Venture capital and business angels: Turkish case

Venture capital (VC) may be defined as a support to entrepreneurial talents and appetite by turning ideas and basic science into products and services which are expected to envy the world. Although venture capitalists and business angels supply external funding for risky investments, the aspects of venture capitalists and business angels are different approaching the investment candidates. Business angels in the last decade have become undispansible players providing external capital for risky start-ups and contributing technological advancements and economic growth. Business angels could be either private wealth individuals or institutional venture capitalists. Private angels invest their own money that's why their invested capacity are limited while venture capitalists invest others'money with an extensive source. This research examines the the way of doing business for venture capitalists and business angels. Furthermore, venture capital market and business angels are reviewed for the Turkish case.Publisher's Versio

An overwiev on public-private-partnership projects: a case of Turkey

Purpose- The aim of this paper is to review the PPP projects that have undertaken in Turkey over a period of 1980-2018. Methodology- The statistics of PPP projects are examined in terms of the number of projects, values of investments, sectoral distribution. Findings- Turkey is one of the top users of PPP financing models to construct public projects by comparing the some other countries initiating lots of PPP projects over a long period. Conclusion- In order to achieve success in this complex structure consisting of public, sponsors and financiers in PPP, it is critical to prepare a good project. Predictability of the project obligations will minimize the possibility of additional costs in the future. Ensuring that the tendering and contracting processes are correctly configured, hence, all project risks can be identified and the risk sharing can be done more accurately.Publisher's Versio

Finansal raporlama standartları

A long time ago many financially developed countries adopted accounting standards for financial reporting. It may be strongly argued that standardization in financial reporting is one of the fundamental elements of improving financial markets. Turkey first adopted standards for bank reporting in 1986. However, financial reporting standards for nonfinancial firms have been established only in very recent years (1995). Yet, in spite of the improvements, it is hardly possible to say that newly adopted standards are sufficient for accurate comparisons of financial reports. That is to say, the treatment of new financing tools (e.g. leasing, factoring, forfeiting) and off-balance sheet activities (e.g. forwards, futures, swaps, assurances, guarantees) are still not completely standardized. Having understood the needs, improvements in the standards of accounting will help improve the Turkish financial markets and eventually economic growth.Finansal yapıları gelişmiş ülkeler uzun zaman önce finansal raporlama için gerekli muhasebe standartlarını oluşturmuşlardır. Buna bağlı olarak, finansal raporlamada sağlanacak standardizasyonun, finansal piyasaları geliştireceği söylenebilir. Türkiye ilk defa banka raporlarında bu standartları uygulamaya 1986 yılında başladı. Fakat finansal sektör dışında bu standartların uygulamaya konması 1995 yılında oldu. Raporlama standardizasyonunda sağlanan bu gelişmelere rağmen, günümüzde finansal raporların tam olarak karşılaştırılabilir olduğunu söylemek zordur. Leasing, faktoring ve forfaiting gibi yeni kullanılmaya başlanan finansman tekniklerinin ve bilanço dışı aktivitelerin nasıl muhasebeleştirileceği net değildir. Bu ihtiyaçları gözö-nünde tutarak muhasebe standartlarının geliştirilmesi hem Türk finansal piyasalarının gelişmesine katkıda bulunacak hem de ekonomik gelişmeye hız katacaktır

Standards of Financial Reporting

Finansal yapıları gelişmiş ülkeler uzun zaman önce finansal raporlama için gerekli muhasebe standartlarını oluşturmuşlardır. Buna bağlı olarak, finansal raporlamada sağlanacak standardizasyonun, finansal piyasaları geliştireceği söylenebilir. Türkiye ilk defa banka raporlarında bu standartları uygulamaya 1986 yılında başladı. Fakat finansal sektör dışında bu standartların uygulamaya konması 1995 yılında oldu. Raporlama standardizasyonunda sağlanan bu gelişmelere rağmen, günümüzde finansal raporların tam olarak karşılaştırılabilir olduğunu söylemek zordur. Leasing, faktoring ve forfaiting gibi yeni kullanılmaya başlanan finansman tekniklerinin ve bilanço dışı aktivitelerin nasıl muhasebeleştirileceği net değildir. Bu ihtiyaçları gözö-nünde tutarak muhasebe standartlarının geliştirilmesi hem Türk finansal piyasalarının gelişmesine katkıda bulunacak hem de ekonomik gelişmeye hız katacaktır.A long time ago many financially developed countries adopted accounting standards for financial reporting. It may be strongly argued that standardization in financial reporting is one of the fundamental elements of improving financial markets. Turkey first adopted standards for bank reporting in 1986. However, financial reporting standards for nonfinancial firms have been established only in very recent years (1995). Yet, in spite of the improvements, it is hardly possible to say that newly adopted standards are sufficient for accurate comparisons of financial reports. That is to say, the treatment of new financing tools (e.g. leasing, factoring, forfeiting) and off-balance sheet activities (e.g. forwards, futures, swaps, assurances, guarantees) are still not completely standardized. Having understood the needs, improvements in the standards of accounting will help improve the Turkish financial markets and eventually economic growth

