The Effect of Gender Diversity on Credit Risk and Profitability in the Turkish Banking Sector

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to examine the effect of gender diversity of Turkish deposit banks on financial performance. For this purpose, non-performing loans (NPL) and loan loss provisions (LLP) are used as credit risk indicators, Z-Score as bankruptcy risk indicator, return on assets (RAO) and return on equity (ROE) are used as profitability indicators. Methodology: As a method, fixed effects model was applied using resistant estimators. Findings: The results show that the gender diversity of banks is negatively and significantly related to NPL, LLP, which is the credit risk indicator of the banks in the sector, and ROA and ROE, which are the profitability indicators. It has been observed that the gender diversity of banks significantly reduces the credit risk of banks. In terms of profitability, contrary to the hypotheses, there is a negative and significant relationship between gender diversity and profitability. These results were also reinforced by sensitivity analysis and it was determined that there are positive and significant relationships between gender diversity and profitability of banks that have a larger share in the banking sector. In addition, it was understood that there is a non-linear U-shaped relationship between gender diversity and profitability. Originality: This study is one of the first studies in the literature on the gender diversity of banks at different levels.

Keywords

• Gender Diversity, Credit Risk, Profitability, Non-Performing Loans, Z-Skor, Bank, Turkey

Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Personelin Cinsiyet Çeşitliliğinin Kredi Riskine ve Kârlılığa Etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türk mevduat bankalarının cinsiyet çeşitliliğinin finansal performans üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir. Bu amaçla çalışmada kredi riski göstergesi olarak takipteki krediler (NPL) ile kredi zarar karşılıkları (LLP), iflas riski göstergesi olarak Z-Skor, kârlılık göstergesi olarak ise aktif kârlılık (RAO) ile öz sermaye kârlılığı (ROE) kullanılmıştır. Yöntem: Yöntem olarak dirençli tahminciler kullanılarak sabit etkiler modeli uygulanmıştır. Bulgular: Sonuçlar, bankaların cinsiyet çeşitliliğinin sektördeki bankaların kredi risk göstergesi olan NPL, LLP ve kârlılık göstergeleri olan ROA, ROE ile negatif ve anlamlı şekilde ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Bankaların cinsiyet çeşitliliğinin bankaların kredi riskini önemli ölçüde azalttığı görülmüştür. Kârlılıklar bakımından ise cinsiyet çeşitliliği ile kârlılık arasında hipotezlerin aksine negatif ve anlamlı ilişki olduğu ortaya çıkmasına rağmen sağlamlık analizlerinde bankacılık sektöründe daha büyük paya sahip bankaların cinsiyet çeşitliliği ile kârlılıkları arasında pozitif ve anlamlı ilişkiler olduğu belirlenmiştir. Cinsiyet çeşitliliği ile kârlılık arasında doğrusal olmayan U şeklinde bir ilişki olduğunu anlaşılmıştır. Özgünlük: Bu çalışma, bankaların farklı kademelerdeki cinsiyet çeşitliliğiyle ilgili olarak literatürde yapılmış olan ilk çalışmalardan biridir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cinsiyet Çeşitliliği
• Kredi Riski
• Kârlılık
• Takipteki Krediler
• Z-Skor
• Banka
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Abou-El-Sood, H. (2021). “Board gender diversity, power, and bank risk taking,” International Review of Financial Analysis, 75: 101733.
2. Adams, R. ve Ferreira, D. (2004). “Gender diversity in the boardroom. European corporate governance institute, finance working paper no. 57.
3. Aksoy, T. ve Donduran, M. (2020). “Türk Bankacılığında Rekabet ve İstikrar,” Finans Politik ve Ekonomik Yorumlar, 57(651): 133-147.
4. Alhan, Y. ve Yüksel, S. (2018). “Kadın Çalışanların Banka Büyüklüğü Ve Karlılığına Etkisi: Engle-Granger Eş Bütünleşme Analizi İle Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama,” İş’te Davranış Dergisi Journal of Behavior at Work, 3(2): 140-148.
