Rekabet SoruşturmasınınBankaların Piyasa Değerine Etkisi: BirOlay Çalışması Analizinden Kanıtlar

Yıl 2017, Sayı: 631, 75 - 90, 01.09.2017

Fatih Cemil Özbuğday

Öz

Bu makalede, Türkiye’de fiyatın belirlenmesinde uyumlu eylemde bulunan firmalar hakkında yapılan bir olay çalışması sunulmaktadır. Söz konusu olay çalışmasında, pay piyasasının Rekabet Kurulu’nun bankalar hakkında yürüttüğü rekabet soruşturmasına gösterdiği reaksiyon analiz edilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda, standart bir Piyasa Modeli tahmin edilerek, günlük anormal getiriler hesaplanmıştır. Sonuçlar, örneklemdeki bankaların paylarının kümülatif ortalama anormal getirilerinin soruşturma açılması aşamasında –%2,6, nihai karar aşamasında ise –%0,8 olduğunu göstermektedir. Hesaplanan kümülatif ortalama anormal getirilerin karşılığı olarak, haklarında rekabet soruşturması açılmasından ötürü, örneklemdeki bankaların toplam piyasa değerlerinde 2011 Kasım fiyatlarıyla 1,9 milyar TL’lik bir kayıp; soruşturmanın tamamlanarak bankaların faizler üzerinde uzlaştığı kararına varılmasının örneklemdeki bankaların toplam piyasa değerlerinde 2013 Mart fiyatlarıyla 1,3 milyar TL’lik bir kayıp hesaplanmıştır. Bankaların piyasa değerinde yaşanan bu düşüşün önemli bir kısmı, itibarlarının zarar görmesinden ve uzlaşmanın sona ermesinden ötürü gelecek kârlılıklarındaki düşüş beklentisinden kaynaklanmaktadır. Son olarak, Rekabet Kurulu’nun bankalar için yürüttüğü soruşturma süreçlerinin gelecekte olası anti-rekabetçi davranışlar üzerinde caydırıcı etkileri olacağı söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Rekabet politikası, bankacılık piyasası, olay çalışması

The Impact of Antitrust Investigation on Banks’ Market Value: Evidence from an Event Study Analysis

Öz

In this paper, an event study on firms involved in concerted practices in pricefixing in Turkey is presented. In the study, the stock market response to the antitrust investigation conducted by the Competition Board on banks is analyzed. To this end, a standard Market Model is estimated. The results indicate that the cumulative average abnormal return of banks in the sample is –2.6% around the opening phase and –0.8% around the final decision phase. These numbers correspond to a total market value loss of 1.9 billion TRY (in 2011 November prices) around the opening of the investigation and 1.3 billion TRY (in 2013 March prices) around the final decision. A significant part of this decline in the market value of the banks is due to reputation loss and the expectation of a drop in future profits. The antitrust investigation will also have deterrent effects on possible anticompetitive behavior in the future.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Antitrust policy, banking market, event study

