ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR VERME YAKLAŞIMI İLE TÜRKİYE’DE BANKA PERFORMANS DEĞERLEMESİ

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 98 - 109, 31.01.2022

Hilal Hümeyra Erdoğan

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı Borsa İstanbul’da faaliyet gösteren bankaların karlılığa dayalı finansal performanslarını analiz etmektir. Performans ölçümü çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri kullanılarak 2016-2020 yılları arasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu kapsamda, bankaların performansını etkileyen en önemli karlılık kriteri ve Borsa İstanbul’da faaliyet gösteren en iyi banka belirlenmektedir. Bankaların karlılığını etkileyen en önemli kriteri belirlemek için Entropi Yöntemi, performansı en yüksek bankayı belirlemek için ise Waspas Yöntemi kullanılmaktadır. Finansal performans değerlendirme kriteri olarak, Vergi Öncesi Kar Marjı, Net Kar Marjı, Aktif Karlılık, Özkaynak Karlılığı, Hisse Başına Kar Büyüme Oranı, Net Satış Büyüme Oranı, Temettü Verimi analize dahil edilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçları temettü veriminin Borsa İstanbul’da faaliyet gösteren bankalar için en iyi performans krteri olduğunu, performansı en yüksek bankanın ise Türkiye Sinasi Kalkınma Bankası olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Performans Yönetimi, Banka, BIST 100 Endeksi, Entropi, Waspas Yöntemi

A MULTICRITERIA DECISION FRAMEWORK FOR BANK PERFORMANCE EVALUATION IN TURKEY

Öz

This study aims to measure financial performances of the banks based on profitability on Borsa Istanbul. The performance measurement was conducted between 2016 and 2020 by utilizing multi-criteria decision-making techniques. Within this context, the study examines the best evaluation criteria affecting the banks’ profitability and determines the best performing bank traded on Borsa Istanbul. While the best evaluation criteria was detected by using Entropy Method, the best performing bank was detected by using Waspas Method. Earnings Before Tax Margin, Net Profit Margin, Return on Assets, Return on Equity, Earnings Per Share Growth, Revenue Growth, Dividend Yield were taken as financial evaluation criteria. The results indicate that while the evaluation criteria of dividend yield is determined as the most efficient criteria for banks, the bank with the best performance is Türkiye Sınai Kakınma Bankası on Borsa Istanbul.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Performance measurement, Bank, BIST 100 Index, Entropy weights, Waspas method.

