TURKISH BANKING SECTOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSES

Öz

This study evaluates the weaknesses and strengths of the Turkish banking sector by using the techniques of DuPont analysis and CAMELS rating from 2001 to 2017. The effects and results of the banking sector reconstruction program implemented after the 2001 financial crisis and Turkey’s attempt to become European Union member are also investigated and evaluated under the same time span. In general, due to financial recovery policies implemented after the 2001 economic crisis, the banking industry has shown improvements and has become stronger as the performance gap between the analyzed units have converged over time. Traditional ratio analyses are found to be consistent with advanced models. Human capital, managerial skills and organizational structure deliver high quality output, but it is also observed that a need for an adequate risk management department still continues as evidenced on skimping hypothesis of NPL’s. Deposit banks are clustered as state owned, privately owned and foreign banks. Foreign banks performance is the worst of all. State owned deposit banks in the Turkish banking sector are performing better than their competitors but this should not mean that crowding out foreign banks out of the system would increase overall performance. Turkish banks are observed to have a lower performance in managing asset quality and vulnerability to market risk than do foreign banks. In order to maintain a solid and sustainable system, successful policies must continue, especially in the areas of asset quality and liquidity management. Also, supervisory transparency should be increased, even if it may embrace negative effects on the financial actors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CAMELS,Financial Crisis,Risk and Regulation

TÜRK BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜ PERFORMANS ANALİZLERİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, DuPont analizi ve CAMELS derecelendirme tekniklerinden yararlanarak 2001 - 2017 yılları arasında Türk bankacılık sektörünün zayıflıklarını ve güçlü yönlerini değerlendirmektedir. Türkiye’nin Avrupa Birliği üyeliği hedefleri kapsamında 2001 finansal krizi sonrasında uygulanan güçlü ekonomiye geçiş programının etkileri ve sonuçları incelenerek değerlendirlmiştir. Genel olarak, 2001 ekonomik krizinden sonra uygulanan finansal iyileşme politikaları sayesinde, bankacılık sektörü güçlenerek gelişmiş ve analiz edilen birimler arasındaki performans boşluğu daralmıştır. Geleneksel oran analizlerinin ileri modellerle tutarlı olduğu bulunmuştur. Beşeri sermaye, yönetsel beceriler ve organizasyonel yapı, yüksek kalitede çıktı sağlamaktadır; ancak Donuk Alacakların(NPL) eksik sağlama(skimping) hipotezinin gösterdiği gibi, yeterli bir risk yönetim departmanına duyulan ihtiyacın devam ettiği görülmektedir. Mevduat bankaları devlet, özel ve yabancı bankalar olarak sınıflandırlmıştır. Yabancı bankaların performansı en kötüdür. Türk bankacılık sektöründeki devlete ait mevduat bankaları rakiplerinden daha iyi performans göstermektedir, ancak bu durum yabancı bankaların sistem dışına çıkmasının genel performansı artıracağı anlamına gelmemelidir. Türk bankalarının varlık kalitesi riskini ve piyasa riskini yönetmede yabancı bankalara göre daha düşük bir performans gösterdiği görülmektedir. Sağlam ve sürdürülebilir bir sistemi korumak için, özellikle aktif kalitesi ve likidite yönetimi alanlarında başarılı politikalar devam etmelidir. Ayrıca, finansal aktörler üzerinde olumsuz etkilere sahip olsa bile, denetleyici otorite şeffaflığı artırılmalıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• CAMELS,Finansal Kriz,Risk ve Regülasyon

Kaynakça

1. Akıncı, D. A., Matousek, R., Radic, N., & Stewart, C. (2012). Monetary Policy And Banking Sector : Lessons from Turkey (CENTRE FOR EMEA BANKING, FINANCE & ECONOMICS No. 31/12). Retrieved from http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/16665/
2. Albayrak, Y. E., & Erkut, H. (2005). Banka performans değerlendirmede analitik hiyerarşi süreç yaklaşımı. Itüdergisi Mühendislik, 4(6), 47–58.
3. Ariff, M., & Can, L. (2008). IMF Bank-Restructuring Efficiency Outcomes: Evidence from East Asia. Journal of Financial Services Research, 35(2), 167–187. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-008-0047-2
4. Aysan, A. F., & Ceyhan, Ş. P. (2008). What determines the banking sector performance in globalized financial markets? The case of Turkey. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 387(7), 1593–1602. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2007.11.003
5. Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency. (2011). BDDK Tarafından Bankalara İlişkin Herhangi Bir Derecelendirme Yapılmakta Mıdır? Retrieved from https://www.bddk.org.tr/websitesi/turkce/Kurum_Bilgileri/SSS/10482denetim3.pdf
6. Barros, C. P., Managi, S., & Matousek, R. (2012). The technical efficiency of the Japanese banks: Non-radial directional performance measurement with undesirable output. Omega, 40(1), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.02.005
7. BDDK/Strateji Geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı. (2010). Bankacılıkta Yapısal Gelişmeler.
8. Berger, A. N. (2007). International Comparisons of Banking Efficiency. New York University Salomon Center, Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, 16(3), 119–144.