Revisiting discounted cash flows model as a capital budgeting decision tool

Purpose- In thisstudy, the classical discounted cash flows (DCDF) model is revisited and the input factors of the model are analysed in details. Methodology- A model analysis approach is used in this research. The fundamental assumptions and the input factors (cash flows, time period, risk, discount rate, etc.) of DCF model are questioned. Findings- NPV and IRR are two methods using discounted cash flows and oftenly applied for capital budgeting decisions. The assumptions used in the DCF analysis are very strong and not fitting well in the reality of practical life. Economic life of the project may be much longer or shorter than projected in the analysis. The computation of discount rate bases on subjective interpretations (weights of capital components, cost of debt, opportunity cost of equity). Estimation of cash flows is the most critical input of the analysis but generally the least weighted factor (CF or FCF, inclusion of only relevant cash flows, depreciation and interest expenses, installments, credit sales and purchases, etc.). Risk adjustment can be made either on the discount rate or expected cash flows. Moreover, the analysis of international capital investments makes the issue more complicated. Also, the inclusion of real options adds an economic value to the analysis. Conclusion- DCF is not straight forward a capital budgeting model anyone can easily use. The application of DCF requires expertise and a picky view on details. Nevertheless, the acceptance of capital investments utilizing DCF method can not be independent of overall company strategic goals.Publisher's Versio

A measurement of dollarization

Purpose- Dollarization refers to the use of foreign currency instead of domestic currency by citizens as a result of macroeconomic instabilities. Generally, due to the instability caused by inflation, the local currency loses its functions as a unit of account, a store of value, and in the last stage, a medium of exchange. Partial dollarization is the fulfillment of any of the three functions of money by a foreign currency. The purpose of this study is to measure the dollarization level of the Turkish economy between 2000 and 2022 (a 23-year period). This study employs the most comprehensive definition of portfolios of Turkish Lira and foreign currency to measure the degree of asset and liability dollarization. This study measures the dollarization degree of the Turkish economy by using the composite dollarization index developed by Reinhart et al., (2003). Methodology- The composite dollarization index based on the definition by Reinhart et al., 2003, has two components; asset dollarization and liability dollarization. This study measures the level of dollarization by using Reinhart's definition of the Turkish economy between 2000 and 2022. We construct the asset dollarization as a ratio of the foreign currency portfolio to the total portfolio. Liability dollarization is defined as the sum of the ratio of foreign currency credit to the total credit, the ratio of the domestic debt in foreign currency to the total domestic debt, and the ratio of total external debt to the GDP. The composite dollarization index is the sum of asset dollarization and liability dollarization. Findings- The dollarization in bank deposits rose to 57%in 2001 and then dropped to 27% in 2010. The dollarization in bank deposits has started to rise again since 2013. The increase in dollarization in bank deposits has accelerated since 2021. It reached 70% by the middle of 2022. Asset dollarization has a similar path to the dollarization in bank deposits. The level of the asset dollarization is generally lower than the level of the deposit dollarization for all years examined. The liability dollarization also follows a similar path. As the degree of asset dollarization increases, the degree of liability dollarization also increases. Finally, the composite dollarization index has been rapidly increasing since 2010. Conclusion- As discussed extensively in the literature, the degree of dollarization is an important indicator of a healthy economy. The literature supports that there is a strong link between the degree of dollarization and macroeconomic indicators. When economic instabilities are on the screen, the use of a stable foreign currency instead of domestic currency increases. Some previous studies measured the dollarization by considering only asset dollarization or only liability dollarization may have deficiencies in the comprehensive definition of dollarization. Therefore, a comprehensive measurement of dollarization should better consider both the assets and liabilities of the balance sheets. The empirical findings of this study indicate that the degree of dollarization has been increasing since 2013 and the rate of increase accelerated especially after 2021 based on the comprehensive dollarization index constructed.Publisher's Versio

