FIRM PERFORMANCE AND OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE RELATIONSHIP: THE CASE OF BORSA ISTANBUL

Öz

This study investigates the impacts of different ownership structure types in 255 non-financial firms listed in Borsa Istanbul on their firm performance measured by return on asset (ROA) over the years from 2009 to 2018. The ownership structures of these traded firms are categorized as block, institutional, domestic and foreign investors. Furthermore, the domestic and foreign investor types are also divided as individual and institutional investors in order to examine ownership impacts in more details. The empirical findings suggest that the institutional ownership improves the financial performance in these firms, yet this positive impact results from the foreign institutional ownership not from the domestic institutional investors. The foreign individual investors also have positive significant effect on the performance, whereas an increase in the proportion of domestic individual investors impair the financial performance. On the other hand, there exists no significant relationship between block ownership representing the ownership concentration and the firm performance. 

FİRMA PERFORMANSI VE SAHİPLİK YAPISI İLİŞKİSİ: BORSA İSTANBUL ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Bu çalışma Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören 255 finansal olmayan şirketin sahiplik yapısındaki farklı türlerdeki yatırımcı oranlarının, varlık getirisi olarak ölçülen firma performanslarının üzerindeki etkilerini 2009-2018 yılları için incelemektedir. Halka açık olan bu şirketlerdeki sahiplik yapısı; sahiplik yoğunluğunu gösteren blok yatırımcı ve sahiplik yapısındaki kurumsal, yerli ve yabancı yatırımcıların oranları şeklinde ölçülmüştür. Ayrıca yerli ve yabancı yatırımcı türleri de bireysel ve kurumsal yatırımcı olarak ikiye ayrılarak da sahiplik yapısının etkisi daha detaylı incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın ampirik bulguları kurumsal yatırımcı oranı arttıkça şirket performansının da arttığını ortaya koymuştur. Ancak bu etki yerli kurumsal yatırımcı üzerinden değil, yabancı kurumsal yatırımcı üzerinden gerçekleşmektedir. Ayrıca yabancı bireysel yatırımcı oranındaki artış firma performansını olumlu ve anlamlı bir şekilde etkilerken, yerli bireysel yatırımcı oranındaki artışın şirket performansını olumsuz yönde etkilediği bulunmuştur. Diğer taraftan, firma sahiplik yapısındaki yoğunluğun blok yatırımcı tarafından ölçüldüğü modellerde ise blok yatırımcı oranındaki artışın firma performansını anlamlı bir şekilde etkilemediği tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kurumsal yönetişim
• sahiplik yapısı
• firma performansı.

Kaynakça

1. Abdullah M. I., Sarfraz, M., Qun, W. and Chaudhary, M. (2019). Ownership concentration impact on firm financial performance. LogForum 15 (1), 107-118.
2. Akman, N.H., Mugan, C.S. and Akisik, O., 2011. “Ownership structure effect on firm performance: evidence from an emerging market”, working paper presented at the 8th International Accounting Conference Corporate Governance and Control, 20-22 October 2011, Izmir University of Economics Conference Hall, Izmir, Turkey.
3. Algüner, A. (2012). Institutional Investors in Turkey. Ed. Çetin, T. ve Oğuz, F. Regulation and Competition In The Turkish Banking and Financial Markets içinde, Chapter 11, 225 -246. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
4. Aydin, N., Sayim, M. and Yalama, A. (2007). Foreign Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 11, 103-111.
5. Barron, D.N. and West, E. (1990). A Time to Grow and a Time to Die: Growth and Mortality of Credit Unions in New YorkCity, 1914-1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100 (2), 381-421.
6. Chang, X., Chen, Y., and Zolotoy, L. (2017). Stock liquidity and stock price crash risk. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 52(4).
7. Chauhan, Y., Kumar, S., and Pathak, R. (2017). Stock liquidity and stock prices crash-risk: Evidence from India. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 41, 70–81.
8. Cornett, M. M., Marcus, A.J., Saunders, A. and Tehranian, H. (2007). The impact of institutional ownership on corporate operating performance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 31, 1771–1794.