5. Ayaydın, H., Pilatin, A. ve Barut, A. (2021). “Takipteki Kredilerin Bankaya Özgü, Finansal ve Makroekonomik Belirleyicileri: Türkiye Örneği,” Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (33): 169-186. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1013685
6. Beck, R., Jakubik, P. ve Piloiu, A. (2015). “Key Determinants Of Non-Performing Loans: New Evidence Froma Global Sample,” Open Economies Review, 26(3): 525-550.
7. Beck, T. ve Laeven, L. (2006). “Resolution of failed banks by deposit insurers: Cross-country evidence,” World Bank policy research working paper, 3920.
8. Beck, T., Behr, P. ve Guettler, A., (2013). “Gender and banking: Are women better loan officers?,” Review of Finance, 17, 1279–1321.

9. Berger, A., Kick, T. ve Schaeck, K. (2014). “Executive board composition and bank risk taking,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 28: 48–65.
10. Bertay, A.C. ve Sınar, Ş. (2020). Türkiye Bankacılık Sektöründe Kadın İstihdamı. Center of Excellence in Finance Araştırma Raporu, Sabancı Üniversitesi.
11. BDDK (2022). Bankacılık Sektörü Verileri. https://www.bddk.org.tr/Veri/Detay/160 (16.02.2022)
12. Boyd, J.H. ve Graham, S. L. (1986). Risk, regulation, and bank holding company expansion into nonbanking. Quarterly Review — Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 10.
13. Breusch, T.S., ve A. R. Pagan. (1980). “The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics,” Review of Economic Studies, 47: 239-253.
14. Bunda, I. and Desquilbet, J.B. (2008). “The bank liquidity smile across exchange rate regimes,” International Economic Journal, 22(3), 361-386.
15. Carter, D.A., Simkins, B.J. ve Simpson, W.G. (2003). “Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value,” Financial Review, 38(1): 33-53.
16. Charness, G. ve Gneezy, U. (2012). “Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking,” Journal of Economic Behavior ve Organization, 83(1): 50–58.
17. Chiaramonte, L., Groci, E. ve Poli, F., (2015). “Should we trust the Z-score? Evidence from the European banking industry,” Glob. Financ. J. 28: 111–131.
18. Croson, R., ve Gneezy, U. (2009). “Gender differences in preferences,” J. Econ. Lit., 47 (2): 448–474.
19. Damian, L.E., Negru-Subtirica, O., Domocus, I.M. ve Friedlmeier, M., (2020). “Healthy financial behaviors and financial satisfaction in emerging adulthood: A parental socialization perspective,” Emerging Adulthood, 8: 548–554.
20. Dezsö, C. L. ve Ross, D. G. (2012). “Does female representation in top management improve firm performance? A panel data investigation,” Strategic management journal, 33(9): 1072-1089.
21. Dimitrios, A., Helen, L., ve Mike, T. (2016). “Determinants of Non-Performing Loans: Evidence from Euro-Area Countries,” Finance Research Letters, 18: 116–119.
22. Dinçer, H., Yüksel, S. ve Kartal, M.T., (2020). Evaluating the Gender effect in the banking performance: an ownership-based analysis in Turkish banking sector in the role of women in Turkish economy: current situation, problems and policies, eds. Nuroğlu, E., Çatak, Ç.
23. Eckel, C.C. ve Grossman, P.J. (2008). “Differences in the economic decisions of men and women: Experimental evidence,” Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, 1: 509–519.
24. Espinoza, R. ve Prasad, A. (2010). Nonperforming Loans in the GCC Banking System ve Their Macroeconomic Effects. IMF Working Paper WP/10/224. Washington: International Monetary Fund.
25. Fama, E. ve Jensen, M. (1983). “Separation of ownership and control,” Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2): 365–375.
26. Farag, H. ve Mallin, C. (2017). “Board diversity and financial fragility: Evidence from European banks,” International Review of Financial Analysis, 49: 98–112.
27. Foos, D., Norden, L., ve Weber, M. (2010). “Loan growth and riskiness of banks,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 34 (12): 2929–2940.