Gender differences in risk perception and investment behavior

Purpose- Gender differences in investment behavior have been reported by various studies. Behavioral investing seeks to bridge the gap between psychology and investing. Behavioral finance is becoming more predominant in the financial and investment industry. The general concept of behavioral finance suggests that investors do not necessarily make rational investment decisions. Many results of behavioral finance studies show that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses in terms of skills required for investment management. This study focuses on the role of gender in risk perception and investment behavior, with a sample size of 288 respondents. In other words, the aim of the research is to reveal whether there is a difference in investment preferences between men and women. It is investigated whether the gender factor affects investment decision-making behavior. Using an experimental finance approach, the relationship between gender diversity and investment decisions is examined. Methodology- This study focuses on the role of gender in risk perception and investment behavior, with a sample size of 288 respondents. Gender differences in investment behavior have been reported by various studies. Behavioral investing seeks to bridge the gap between psychology and investing. Behavioral finance is becoming more predominant in the financial and investment industry. The general concept of behavioral finance suggests that investors do not necessarily make rational investment decisions. In accordance with the aim of the research, to reveal whether there is a difference in investment choices between men and women, the investment differences between the genders are shown using the graphic method in this study. Then, the normality test and Mann-Whitney U test were applied by using 288 respondents, respectively. Findings- According to the graphic method results it is found that women generally prefer to invest between 10% and 25% of their monthly income in financial markets. T cryptocurrency market is riskier than the stock market for both women and men. Women experience more stress than men at the thought of losing money because of their investment choices. The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for estimating the reliability of the scale employed for respondents’ investment preference was found to be 0.701. The results of data processing obtained by the value of the Kolmogorov-Simirnov significant which means the data were not normally distributed residuals. According to Mann-Whitney U test results, it is underlined that the gender factor differs according to the following variables based on 95% significance level: Conclusion- Survey with different aspects of questions focus on investors’ risk perception. “How often do you check your investments?”; “What is your approximate holding time of an investment instrument?”; “What percentage of your monthly income would you prefer to invest in financial markets?”; “The thought of losing money because of my investment choices is stressed me out”; “Have you ever invested in Cryptocurrencies?”; “What is the most suitable option for your knowledge of the cryptocurrency market?”. It is concluded that there is a significant difference between gender and investment preference.Publisher's Versio

Market risk premiums in BIST 100 in the Covid era

Purpose- Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) is the most widely used and popular method in analysis of investment projects, stock valuation, firm valuation, mergers and acquisitions, initial public offerings and secondary public offerings. The determination of market risk premium is one of the most important inputs in the application of this model. The determination of market risk premium for the Turkish market has not deeply studied in the literature so far. This study intends to calculate the market risk premium for the Turkish Stock Market with a special emphasis on the Covid-19 era. Methodology- The monthly data from the Reuters Database are collected for the BIST100 and 17 different sectoral indexes for the years of 2019 and 2020. Moreover, the monthly average short term interest rates on the Turkish Treasury Bonds are obtained from the database of Central Bank of Turkey for the years of 2019 and 2020. Based upon the historical observations, the market risk premium is defined as the difference in between the market index returns (BIST100 and 17 sectoral indexes) and the average short term interest rates on monthly basis. Findings- The market risk premiums measured on BIST100 index are about 10% in 2019 and 20% in 2020. The market risk premium is doubled in the Covid era. The volatilities of BIST100 index are 7.86% in 2019 and 8.15% in 2020. The volatility of market risk premiums are also significantly increased in the Covid era. Conclusion- Covid era has significantly increased the market risk premiums and volatilities of the Turkish market. The results of this study may be used as a reference study for local and international financial institutions, valuation industry and trade firms and academics for an approximation of market risk premium in the Covid era.Publisher's Versio