9. Berger, A. N., & DeYoung, R. (1997). Problem loans and cost efficiency in commercial banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(6), 849–870. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(97)00003-4
10. Berger, A. N., Deyoung, R., Genay, H., & Udell, G. F. (2000). Globalization of Financial Institutions : Evidence from Cross-Border Banking Performance. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services.
11. Berger, A. N., & Mester, L. J. (1997). Inside the black box: What explains differences in the efficiencies of financial institutions? Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(7), 895–947. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(97)00010-1
12. Bhaumik, S. K., & Dimova, R. (2004). How Important Is Ownership In A Market With Level Playing Field? Journal of Comparative Economics, 32(1), 165–180. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2003.12.001
13. Bowlin, W. F., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Sherman, H. D. (1985). Data Envelopment Analysis And Regression Approaches To Efficiency Estimation And Evaluation*. Annals of Operations Research, 2, 113–138.
14. BRSA. (2001). Towards a Sound Turkish Banking Sector. Retrieved from http://www.bddk.org.tr/WebSitesi/english/Reports/Other_Reports/2642annex_report_towards_a_sound_turkish_banking_sector.pdf
15. BRSA / Institutional Communication and Foreign Relations Department. (2015). BRSA Information Booklet. Ankara. Retrieved from http://www.bddk.org.tr/websitesi/english/About_Us/About_BRSA/5804brsa_booklet_nov2015.pdf
16. Çinko, M., & Avcı, E. (2008). CAMELS Dereceleme Sistemi ve Türk Ticari Bankacılık Sektöründe Başarısızlık Tahmini. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar, 2(2), 25–48. Retrieved from http://www.bddk.gov.tr/WebSitesi/turkce/Raporlar/BDDK_Dergi/6079makale 2.pdf
17. Claessens, S., & van Horen, N. (2011). Foreign Banks: Trends, Impact and Financial Stability. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1977446
18. Conditions for membership - European Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en
19. Das, A., & Ghosh, S. (2006). Financial Deregulation And Efficiency: An Empirical Analysis Of Indian Banks During The Post Reform Period. Review of Financial Economics, 15(3), 193–221. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2005.06.002
20. Duygun Fethi, M., & Pasiouras, F. (2010). Assessing Bank Efficiency And Performance With Operational Research And Artificial Intelligence Techniques: A Survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 204(2), 189–198. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.08.003
21. Fries, S., & Taci, A. (2005). Cost Efficiency Of Banks In Transition: Evidence From 289 Banks In 15 Post-Communist Countries. Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(1), 55–81. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2004.06.016
22. Fukuyama, H., & Matousek, R. (2011). Efficiency of Turkish banking: Two-stage Network System. Variable Returns to Scale Model. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 21(1), 75–91. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2010.08.004
23. George Assaf, a., Matousek, R., & Tsionas, E. G. (2013). Turkish Bank Efficiency: Bayesian Estimation With Undesirable Outputs. Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(2), 506–517. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2012.09.009
24. Isik, I., & Hassan, M. K. (2002). Technical, Scale And Allocative Efficiencies Of Turkish Banking Industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26(4), 719–766. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(01)00167-4
25. Isik, I., & Hassan, M. K. (2003). Financial Deregulation And Total Factor Productivity Change: An Empirical Study Of Turkish Commercial Banks. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27(8), 1455–1485. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4266(02)00288-1
26. Koch, T. W., & MacDonald, S. S. (2015). Bank Management (8th Editio). Cengage Learning. Retrieved from http://instructors.coursesmart.co.uk/9781133494683#extendedisbn
27. Mercan, M., Reisman, A., Yolalan, R., & Emel, A. B. (2003). The Effect Of Scale And Mode Of Ownership On The Financial Performance Of The Turkish Banking Sector: Results of a DEA-Based Analysis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 37(3), 185–202. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0121(02)00045-9
28. Ozkan-Gunay, E. N., & Tektas, A. (2006). Efficiency Analysis of the Turkish Banking Sector in Precrisis and Crisis Period: a Dea Approach. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(3), 418–431. http://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj028
29. Park, K. H., & Weber, W. L. (2006). A Note On Efficiency And Productivity Growth In The Korean Banking Industry, 1992–2002. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(8), 2371–2386. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2005.09.013
30. Sarkar, J., Sarkar, S., & Bhaumik, S. K. (1998). Does Ownership Always Matter ?— Evidence from the Indian Banking Industry. Journal Of Comparative Economics, 26, 262–281.
31. Sensarma, R. (2006). Are Foreign Banks Always The Best? Comparison Of State-Owned, Private And Foreign Banks In India. Economic Modelling, 23(4), 717–735. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.04.002
32. Seyrek, İ. H., & Ata, H. A. (2010). Veri Zarflama Analizi ve Veri Madenciliği ile Mevduat Bankalarında Etkinlik Ölçümü. BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar, 4(2), 67–85.
33. T.C. Kalkınma Bakanlığı. (2013). Onuncu Kalkınma Planı (2014-2018). Ankara. Retrieved from http://www.kalkinma.gov.tr/Lists/Kalknma Planlar/Attachments/12/Onuncu_Kalkınma_Planı.pdf
34. Taşkın, F. D. (2011). Türkiye ’ de Ticari Bankalann Performansini Etkileyen Faktörler. EGE Akademik Bakış, 11(2), 289–298. Retrieved from http://www.onlinedergi.com/MakaleDosyalari/51/PDF2011_2_9.pdf
35. Türker Kaya, Y. (2001). Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe CAMELS Analizi. Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu MSPD Çalışma Raporu. Retrieved from http://www.bddk.org.tr/websitesi/turkce/Raporlar/Calisma_Raporlari/12732001-6.pdf