THE CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE COMPANY VALUATION REPORTS IN TURKIYE

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 136 - 150, 31.12.2024

Selahattin Çağatay Öztürk , Guven Sayılgan

https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2024.1953

Abstract

Purpose- This study marks a pioneering effort in researching the scope of valuation reports prepared before initial public offerings in Türkiye. There is a scarcity of literature on the extent of analyst reports in the international arena. The primary objective is to address this significant gap in the existing body of literature. It serves as a valuable resource for academic researchers while also offering highly beneficial insights for brokerage firms and investors. Furthermore, the study has yielded crucial findings relating to regulatory authority regulations and the advancement of capital markets.
Methodology- A total of 116 valuation reports prepared prior to 116 initial public offerings in Türkiye from 2013 to 2021 underwent manual text analysis. A Yes/No algorithm was used to calculate scores for 97 variables under the sections CP, CCI, CFA, CSA, and CVA. The cumulative score across all sections represented the VRCI.
Findings- The average IPO valuation report covers 31 out of 97 variables. The CP indicator has consistently increased, particularly after 2019. The average scores generated from the CCI indicator in valuation reports are relatively low. The CSA indicator scores are notably low. The score for the CVA 1 indicator is also low. The average score of the CVA 3 varies each year, while the CVA 4 indicator shows an increase after 2018.
Conclusion- The valuation reports have significant deficiencies in terms of content. The findings indicate that brokerage firms should mitigate information asymmetry by furnishing comprehensive information in valuation reports. The evidence suggests a need for further development in the capital markets. Despite adherence to international valuation standards and widely accepted valuation principles, the limited coverage in valuation reports contributes to investor information asymmetry.

Keywords

Initial public offerings, valuation, valuation report, content analysis

References

• Borsa Istanbul. (2024). Equity Market Directive. https://www.borsaistanbul.com/files/equity-market-directive.pdf
• Capital Markets Board of Türkiye. (2013). Bulletin edition 2013/05. https://spk.gov.tr/data/61e0b4991b41c613a0d633d1/2013_5.pdf
• Cervera, I. (2016). Analyst Consensus in The Eurozone Stock Markets. The Spanish Review of Financial Economics, 14(2), 66-79. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.srfe.2016.07.001
• Cowan, A. R. & Salotti, V. (2020). Anti-Selective Disclosure Regulation and Analyst Forecast Accuracy and Usefulness. Journal of Corporate Finance, 64. doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101669.
• Crain, N., Parrino, R. & Srinivasan, R. (2021). Uncertainty, Prospectus Content, and the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings. Journal of Empirical Finance, 64, 160-182. doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2021.08.007
• Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• Dambra, M., Field, L. C., Gustafson, M. T. & Pisciotta, K. (2018). The Consequences to Analyst Involvement in the IPO Process: Evidence Surrounding the JOBS Act. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 65(2–3), 302-330. doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2017.12.001
• Damodaran, A. (2014). Applied Corporate Finance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN: 978-1-119-08187-6
• Damodaran, A. (2021). The Little Book of Valuation. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN: 978-1-394-24506-2
• Frankel, R., Kothari, S.P. & Weber, J. (2006). Determinants of the Informativeness of Analyst Research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 41(1-2), 29-54. doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2005.10.004
• Hanley, K. W. & Hoberg, G. (2010). The Information Content of IPO Prospectuses. The Review of Financial Studies, 23(7), 2821-2864. doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhq024
• III-62.1 Communiqué on Valuation Standards in Capital Markets. (2017). Official Gazette (29966, 01. February 2017).
• Jin, S., Kimbrough, M. D. & Wang, I. Y. (2024). Privileged Information Access, Analyst Consensus Building, and Stock Return Volatility: Evidence from The JOBS Act. Advances in Accounting, 64. doi.org/10.1016/j.adiac.2023.100729
• Malmendier, U. & Shanthikumar, D. (2014). Do Security Analysts Speak in Two Tongues? The Review of Financial Studies, 27(5), 1287-1322. doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu009
• Mariani, M., Cardi, M., D'Ercole, F., Raimo, N. & Vitolla, F. (2023). Make It Easy: The Effect of Prospectus Readability on IPO Performance. Journal of Accounting Literature, Accepted Date: 15 September 2023. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-07-2023-0115
• Öztürk, S.Ç. (2024). Content Analysis of Valuation Reports Prepared for Initial Public Offerings at Borsa Istanbul Between 2013 And 2021. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ankara University Graduate School of Social Sciences, Ankara.
• Ramnath, S., Rock, S., & Shane, P. (2008). The Financial Analyst Forecasting Literature: A Taxonomy with Suggestions for Further Research. International Journal of Forecasting, 24(1), 34–75. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2007.12.006
• Sayılgan, G. (2024). Soru ve Yanıtlarıyla İşletme Finansmanı. Siyasal Kitabevi. ISBN: 978-605-9221-45-0
• Sırma, İ. (2016). The Impact of Prospectus Information to The Investor Demand During the Public Offerings of the Capital Market Instruments. International Journal of Management Economics and Business. 12(29), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.20162922028
• The International Valuation Standards Council. (2017). International Valuation Standards. IVSC. London.
• Ünlü, U. & Ersoy, E. (2016). The Determinants of Under-pricing and Short-Run Perform of Initial Public Offerings: Evidence from ISE for 1995-2008. Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal, 23(2), 243-258. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2715574
• VII-128.1 Communiqué on Shares. (2013). Official Gazette (28685, 22. June.2013).
• Whitehouse-Furrer, M. & Perrin, D. (2015). Comprehensibility and Comprehensiveness of Financial Analysts’ Reports. Studies in Communication Sciences, 15(1), 111-119. doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2015.03.007