28. Ghosh, A. (2015). Banking-İndustry Specific ve Regional Economic Determinants Of Non-Performing Loans: Evidence From US States,” J. Financ. Stab., 20: 93–104.
29. Goddard, J., Molyneux, P. ve Wilson, J. (2004). “Dynamics of growth and profitability in banking,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 36(6): 1069-1090.
30. Gulamhussen, M.A. ve Santa, S.F. (2015). “Female directors in bank boardrooms and their influence on performance and risk-taking,” Global Finance Journal, 28: 10–23.
31. ILO, (2021). Global İstatistikler. http://www.ilo.org/global/statistics-and-databases/lang--en/index.htm, (21.01.2022).
32. ILO, (2021). The future of diversity. Edited by Christiane Kuptsch and Éric Charest. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_831316.pdf (15.01.2022).
33. Jain, T. ve Jamali, D. (2016). “Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 24, 253–273.
34. Jebran, K., Chen, S. ve Zhang, R. (2020). “Board diversity and stock price crash risk. Research in International Business and Finance, 51: 101122.
35. Jianakoplos, N.A. ve Bernasek, A., (1998). “Are women more risk averse? ,” Economic Inquiry, 36: 620–630.
36. Keeton, W.R. (1999). “Does faster loan growth lead to higher loan losses? Economic Review,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 84(Q II): 57-75.
37. Kinateder, H., Choudhury, T., Zaman, R., Scagnelli, S. D., ve Sohel, N. (2021). “Does boardroom gender diversity decrease credit risk in the financial sector? Worldwide evidence,” Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 73: 101347.
38. Klein, N. (2013). Non-Performing Loans in CESEE: Determinants Ve İmpact On Macroeconomic Performance. IMF Working Paper No. 13/72.
39. Kurtaran, A. ve Eker, D. (2017). “Bankaların Yönetim Kurullarındaki Cinsiyet Çeşitliliği ve Finansal Performans İlişkisi,” Global Journal of Economics and Business Studies, 6(12): 64-72.
40. Laeven, L. ve Levine, R., (2006). “Corporate governance, regulation and bank risk taking. Unpublished; Washington: World Bank.
41. Lewellyn, K.B. ve Muller-Kahle, M.I. (2020). “The corporate board glass ceiling: The role of empowerment and culture in shaping board gender diversity,” Journal of Business Ethics, 165: 329–346.
42. Louzis, D.P., Vouildis, A.T. ve Metaxas, V.L. (2012). “Macroeconomic ve Bank-Specific Determinants of Non-Performing Loans in Greece: A Comparative Study of Mortgage, Business ve Consumer Loan Portfolios,” J. Banking Finance, 36(4): 1012–1027.
43. Macit, F. (2012). “What Determines the Non-Performing Loans Ratio: Evidence from Turkish Commercial Banks,” Center for Economic Analyses Journal of Economics, 13: 33–39.
44. Makri, V., Tsagkanos, A. ve Bellas, A. (2014). “Determinants of Non-performing Loans: The Case Of Eurozone. Panoeconomicus, 61:193–206.
45. Messai, A.S. ve Jouini, F. (2013). “Micro ve Macro Determinants of Non-Performing Loans,” International Journal of Economics ve Financial Issues, 3: 852–860.
46. Moreno-Gómez, J., Calleja-Blanco, J., (2018). “The relationship between women’s presence in corporate positions and firm performance: The case of Columbia,” International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 10: 83–100.
47. Nadeem, M., (2020a). “Corporate governance and supplemental environmental projects: A restorative justice approach,” Journal of Business Ethics, 427: 1–20.
48. Nadeem, M., (2020b). “Does board gender diversity influence voluntary disclosure of intellectual capital in initial public offering prospectuses? Evidence from China,” Corporate Governance: An International Review, 28, 100–118.
49. Nadeem, M., Zaman, R. ve Saleem, I. (2017). “Boardroom gender diversity and corporate sustainability practices: Evidence from Australian Securities Exchange listed firms,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 149: 874–885.
