Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ)! Eylül/Semtember 2019, 8(3) Sosyal Bilimler Araştırma Dergisi! Başvuru/Received: 21/06/2019 Kabul/Accepted: 05/08/2019 Araştırma Makalesi/Research Article http://dergipark.gov.tr/ssrj http://socialsciencesresearchjournal.com

Yılmaz, N. (2019). Performance Analysis of Foreign Deposit in : A Multi-Moora Method. Social Sciences Research Journal, 8 (3), 54-66.

Performance Analysis of Foreign Deposit Banks in Turkey: A Multi-Moora Method

Naci Yilmaz Lecturer, Ph.D., Doğuş University Faculty of Economics and Managerial Administration Department of Economics, , TURKEY [email protected] Orcid: 0000-0003-0107-6448

Abstract

Today the opinion is widely shared by many researchers that banks operating in financial system have a larger part than other financial institutions. This idea is not only based on the relative size of the funds that banks manage, but also based on their fundamental function to be an intermediator in the financial system. The significant role of banks in the system has put the studies on the comparing, measuring and rating of the banks' financial performance to the top agenda of researchers who works in the field of finance. So far, many different methods were developed in order to measure better the performance. In this study, it was targeted to rank the financial performances of foreign owned deposit banks operating in Turkey in the years between 2013 and 2017 by using Multi-MOORA method that is among different multi-criteria decision making methods. As result of this study, the best performing banks are found respectively as MUFG Bank Turkey Inc. and the Arab Inc.in terms of financial performance in the research period.

Keywords: Banking, Bank Performance, Foreign-Owned Deposit Banks, Multi- MOORAMethod

Introduction

Bank financial performance can be measured by some criteria or financial ratios such as capital adequacy, profitability, liquidity, asset quality etc. by analyzing balance sheet and income statements of deposit banks operating in financial system. An analysis of bank financial tables or ratios is the most significant indicator in order to evaluate the management quality and efficiency level in its intermediaryrole between fund seekers and fund suppliers.In this context, the comperative analysis and rating of banks according to their financial performances have always been the focus of attention by all stakeholders (the people who have relationship to the bank) such as investors, depositors, credit customers, bank suppliers, bank employees, rival banks, auditors and governments in addition to bank shareholders and bank managers. Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 55

! Both in the publications of the Banks Association of Turkey (TBB) and also in academic studies about banking, banks have often been grouped and analized according to their types of function (such as deposit banks, participation banks, investment and development banks) or to their types of ownership (such as public-owned deposit banks, private-owned deposit banks, banks assigned by the Saving Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF), foreign-owned banks). It has been also observed that banks can be grouped as to their scale and whether they are listed in the Istanbul Stock Exchange. In addition to these grouping, the period of study can have direct or indirect impact on the research result because it may contain some significant macro or micro economic influences in the valuation of bank performance. It is true that different methods can be used in rating or measurement of financial performance of banks and each method has some advantages and shortcomings when compared to others. These methods are often based on a number of selected financial ratios obtained from the banks' financial statements through the financial analysis. The aim of this study is to measure the financial performance of foreign deposit banks operating in Turkey in years between 2013 and 2017 by using Multi-MOORA method which is among the multi-criteria decision making methods. In this study, after the literature review, some basic information concerning to the used method will be given and then the analysis and its results will be discussed. Eventually there will be a general assessment of the study in conclusion section.

Literature Review

It is seen that some studies analyzing in different sectors of the economy have used MOORA method that is among the multi-criteria decision making methods. When these studies are examined, it is found that the alternatives can be evaluated in terms of different industries and different decision making criteria. In this part of the study, the performance evaluations recently made by using MOORA method for the financial sector institutions such as mainly banking, insurance and leasing firms are summarized in the table 1 below.