Kaynakça

• 1. AKÇAKANAT, Ö., EREN, H., AKSOY, E. and ÖMÜRBEK, V. (2017). “Bankacılık Sektöründe Entropi ve Waspas Yöntemleri ile Performans Değerlendirmesi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(2): 285-300.
• 2. AKYÜZ, F., SOBA, A. Ş. and YEŞİL, T. (2020). “Evaluation of Financial Performance of Participation Banks with Camels Analysis Method”, The Journal of Accounting and Finance, 87: 145-166.
• 3. AYTAÇ ADALI, E. and TUŞ IŞIK, A. (2017). “Bir Tedarikçi Seçim Problemi için Swara ve Waspas Yöntemlerine Dayanan Karar Verme Yaklaşımı”, International Review of Economics and Management, 5(4): 56-77.
• 4. BAKIR, M. and ATALIK, Ö. (2018). “Entropi ve Aras Yöntemleriyle Havayolu İşletmelerinde Hizmet Kalitesinin Değerlendirilmesi”, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(1): 617-638.
• 5. BARROS, V., MATOS, P. V. and SARMENTO, J. M. (2020). “What Firm’s Characteristics Drive the Dividend Policy? A Mixed-Method Study on the Euronext Stock Exchange”, Journal of Business Research, 115: 365-377.
• 6. BATIR, T. E., VOLKMAN, D. A. and GUNGOR, B. (2017). “Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Turkey: Participation Banks versus Conventional Banks”, Borsa Istanbul Review, 17(2): 86-96.
• 7. BENLİ, Y. K., KARACA, S. S. and BOZDAN, N. (2018). “Measuring of Performance of Participation Banks with Camels Analysis in Turkey”, Journal of Current Researches on Business and Economics, 8(2): 197-210.
• 8. CHAKRABORTY, S. and ZAVADSKAS, E. K. (2014). “Applicatons of Waspas Method in Manufacturing Decision Making”, Informatica, 25(1): 1-20.
• 9. CHAKRABORTY, S., ZAVADSKAS, E. K. and ANTUCHEVICIENE, J. (2014). “Applications of Waspas Method as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Tool”, Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research/Academy of Economic Studies, 49(1): 5-22.
• 10. ÇETİN, A. C. and BITIRAK, İ. A. (2010). “Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach in Bank Performance Evaluation: An Application in the Commercial Banks and Participation Banks”, Alanya İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(2): 75-92.
• 11. DEMİRGÜNEŞ, K. and ÜÇLER, G. (2015). “Inter-Relationship between Profitability, Growth and Size: Case of Turkey”, Journal of Business, Economics and Finance, 4(4): 659-678.
• 12. ELSAYED, E. A., DAWOOD, A. K. S. and KARTHIKEYAN, R. (2017). “Evaluating Alternatives through the Application of Topsis Method with Entropy Weight”, International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 46(2): 60-66.
• 13. GÜMRAH, A. (2016). “Measuring the Performance of Participation Banks by TOPSIS Method: Turkey and Malaysia Cases”, International Journal of Business and Management Studies, 5(1): 211–218.
• 14. HASSAN, M. K. and BASHIR, A. H. M. (2006). “Determinants of Islamic Banking Profitability”, Book Chapter in Islamic Perspectives on Wealth Creation, Edinburgh University Press New York: Columbia University Press, May 2006.
• 15. HOANG, L. X., DANG, D. Q. and TRAN, T. D. (2020). “The Role of Overconfident CEO to Dividend Policy in Industrial Enterprises”, Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(7): 361-367.
• 16. HUSNA, N. and DESIYANTI, R. (2016). “The Analysis of Financial Performance on Net Profit Margin at the Coal Company”, International Journal of Management and Applied Science, 2(4): 105-108.
• 17. KANDEMİR, T. and KARATAŞ, H. (2016). “Ticari Bankaların Finansal Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile İncelenmesi: Borsa İstanbul’da İşlem Gören Bankalar Üzerine Bir Uygulama (2004-2014)”, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(7): 1766-1776.
• 18. KARAPINAR, A. and DOĞAN, İ. Ç. (2015). “An Analysis on the Performance of the Participation Banks in Turkey”, Accounting and Finance Research, 4(2): 24-33.
• 19. MAHDI, M. and KHADDAFI, M. (2020). “The Influence of Gross Profit Margin, Operating Profit Margin and Net Profit Margin on the Stock Price of Consumer Good Industry in the Indonesia Stock Exchange on 2012-2014”, International Journal of Business Economics and Social Development, 1(3): 34-55.
• 20. ÖZKAN, T. (2019). “Performance Measurement of Participation Banks in Turkey: An Application based on Analysis of Camels”, Turkish Studies Economics, Finance, Politics, 14(3): 903-920.
• 21. PUSPITANINGTYAS, Z. And KURNIAWAN, A. W. (2012). “H ow Good the Financial Ratios in Determining the Dividend Yield?”, Airlangga Accounting International Conference & Doctoral Colloquium, June 28-29th, Nusa Dua, Bali.
• 22. SHANNON, C. E. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication”, Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379-423.
• 23. SPATHIS, Ch., KOSMIDOU, K. and DOUMPOS, M. (2002). “Assessing Profitability Factors in the Greek Banking System: A Multicriteria Methodology“, International Transactions in Operational Research, 9(5): 517-530.
• 24. WET, J. (2013). “Earnings per share as a Measure of Financial Performance: Does It Obscure more than It Reveals?”, Corporate Ownership & Control, 10(4): 265-275.
• 25. WU, J., SUN, J., LIANG, L. and ZHA, Y. (2011). “Determination of Weights for Ultimate Cross Efficiency using Shannon Entropy”, Expert Systems with Applications, 38: 5162-5165.
• 26. YAĞLI, İ. (2020), “Multi-Criteria Financial Performance Analysis of Turkish Participation Banks”, Alanya Academic Review Journal, 4(3): 861-873.
• 27. YAYAR, R. and BAYKARA, H. V. (2012). "An Implementation upon Efficiency and Productivity of Participation Banks with TOPSIS Method", Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(4): 21‐42.
• 28. YILDIZ, S. B. (2019). “Performance Analysis of Turkey’s Participation and Conventional Indices Using Topsis Method”, Journal of Islamic Accounting and Business Research, 11(7): 1403-1416.
• 29. YILMAZ, B. Ö., TOZAN, H. and KARADAYI, M. A. (2020). “Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Applications in Military Healthcare Field”, Journal of Health Systems and Policies, 2(2): 149-181.
• 30. ZAVADSKAS, E. K., TURSKIS, Z. and ANTUCHEVICIENE, J. (2012). “Optimization of Weighted Aggregated Sum Product Assessment”, Electronics and Electrical Enginering, 122(6): 3-6.