DAVRANIŞSAL KURUMSAL FİNANS BAĞLAMINDA ÇIPALAMA (DAYANAK NOKTASI) ÖNYARGISININ FİNANSAL KARARLARDAKİ ETKİSİ

Öz

İşletmelerde finansal karar süreçleri en önemli yönetim aşamalarından biridir. Bu aşama, özellikle büyümekte olan işletmeler açısından hatalı kararların maliyetinin yüksek olması nedeniyle son derece dikkatli yürütülmesi gereken ve karar süreçlerini etkileyebilecek tüm faktörlerin dikkate alınmasını gerektiren bir süreci ifade eder. Bunun yanında, pratik hayatta, işletmelerde karar süreçleri geleneksel finansın varsaydığı gibi sadece rasyonellik ve beklenen fayda teorileri bağlamında alınmamaktadır. Yöneticilerin karar süreçleri üzerinde etkisi olan çeşitli psikolojik ve davranışsal faktörlerin de dikkate alınması sağlıklı kararların alınabilmesi için şarttır. Bu çalışmada söz konusu olgulardan hareketle davranışsal kurumsal finans kapsamında dikkate alınan dayanak noktası önyargısının Küçük ve Orta Büyüklükteki İşletme yöneticilerinde izlenme düzeyi ve alınan bazı finansal boyutlu kararlardaki etkisi incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda işletme yöneticilerinin dayanak noktası önyargı düzeyleri tespit edilmiş ancak yatırım ve finansman kararları üzerinde herhangi bir etkisi tespit edilememiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dayanak Noktası,Çıpalama,Finansal Kararlar,Davranışsal Finans

Kaynakça

1. AMIR, E. ve Ganzach, Y. (1998). Overreaction and underreaction in analysts' forecasts. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 37(3), 333-347.
2. ARIELY, D., Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D., 2003. Coherent arbitrariness: stable demand curveswithout stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 73–105.
3. BAKER, M. ve Wurgler, J. (2011). Behavioral corporate finance: An updated survey (No. w17333). National Bureau of Economic Research.http://www.nber.org/papers/w17333.pdf
4. BAKER, M., Pan, X. ve Wurgler, J. (2009). A reference point theory of mergers and acquisitions (No. w15551). National Bureau of Economic Research.http://www.nber.org/papers/w15551.pdf
5. BAKER, M., Pan, X. ve Wurgler, J. (2012). The effect of reference point prices on mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 106(1), 49-71.
6. BLANKENSHIP, K. L., Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. ve Macy, C. L. (2008). Elaboration and consequences of anchored estimates: An attitudinal perspective on numerical anchoring. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1465-1476.
7. BOKHARI, S. ve David G. (2011), Loss Aversion and Anchoring in Commercial Real Estate Pricing: Empirical Evidence and Price Index Implications, Real Estate Economics 39(4): 635–670.
8. CHAPMAN, G. B. ve Johnson, E. J. (2002). Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 120-138.