50. Nihan, Y. (2020). “Borsa istanbul’da işlem gören firmaların yönetim kurullarındaki kadın üye varlığı ile firma kârlılığı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi,” Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(1): 163-177.
51. Owen, A.L. ve Temesvary, J., (2018). “The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards,” Journal of Banking ve Finance, 90: 50–63.
52. Ozili, P.K. (2017). “Bank Earnings Management ve İncome Smoothing Using Commission ve Fee İncome: A European Context,” International Journal of Managerial Finance, 13(4): 419-439.
53. Pilatin, A. ve Ayaydin, H. (2022). “The relationship between banks’ credit quality, credit growth and social capital: Evidence from Turkish banking sector. Middle East Development Journal, 14(1): 133-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/17938120.2022.2074673
54. Rehman, A.U. Aslam, E., ve Iqbal, A. (2022). “Intellectual capital efficiency and bank performance: evidence from islamic banks,” Borsa Istanbul Review, 22(1): 113-121.
55. Reinhart, C. ve Rogoff, K. (2011). “From Financial Crash to Debt Crisis,” Am. Econ. Rev. 101 (5): 1676–1706.
56. Rinaldi, L. ve Sanchis-Arellano A. (2006). “Household Debt Sustainability: What Explains Household Non-Performing Loans? ,” An Empirical Analysis. ECB Working Paper.
57. Russell, L.T., Beckmeyer, J.J., Coleman, M. ve Ganong, L. (2016). “Perceived barriers to postdivorce coparenting: Differences between men and women and associations with coparenting behaviors,” Family Relations, 65: 450–461.
58. Samırkaş, M. C., Evci, S. ve Ergün, B. (2014). “Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Karlılığın Belirleyicileri,” KAU IIBF Dergisi, 5(8): 117-134.
59. Shukeri, S. N., Shin, O. W. ve Shaari, M. S. (2012). “Does board of director's characteristics affect firm performance? Evidence from Malaysian public listed companies,” International business research, 5(9): 120-135.
60. Sims, C.M., ve Morris, L.R., (2018). “Are women business owners authentic servant leaders? ,” Gender in Management: An International Journal, 33: 405–427.
61. Skała, D., ve Weill, L. (2018). Does CEO gender matter for bank risk?. Economic Systems, 42(1): 64-74.
62. Staikouras, C. ve Wood, G. (2003). The determinants of bank profitability in Europe”, Paper presented at the European Applied Business Research Conference, Venice, 9-13 June.
63. Staikouras, C., Mamatzakis, E. ve Koutsomanoli-Filippaki, A. (2008). “Cost efficiency of the banking industry in the South Eastern European region. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 18(5), 483-497.
64. TBB, (2022). Banka, Çalışan ve Şube Bilgileri. https://www.tbb.org.tr/tr/bankacilik/banka-ve-sektor-bilgileri/istatistiki-raporlar/59 (01.02.2022)
65. TBB, İstatistik Raporlar (2020). https://www.tbb.org.tr/Content/Upload/istatistikiraporlar/ekler/1295/Banka_Calisan_ve_Sube_Sayilari-Mart_2020.pdf (12.11.2021)
66. TÜİK, (2022). İstatistiklerle Kadın, 2020. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Istatistiklerle-Kadin-2020-37221 (10.02.2022)
67. Velte, P., (2017). “Do women on board of directors have an impact on corporate governance quality and firm performance? A literature review,” International Journal of Sustainable Strategic Management, 5: 302–346.
68. Westphal, J. ve Milton, L. (2000). “How experience and network ties affect the influence of demographic minorities on corporate board,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 366–417.
69. Yurt, N. (2020). “Borsa istanbul’da işlem gören firmaların yönetim kurullarındaki kadın üye varlığı ile firma kârlılığı arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi,” Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 29(1): 163-177.
70. Zaman, R., Jain, T., Samara, G. ve Jamali, D. (2020). “Corporate governance meets corporate social responsibility: Mapping the interface,” Business ve Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650320973415.