Browsing by Subject "Ownership structure"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Do banking groups shape the network structure? Evidence from Turkish interbank market(Elsevier, 2019) Sümer, Tuba Pelin; Özyıldırım, SüheylaUsing a unique exposure data on Turkish banking system (disaggregated according to bank ownership structure and instrument level), we study the effects of ownership structure on the interbank network structure. During the sample period of 2003–2017, we observe that foreign and state deposit banks are the dominant institutions shaping the structure of the network under different contracts. Foreign banks, in particular, have a higher coreness vector in derivative exposures through their comparative advantage in offsetting derivative transactions. Moreover, our findings suggest that when foreign investors acquire domestic banks, the network structures of the acquired bank change considerably. We also present evidence that local and Basel III regulations play a significant role in the formation of the network structure through liquidity channel. We found highly liquid large banks and well-capitalized non-large banks have become more centralized in the interbank security market. The central bank's efforts to restore liquidity in the money markets during and after the global financial crisis seem to have increased the central role of foreign deposit banks in the overnight lending market against state and large private deposit banks.Item Open Access Equity ownership structure, risk taking, and performance: an empirical investigation in Turkish listed companies(Routledge, 2002) Gürsoy, G.; Aydoğan, K.The paper describes the main characteristics of ownership structure of Turkish nonfinancial firms listed on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) and examines the impact of ownership structure on performance and risk-taking behavior of Turkish firms. Turkish corporations can be characterized as highly concentrated, family owned firms attached to a group of companies generally owned by the same family or a group of families. Ownership structure is defined along two attributes: concentration and identity of the owner(s). We conclude that there is a significant impact of ownership structure—ownership concentration and ownership mix—on both performance and risk-taking behavior of the firms in our sample. Higher concentration leads to better market performance but lower accounting performance. Family owned firms, in contrast to conglomerate affiliates, seem to have lower performance with lower risk. Government-owned firms have lower accounting but higher market performance with higher risk.Item Open Access Financial liberalization in Turkey and the evolution of ownership structures(Bilkent University, 2023-08) Mıhcı, AtamertThis thesis describes how ownership structures of Turkish listed companies changed from 1986 to 2020. The financial liberalization program, implemented in the 1980s, aimed to increase financial literacy and expand the investor base. The opening of the stock exchange, Istanbul Stock Exchange, (ISE) in 1986 was a part of the financial liberalization program. The opening of a modern stock market aimed to widen the investor base and spread firm control across society. I examine the 40 companies first listed on Istanbul Stock Exchange in 1986. One company is dropped from the sample due to missing data for 1986. Six of the remaining 39 companies had ceased operations by 2020. Thirty-three companies are still in operation in 2020 with 6 of them going private in the interim. Two of the six private companies did not have publicly available ownership data. The largest shareholder, on average, controlled 34 percent, the three largest shareholders 61 percent, and the five largest controlled 65 percent of shares in 1986 in the 31 sample companies. The largest shareholder controlled 59 percent, the three largest shareholders 74 percent, and the five largest controlled 76 percent of shares in 2020. I found that ownership concentration, the measure of how control is concentrated across the largest shareholders, increased in Turkish firms from their first listing in 1986 to 2020. Contrary to the aims of the financial liberalization program, the results suggest, ownership became more concentrated in the hands of the largest shareholders.Item Open Access Firm size, ownership structure, and systematic liquidity risk : the case of an emerging market(Elsevier B.V., 2017) Şensoy, AhmetPrevious studies support the hypothesis that institutional ownership leads to an enhanced systematic liquidity risk by increasing the commonality in liquidity. By using a proprietary database of all incoming orders and ownership structure in an emerging stock market, we show that institutional ownership leads to an increase in commonality in liquidity for mid- to-large cap firms; however, only individual ownership can lead to such an increase for small cap firms, revealing a new source of systematic liquidity risk for a specific group of firms. We also reveal that commonality decreases with the increasing number of investors (for both individual and institutional) at any firm size level; suggesting that as the investor base gets larger, views of market participants become more heterogeneous, which provides an alternative way to decrease the systematic liquidity risk.Item Open Access Systemic risk and financial networks(Bilkent University, 2019-12) Sümer, Tuba PelinThis thesis investigates the interbank relations of Turkish banks with each other and foreign banks abroad. In the first chapter, we focus on the interbank relations between domestic banks and study the effects of bank ownership structure on the in terbank network structure. During the sample period of 2003-2017, we observe that foreign and state-owned banks play dominant role in shaping the network structure. Foreign banks, in particular, have a higher coreness vector in derivative exposures through their comparative advantage in offsetting derivative transactions. More over, our findings indicate that when a foreign investor acquires a domestic bank, the network structure of the acquired bank changes considerably. We also present evidence that local and Basel III regulations play a significant role in the formation of the network structure through liquidity channel. In the second chapter, we focus on the interbank relations between banks in Turkey and foreign banks abroad for 2014-2018 period. Funding from foreign banks in repo, deposit and loan type is an important financing channel for domestic banks. For hedging currency risk, domestic banks are also making derivative transactions with foreign counterparties. We docu ment several network statistics and analyze the similarities of bank rankings in these statistics. Moreover, we examine the similarities between different instrument-level networks as repo, loan, deposit and derivatives. By differentiating foreign banks as the banks having shares in domestic banks and others and the banks that work ac cording to islamic principles and others, we investigate the evolvement of interbank relations between these groups.