9. CHIA-HSING, H., Padmanabhan, P. ve Zhang, W. (2012). Mitigating the Impact of Managerial Anchoring: The Case for Management by Committee for Major Corporate Financial Decisions,Multinational Finance Journal, 2013, Vol 17, No. 3/4, pp. 341-369.
10. CRITCHER, C. R. ve Gilovich, T. (2008). Incidental environmental anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(3), 241-251.
11. DOUGAL, C., Engelberg, J., Garcia, D. ve Parsons, C. A. (2012). Journalists and the stock market. Review of Financial Studies, hhr133.
12. ENGLICH, B. ve Mussweiler, T. (2001). Sentencing under uncertainty: Anchoring effects in the courtroom,.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31,1535–1551.
13. ENGLICH, B., Mussweiler, T. ve Strack, F. (2006). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(2), 188-200.
14. EPLEY, N. ve Gilovich, T. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391-396.
15. EPLEY, N. ve Gilovich, T. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological science, 17(4), 311-318.
16. FURNHAM, A. ve Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 35-42.
17. GALINSKY, A. D. ve Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(4), 657.
18. GRAU, I. ve Bohner, G. (2014). Anchoring revisited: The role of the comparative question. PloS one, 9(1).
19. HUANG, C. H. ve Padmanabhan, P. (2011). Off-Shoring, Managerial Anchoring, and Firm Value: A Two Period Model. International Review of Business Research Papers, 7(5), 16-34.
20. HUANG, R., Tan, K. J. K. ve Faff, R. (2013). CEO Overconfidence and Corporate Debt Maturity. Journal of Corporate Finance, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2311530 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2311530
21. JACOWITZ, K. E. ve Kahneman, D. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
22. Kahneman, D. ve Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
23. KARA, İ., E., (2011). The Impact of Anchoring Bias on Corporate Profits and Shareholders Wealth, Journal of Economics and Finance Studies, 3(2), 105-115
24. KAUSTİA, M., Alho, E. ve Puttonen, V. (2008). How much does expertise reduce behavioral biases? The case of anchoring effects in stock return estimates. Financial Management, 37(3), 391-412.
25. Kıyılar, M. ve Akkaya, M. (2016), Davranışsal Finans, İstanbul: Literatür Yayıncılık
26. KLAYMAN, J. ve Ha, Y. W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological review, 94(2), 211.
27. KUDRYAVTSEV, A. ve Cohen, G. (2011). Behavioral biases in economic and financial knowledge: Are they the same for men and women?.Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 1(1), 15-52.
28. LUPPE, M. R. ve Fávero, L. P. L. (2012). Anchoring heuristic and the estimation of accounting and financial indicators. International Journal of Finance and Accounting, 1(5), 120-130.
29. MATSUMOTO, A. S., Fernandes, J. L., Ferreira, I. K. ve Chagas, P. C. (2013). Behavioral Finance: A Study of Affect Heuristic and Anchoring in Decision Making of Individual Investors. Available at SSRN 2359180.
30. MCELROY, T. ve Dowd, K. (2007). Susceptibility to anchoring effects: How openness-to-experience influences responses to anchoring cues. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(1), 48-53.
31. MONTIER, J. (2002). Behavioural finance:Insights into Irrational Minds and Markets, Wiley Finance, First Edition.
32. MUSSWEILER, T. ve Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 136-164.
33. MUSSWEILER, T. ve Strack, F. (2004). The Euro in the common European market: A single currency increases the comparability of prices. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 557-563.
34. PECH, W. ve Milan, M. (2009). Behavioral economics and the economics of Keynes. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 891-902.
35. PLOUS, S. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: The effects of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(1), 67-91.
36. POMPIAN, M. M. (2006). Behavioral finance and wealth management. How to Build Optimal Portfolios That Account for Investor Biases, New Jersey.
37. RAMIAH, V., Zhao, Y., Moosa, I. ve Graham, M. (2014). A behavioural finance approach to working capital management. The European Journal of Finance, (ahead-of-print), 1-26.
38. SCHKADE, D. A. ve Johnson, E. J. (1989). Cognitive processes in preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(2), 203-231.
39. Simon, H. A. (1947), Administrative Behavior. New York: Macmillan.
40. Simon, H. A. (1979), Rational Decision-Making in Business Organizations. American Economic Review 69, 495-501.
41. Simon, H. A. (1995), Rationality in Political Behavior. Political Psychology, 16, 45- 61.
42. SOUFANI, K., Tse, T., Cole, O., Aboulamer, A. (2012). Do Behavioural Biases Explain Capital Structure Decisions?, European Financial Management Association 2012 Annual Meetings, June 27-30, Barcelona, Spain.
43. STERMAN, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management science, 35(3), 321-339.
44. STRACK, F. ve Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 437.
45. TERRY, E. (2014). Anchoring Effects in Inventory Control Decisions, Doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian University Department of Supply and Value Chain Management Fort Worth, TX.
46. Tevfik, A.T. ve Tevfik, G. (2018), Kurumsal Finansın Temelleri, İstanbul: Beta Basım Yayım Dağıtım.
47. TVERSKY, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
48. UECKER, W. C. (1978). A behavioral study of information system choice. Journal of Accounting Research, 169-189.
49. WEGENER, D. T., Petty, R. E., Detweiler-Bedell, B. T. ve Jarvis, W. B. G. (2001). Implications of attitude change theories for numerical anchoring: Anchor plausibility and the limits of anchor effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(1), 62-69.
50. WELSH, D. H. ve Zellweger, T. (2010). Can we afford it? Investment decisions of family and nonfamily owners. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 16(2), 21-41.
51. WILSON, T. D., Houston, C. E., Etling, K. M. ve Brekke, N. (1996). A new look at anchoring effects: basic anchoring and its antecedents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125(4), 387.
52. WRIGHT, W. F. ve Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(1), 68-82.
53. ZELLWEGER, T. M., Frey, U. ve Halter, F. A. (2005). A behavioral perspective to financing decisions in family and nonfamily firms. University of St. Gallen, Center for Family Business, https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/export/DL/46212.pdf