92.