Financial inclusion: the case of Turkey

Purpose- Financial inclusion is defined as a process that ensures the ease of access, availability and usage of the formal financial system for all members of an economy by emphasizing the use of accessibility, availability of financial services. A financial sector is measured and compared on four main features; debt is the size of financial institutions, access is the access and use of financial services by the users, efficiency is the efficiency in the provision of financial services, stability is the stability in the provision of financial services. Financial inclusion, in short, is adults' access and use of financial services. The purpose of this paper is to measure the level of financial inclusion of Turkey for the period of 2000-2017. Methodology- The World Bank data covering 2000-2017 period is extracted for Turkey. The whole financial system of Turkey is defined to be a combination of banks, nonbanks financial institutions and exchange markets. The related indicators for each of the subsections of the Turkish financial system are determined for banks, nonbanks and exchange markets providing a continued data stream. Thus, 32 indicators for banks, 6 indicators for nonbanks and 16 indicators for exchange markets are determined for the financial inclusion index for Turkey. All indicators are in percentages. All individual indicators are summed for the computation of subsectional index and then the growth rate in each subsectional index is computed. Finally, the growth rates of each subsectional index are summed and weighted considering the subsectional asset sizes or trading volume. Findings- The highest growth years in financial inclusion of banks; 15.26% in 2002, 8.05% in 2009, and 4.42% in 2014. The lowest growth years in financial inclusion of banks; -10.36% in 2001 and -2.00% in 2008. The average growth rate for banks for the 17 year period is 2.14%. The highest growth years in financial inclusion of nonbanks; 24.47% in 2004, 28.37% in 2006, 26.34% in 2009, 53.07% in 2010, and 30.86% in 2014. The lowest growth years in financial inclusion of nonbanks; -18.74% in 2001, -22.95% in 2011 and -11.39% in 2016. The average growth rate for nonbanks for the 17 year period is 6.19%. Conclusion- Financial inclusion simply means a larger size of financial institutions and a variety of financial products and services available for the use of adult individuals, businesses and governmental agencies. The existing literature advocate that the economic growth can be accelerated by an increase in financial inclusion. The empirical analysis for Turkey supports the literature where the growth in financial inclusion index enhances a higher growth in GDP and a much higher growth in GDP per capita. The project titled “Istanbul as an International Financial Center” may easily improve the level of financial inclusion in Turkey. For a sustainable economic growth and a fair income distribution in Turkey, the policy makers and administrators should set the rules and regulations to improve the financial inclusion.Publisher's Versio

Financial inclusion for selected OECD countries

Purpose- Financial inclusion is defined as a process that ensures the ease of access, availability, and usage of the formal financial system for all members of an economy by emphasizing the use of accessibility and availability of financial services. A financial sector is measured and compared on four main features; debt is the size of financial institutions, access is the access and use of financial services by the users, efficiency is the efficiency in the provision of financial services, and stability is the stability in the provision of financial services. Financial inclusion, in short, is adults' access to and use of financial services. This study aims to measure the financial inclusion level for selected OECD countries from 2010-2021. Also, this study aims to estimate the effect of financial inclusion on economic growth and income inequality for selected countries. Methodology- The data used in this study cover a range of variables related to financial inclusion from various institutions, including the IMF-Financial Access Survey (IMF-FAS), the World Bank - World Development Indicators (WB-WDI), the World Bank - Global Financial Development Database (WB-GFDD) and the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). These variables provide insights into the dimensions and determinants of financial inclusion and their impact on economic and social outcomes for selected OECD countries. In the study, we run panel data regressions for each group separately, using GDP per capita as the dependent variable to determine the impact of the Financial Inclusion Index on economic growth. We also construct two different models for each group of countries with and without the added control variables into the models. Findings- The analysis reveals that the effect of financial inclusion on economic growth is negative for all groups of countries. The impact is significant for Group 1 and Group 2. The magnitude of coefficients changes when we add control variables to the model. However, it does not change the significance level of the coefficients. The magnitude of the coefficients increases as countries’ per capita income increases. At the same time, the effect of financial inclusion on the GINI index is significant only in the model for Group 3 with control variables. The sign of the impact is negative. It implies that the GINI index decreases as the financial inclusion index increases. So, the effect of financial inclusion on income inequality is positive for countries in Group 3. Conclusion- The empirical results did not support the relationship between financial inclusion and economic growth (GDP per capita). These results may be explained by advocating the financial sector's quick and fundamental digital transformation. Hence, the rules for availability, accessibility, and usage of financial products and system are completely changed in the past ten years. On the other hand, the relationship between financial inclusion and income inequality, measured by GINI Index, is consistent with the literature only for Group 3 countries (developing countries). The increase in the gap between rich-developed and developing countries may explain these results. An increase in financial inclusion still supports adjustments in income inequality in developing countries, but its effect is disappeared in developed countries in the last 12 years.Publisher's Versio