Kaynakça

• AGUZZONI, Luca, Gregor LANGUS ve Massimo MOTTA; (2013), “The Effect of EU Antitrust Investigations and Fines on a Firm’s Valuation”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 61(2), ss. 290-338.
• BANERJEE, Ajeyo ve E. Woodrow ECKARD; (1998), “Are Mega-Mergers Anticompetitive? Evidence From The First Great Merger Wave”, RAND Journal of Economics, 29(4), ss. 803- 827.
• BINDER, John J.; (1988), “The Sherman Antitrust Act and the Railroad Cartels”, Journal of Law and Economics, 31(2), ss. 443-468.
• BITTLINGMAYER, George ve Thomas W. HAZLETT; (2000), “DOS Kapital: Has Antitrust Action against Microsoft Created Value in the Computer Industry?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 55(3), ss. 329-359.
• BOSCH, Jean-Claude ve E. Woodrow ECKARD Jr.; (1991), “The Profitability of Price Fixing: Evidence from Stock Market Reaction to Federal Indictments”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(2), ss. 309-317.
• BRADY, Una ve Robert M. FEINBERG; (2000), “An Examination of Stock-Price Effects of EU Merger Control Policy”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18(6), ss. 885-900.
• BROWN, Stephen J. ve Jerold B. WARNER; (1985), “Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies”, Journal of Financial Economics, 14(1), ss. 3-31.
• BURNS, Malcolm R.; (1977), “The Competitive Effects of Trust-Busting: A Portfolio Analysis”, Journal of Political Economy, 85(4), ss. 717-739.
• BURNS, Malcolm R.; (1983), “An Empirical Analysis of Stockholder Injury Under §2 of the Sherman Act”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 31(4), ss. 333-362.
• CARREE, Martin, Andrea GÜNSTER ve Maarten Pieter SCHINKEL; (2010), “European Antitrust Policy 1957–2004: An Analysis of Commission Decisions”, Review of Industrial Organization, 36(2), ss. 97-131.
• CICHELLO, Michael ve Douglas J. LAMDIN; (2006), “Event Studies and the Analysis of Antitrust”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 13(2), ss. 229-245.
• DE VANY, Arthur ve Henry MCMILLAN; (2004), “Was the Antitrust Action That Broke Up the Movie Studios Good for the Movies? Evidence from The Stock Market”, American Law and Economics Review, 6(1), ss. 135-153.
• ECKBO, B. Espen; (1983), “Horizontal Mergers, Collusion, and Stockholder Wealth”, Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), ss. 241-273.
• ECKBO, B. Espen; (1992), “Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence”, Journal of Finance, 47(3), ss. 1005-1029.
• ELLERT, James C.; (1976), “Mergers, Antitrust Law Enforcement and Stockholder Returns”, Journal of Finance, 31(2), ss. 715-732.
• FEE, C. Edward ve Shawn THOMAS; (2004), “Sources of Gains in Horizontal Mergers: Evidence from Customer, Supplier, and Rival Firms”, Journal of Financial Economics, 74(3), ss. 423-460.
• GARBADE, Kenneth D., William L. SILBER ve Lawrence J. WHITE; (1982), “Market Reaction to the Filing of Antitrust Suits: An Aggregate and Cross-Sectional Analysis”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), ss. 686-691.
• GILLIGAN, Thomas W.; (1986), “The Competitive Effects of Resale Price Maintenance”, RAND Journal of Economics, 17(4), ss. 544-556.
• GÜNSTER, Andrea ve Mathijs VAN DIJK; (2016), “The Impact of European Antitrust Policy: Evidence from the Stock Market”, International Review of Law and Economics, 46, ss. 20- 33.
• HERSCH, Philip L.; (1994), “The Effects of Resale Price Maintenance on Shareholder Wealth: The Consequences of Schwegmann”, Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(2), ss. 205-216.
• HOSKEN, Daniel ve John David SIMPSON; (2001), “Have Supermarket Mergers Raised Prices? An Event Study Analysis”, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(3), ss. 329-342.
• MULLIN, George L., Joseph C. MULLIN ve Wallace P. MULLIN; (1995), “The Competitive Effects of Mergers: Stock Market Evidence from the US Steel Dissolution Suit”, RAND Journal of Economics, 26(2), ss. 314-330.
• ÖZTUNALI, Aydın; (2008), Birleşme ve Satın Almalar Yoluyla Değer Yaratımı, Ankara Üniversitesi, Ankara.
• PORTER, Robert H.; (1983), “A Study of Cartel Stability: The Joint Executive Committee, 1880-1886”, Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), ss. 301-314.
• PRAGER, Robin A.; (1992), “The Effects of Horizontal Mergers on Competition: The Case of the Northern Securities Company”, RAND Journal of Economics, 23(1), ss. 123-133.
• SCHELD, Denise, Johannes PAHA ve Nicolas FANDREY; (2016), “Managing Antitrust Risks in the Banking Industry”, European Competition Journal, 12(1), ss. 113-136.
• SCHUMANN, Laurence; (1993), “Patterns of Abnormal Returns and the Competitive Effects of Horizontal Mergers”, Review of industrial Organization, 8(6), ss. 679-696.
• SHAHRUR, Husayn; (2005), “Industry Structure and Horizontal Takeovers: Analysis of Wealth Effects on Rivals, Suppliers, and Corporate Customers”, Journal of Financial Economics, 76(1), ss. 61-98.
• SINGAL, Vijay; (1996), “Airline Mergers and Competition: An Integration of Stock and Product Price Effects”, Journal of Business, 69(2), ss. 233-268.
• STEPHAN, Andreas; (2009), “An Empirical Assessment of the European Leniency Notice”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(3), ss. 537-561.
• STILLMAN, Robert; (1983), “Examining Antitrust Policy Towards Horizontal Mergers”, Journal of Financial Economics, 11(1-4), ss. 225-240.
• VELJANOVSKI, Cento; (2007), “Cartel Fines in Europe: Law, Practice and Deterrence”, World Competition, 30, ss. 65–86.
• WARREN-BOULTON, Frederick R. ve Serdar DALKIR; (2001), “Staples and Office Depot: An Event-Probability Case Study”, Review of Industrial Organization, 19(4), ss. 467-479.