Determinants of Capital Structure in Financial Institutions: The Case of Turkey

Bu çalışmada Türk bankacılık sektöründe sermaye yapısının belirleyicileri analiz edilmektedir. Bankaların düzenlemelerdekinden daha fazla sermaye tutmasını açıklayacak değişkenleri belirlemek için deneye dayalı bir model sunulmuştur. Türk bankacılık sektöründen 2002–2006 dönemini kapsayan banka düzeyinde veriler ile bir panel veri seti oluşturulmuştur. Model bu veriler kullanılarak genelleştirilmiş momentler metodu (GMM) ile tahmin edilmiştir. Bulgular gecikmeli sermayenin, portföy riskinin, ekonomik büyümenin, sektörün ortalama sermayesinin, ve sermaye getirisinin tutulan sermaye ile pozitif ilişkili olduğunu; buna karşılık varlık büyüklüğünün ve mevduat payının negatif ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Türkiye

Finansal Kurumlarda Sermaye Yapısını Belirleyen Faktörler: Türkiye Örneği

This study analyzes the determinants of capital structure in the Turkish banking sector. We propose an empirical model in order to identify the factors that explain why banks hold capital beyond the amount required by the regulation. We used a panel data set that employs bank-level data from the Turkish banking sector covering the period 2002–2006 and estimated the model with generalized method of moments (GMM). The findings of this study suggest that lagged capital, portfolio risk, economic growth, average capital level of the sector and return on equity are positively correlated with capital adequacy ratio and share of deposits are negatively correlated with capital adequacy ratio.

Keywords:

Turkey,

PDF

___

1. Alfon I., Argimón I., and Bascuñana-Ambrós, P.. (2005). How Individual Capital Requirements Affect Capital Ratios In UK Banks And Building Societies. Banco de España Working Paper, No: 0515
2. Arellano, M., and Bond, S.. (1991). Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2): 277-297.
3. Baum, C. F., Schaffer, M. E., and Stillman, S.. (2003). Instrumental Variablesand GMM: Estimation and Testing. Boston College, Department of Economics Working Paper, No: 545.
4. Berger, A. N., Herring, R. J., and Szegö, G. P.. (1995). The Role of Capital in Financial Institutions. Wharton Working Paper, No: 95-01.
5. Hahn, J. and Hausman J.. (2002). A New Specification Test for Validity of Instrumental Variables. Econometrica, 70(1): 163-189.
6. Haubrich, J. G., and Wachtel, P.. (1993). Capital Requirements And Shifts In Commercial Bank Portfolios. Federal Reserve Bank Of Cleveland Economic Review, 29(3): 2-15.
7. Hausman, J. A.. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6): 1251-1271.
8. Kleff, V. and Weber, M. (2003). How Do Banks Determine Capital? Empirical Evidence from Germany. ZEW Discussion Paper, No: 03-66
9. Marques O. M. and Santos C. M. (2003). Capital Structure Policy and Determinants: Evidence from the Portuguese Banking Industry. Unpublished Working Paper.
10. Miller H. M. (1995). Do the M&M Propositions Apply to Banks? Journal of Banking and Finance, 19(3): 483-489.
11. Modigliani F. and Miller H. M. (1958). The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and The Theory of Investment. American Economic Review, 48(3): 261-297.
12. Osterberg P. W. and Thomson B. J. (1990). Optimal Financial Structure and Bank Capital Requirements: An Empirical Investigation. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper, No: 9007.
13. Wong, J., Choi, K., and Fong, T.. (2005). Determinants of the capital level of banks in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Monetary Authority Quarterly Bulletin, September 2005: 14-37.