TURKISH BANKING SECTOR PERFORMANCE ANALYSES

Year 2019, Volume: 10 Issue: 19, 382 - 402, 30.06.2019

Gizay Daver , Güray Küçükkocaoğlu

Abstract

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.

Keywords

CAMELS, Financial Crisis, Risk and Regulation

TÜRK BANKACILIK SEKTÖRÜ PERFORMANS ANALİZLERİ

Abstract

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.

Keywords

CAMELS, Finansal Kriz, Risk ve Regülasyon

References

• 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/
• Albayrak, Y. E., & Erkut, H. (2005). Banka performans değerlendirmede analitik hiyerarşi süreç yaklaşımı. Itüdergisi Mühendislik, 4(6), 47–58.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• BDDK/Strateji Geliştirme Daire Başkanlığı. (2010). Bankacılıkta Yapısal Gelişmeler.
• Berger, A. N. (2007). International Comparisons of Banking Efficiency. New York University Salomon Center, Financial Markets, Institutions & Instruments, 16(3), 119–144.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Claessens, S., & van Horen, N. (2011). Foreign Banks: Trends, Impact and Financial Stability. SSRN Electronic Journal. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1977446
• Conditions for membership - European Commission. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership_en
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Koch, T. W., & MacDonald, S. S. (2015). Bank Management (8th Editio). Cengage Learning. Retrieved from http://instructors.coursesmart.co.uk/9781133494683#extendedisbn
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• 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