9. Çiftçi, I., Tatoğlu, E., Wood, G., Demirbağ, M. and Zaim, S. (2019). Corporate governance and firm performance in emerging markets: Evidence from Turkey. International Business Review, 28, 90–103.
10. David P. And Kochhar, R. (1996). Barriers to Effective Corporate Governance by Institutional Investors Implications for Theory and Practice. European Management Journal, 14(5), 457- 466.
11. Demsetz, H. and Lehn, K. (1985). The Structure of Corporate Ownership: Causes and Consequences. Journal of Political Economy ,93(6), 1155-1177. Doğan, M. (2016). Yönetici ve Yabancı Sahipliğinin Sermaye Yapısı Üzerindeki Etkileri: BIST’te İşlem Gören İmalat Sanayi Firmaları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(28), 49-69.
12. Doğan, M. and Topal, Y. (2015). Sahiplik yapısının firma performansı üzerine etkisi: Türkiye örneği. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 20(4), 165-177.
13. Douma, S., George, R. and Kabir, R. (2006). Foreign and domestic ownership, business groups, and firm performance: Evidence from a large emergıng market. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 637–657.
14. Ehikioya, B. I. (2009). Corporate governance structure and firm performance in developing economies: Evidence from Nigeria. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 9(3), 231–243.
15. Gunasekarage, A., Hess, K. and Hu, A. (2007). The influence of the degree of state ownership and the ownership concentration on the performance of listed Chinese companies. Research in International Business and Finance, 21, 379–395.
16. Gurbuz, A.O. and Aybars, A (2010). The Impact of Foreign Ownership on Firm Performance, Evidence from an Emerging Market: Turkey. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 2 (4), 350-359.
17. Jensen, M., and Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
18. Kömeçoğlu, E. and Vuran, B. (2018). Kurumsal Yönetim İle Firma Karlılığı Arasındaki İlişki: Borsa İstanbul' Da Bir Uygulama. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 3(4), 704-713.
19. Lin, Y. R and Fu, X. M. (2017). Does institutional ownership influence firm performance? Evidence from China. International Review of Economics and Finance, 49, 17–57.
20. Mandacı, P.E. and Gümüş, G.K. (2010). Ownership Concentration, Managerial Ownership and Firm Performance: Evidence from Turkey. South East European Journal of Economics and Business, 5(1), 57-66.
21. Mura, R. (2007). Firm Performance: Do Non-Executive Directors Have Minds of Their Own? Evidence from UK Panel Data. Financial Management, Autumn 2007, 81 – 112.
22. Nakano, M. and Nguyen, P. (2013) Foreign ownership and firm performance: evidence from Japan's electronics industry, Applied Financial Economics, 23(1), 41-50.
23. Nashier, T. and Gupta, A. (2016). The Effect of Institutional Ownership on Firm Performance. The IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 15(3), 36-56.
24. Nguyen, T., Locke, S., and Reddy, K. (2014). A dynamic estimation of governance structures and financial performance for Singaporean companies. Economic Modelling, 40, 1–11.
25. Önder, Z. (2003). Ownership concentration and firm performance: Evidence from Turkish firms. METU Studies in Development, 30 (December), 181-203.
26. Phung, D. N and Le, T.P.V. (2013). Foreign Ownership, Capital Structure and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from Vietnamese Listed Firms. IUP Journal of Corporate Governance, 12(2), 40-58.
27. Sakawa, H. and Watanabel, N. (2020). Institutional Ownership and Firm Performance under Stakeholder-Oriented Corporate Governance. Sustainability, 12, 1021.
28. Thanatawee, Y. (2014). Institutional Ownership and Firm Value in Thailand. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting 7(2), 1-22.
29. Topaloğlu, E.E., Coşkun, N. and Özkan, C. (2016). Sahiplik Yapısı ile Finansal Performans Arasındaki İlişkinin Borsa İstanbul 30 Endeksi’ndeki Şirketlerde Test Edilmesi. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar, 53 (620), 87-109.