Method

The method of “Multi-Objective Optimization by Ratio Analysis” has been first introduced by Willem Karel Brauers and Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas in their work named as “The MOORA method and its application to privatization in a transition economy: Control and Cybernetics" in 2006. The advantages of this method are to evaluate all criteria (purposes), to review spontaneously all the interactions between alternatives and criteria, to use the undirected objective values rather than the heavily subjective normalization. In multi-criteria decision making problems, the decision makers are asked to decide better among infinite or limited number of alternatives. In order to support decision making among infinite number of alternative decisions, the multi-criteria decision making methods have been developed. In literature, regarded as one of the multi-criteria decision making models, the MOORA method contains a limited number of alternatives in practice. The MOORA method begins with the preparation of the matrix including the corresponding values of the different alternatives depending to the different criteria. There are some conditions that need to be taken into consideration when applying the MOORA method. All dependents and criteria must be taken into account. All relations between the criteria and alternatives must be taken into account. The most up-to-date data should be used. They must be evaluated together by applying different MOORA methods including MOORA -Ratio Method, MOORA -Reference Point Approach, MOORA -Full Multiplication Form. (Ersöz and Atav, 2011)

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 56

! Table 1 The List of Literature on Bank Performance Analysis by Moora Method

Research Topic Research Research Findings Method period n Year n Research Research Publicatio Autor and and Autor Özbek, 2005- Foreign-owned OCRA ve Finansbank and was the best 2015 2014 deposit banks in MOORA performing banks. Turkey Uygurtürk, June Internet branches of Fuzzy MOORA The four analized banks are coded as B1, B2, 2015 2013 – the four largest B3 ve B4 in the study. After the evaluation June banks in Turkey based on ten criteria of these banks’ internet 2014 branches, it was proven that B3 has the highest score by its value of 0,136. B2 followed it by its score of 0,129, B1 by its 0,110 and B4 by its 0,099 scores repectively. Şişman ve 2008- Deposit banks AHP ve MOORA was the best, but TEB was the worst Doğan, 2014 whose shares are performing banks. 2016 traded in İstanbul Stock Exchange (BİST) Ömürberk Not Insurance Multi-MOORA The financial performances of the insurance ve Özcan, stated companies in BİST companies whose shares are traded in BİST 2016 was compared and eventually ranked. The company coded as E was found the number one in ranking. Ceylan ve 2015 Leasing companies Multi-MOORA Yapı Kredi Leasing A.O. was the best, but Demirci, in BİST Şeker Leasing A.Ş. was the worst performing 2017 company. Altınöz, 2007- Banks in BİST Fuzzy MOORA İşBankası was the best, however ICBC 2017 2016 andFuzzy AHP Turkey was the worst performing bank. Atukalp, 2015- Private deposit Multi-MOORA Akbank was financially the best performing 2018 2017 banks operating in private-owned deposit bank operating in Turkey Turkey in the period of 2015-2017. In 2015 and in the period of 2016-2017 Türkiye İş Bankası became the second best banks. Atukalp, 2010- Deposit banks in Multi-MOORA As result of analaysis, Akbank was the best in 2018 2016 BİST terms of financial performance. Source: The Autor.

The MULTI-MOORA is not an independent method. It evulates the results of these three different MOORA methods and reviews their final ranking values according to their values of dominance and frequency. Thus, it increases the accuracy and validity of studies. The steps of the MOORA method are shown below: (Önay ve Çetin, 2012; Brauers and Zavadskas 2012; Karaca, 2011). When compared with the other multi-criteria decision making methods like AHP, TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, the MOORA is seen as a better method because it needs to do with the less and thus simple mathematical calculation, the minimal mathematical operations, higher level of reliability (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2012; Özbek, 2017). Being able to be applied by combining all the results of the various MOORA methods, the Multi-MOORA method is explained in Figure (1) below:

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 57

! → Decision Making Matrix → Ratio Method → → Xij → MOORA Referance Point Approach

Purpos Purpose Purpos Purpos

e 1 2 e i… e n Alterna X11 X21 Xi1 Xn1

tive 1 MOORA İ Alterna X12 X22 Xi2 Xn2 → → → Full → Raw Data Raw tive 2 Multipicatio

n Form MULT Alterna X1j X2j Xij Xnj tive j Alterna X1m X2m Xim Xnm tive m Figure 1 Multi-Moora Analysis. Source: (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2012)

The concept of purpose in the decision making matrix can also be named as criteria. Before starting analysis by using the MOORA methods, the decision making matrix including the intersecting values of different alternatives and purposes (criteria) should be prepared initially as shown in Figure (2). Then the criteria targets (that may either be maximum or minimum depending on the corresponding criteria) should be determined.

Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion i Criterion n Alternative 1 X11 X21 Xi1 Xn1 Alternative 2 X12 X22 Xi2 Xn2 Alternative j X1j X2j Xij Xnj Alternative m X1m X2m Xim Xnm Figure 2 Decision Making Matrix. Source: (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2012:7)

In MOORA- ratio method, the criteria belonging to different alternatives in the decision making matrix are normalized by the calculation as shown in the equation (1) (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2006). & x∗ij = '( (1) * . +,-.& '( x∗ij = Normalized criteria value of alternative j on the criterion i xij = The response of alternative j on the criterion i j = The number of alternatives (j=1,2,…m) i = The number of criteria (i=1, 2, ... n) When the results showing the difference between total maximum and minimum values are evaluated, the alternative having the maximum value is accepted as the best in ranking after equation (2) below is applied to the normalized criteria values. (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2006) ∗ '01 ∗ '05 ∗4 y j = '02 x ij −4 '0162 x ij (2) y∗j= The evaluation of alternative j normalized to all criteria i = 1.2, ... g are the criteria that will be maximized i= g + 1, g + 2, ... n are the criteria that will be minimized;

The equation (3) below is used for MOORA- reference point approach (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2006). Here, if either maximization is the target criteria, then the maximum normalized value

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 58

! for each criterion is accepted as reference value (ri) or if minimization is the target criteria then the minimum value is accepted as (ri) (Önay, 2015). In this method, the absolute value of the difference between these maximum and minimum values are calculated and then the criterion having the maximum value for each alternative is found in the matrix created after the calculation. This criterion having the maximum value is considered as the value of the relevant alternative. When these values are ranked, the alternative having minimum value (min j) will have a priority to be chosen over other alternatives. min = max r − x∗ } (3) ( i i ij ri = reference value expected to be maximum or minimum by each criterion In the MOORA- full multiplication form method, Xij values are arranged by using equation (4). (Baležentis, Baležentis and Valkauskas, 2010). 1 45 Aj 4444U = 444, Aj = x , Bj = x 4(4)4444 j Bj ij ij (02 4(01624 Uj= General utility of alternative j

In this method, Xij values in the decision making matrix are evaluated without being normalized. For each alternative, first total multiplication of the criteria values in maximum targets are divided to that of the criteria values in minimum targets. Then results of the calculation are ranked and finally the priority in ranking will be given to the highest values.

Analysis

There are many techniques used in the bank performance analysis. However, MOORA method can be preferred by researchers because it has advantage in terms of its convenience and reliability over the others as mentioned previously. In this study, the financial performance of “foreign deposit banks operating in Turkey” will be analized by using Multi-MOORA method in the period of 2013-2017. The number of banks (alternatives or purposes) in this category are 14 and each bank is coded such as A1, A2… A14 shown in the table below:

Table 2 The Alternatives (Foreign Deposit Banks) Codes Banks A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. A4 A.Ş. A5 Denizbank A.Ş. A6 A.Ş. A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A.Ş. A9 ING Bank A.Ş. A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A.Ş. Source: The Autor.

! !

444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444 Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 59

! In this study, the selected ten criteria, in other words financial ratios, having the most popularity in the financial performance analysis of deposit banks are used. The data on financial ratios reperesenting bank profitability, liquidity, asset quality, capital adequacy, balance sheet structure, revenue-expenditure were obtained from the website of the Banks Association of Turkey (TBB). These financial ratios are coded and shown as in table 3 below.

Table 3 Criteria Used in Financial Performance Evaluation Codes Criteria (Financial Ratios) K1 Avarage Asset Profitability K2 Avarage Capital Profitability K3 Liquid Assets / Total Assets K4 Liquid Assets / Short Term Liabilities K5 Total Credits and Receivables / Total Assests K6 Total Credits and Receivables / Total Deposits K7 Capital / Total Assests K8 Total Deposits / Total Assests K9 Interest Revenues / Total Assests K10 Interest Revenues / Interest Expenses Source: The Autor.

Findings

In this study, the financial performance of foreign deposit banks operating in Turkey between 2013-2017 will be analized by using the Multi-MOORA method that includes the matrixes created by MOORA-ratio, MOORA-reference point and MOORA-full multiplication form methods. The ultimate outcome will be reached by using Multi-MOORA that represents a combination of these three methods. In order to apply these three MOORA methods, at first banks’ financial ratios and then their arithmetic means in the period should be obtained. The financial ratios of foreign deposit banks operating in Turkey and their arithmetic averages belonging to 2013-2017 period are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Avarage Financial Ratios of Foreign Deposit Banks Operating in Turkey (2013-2017) CRITERIA(Ratios) K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 xij ALTERNATİVES maks maks maks maks min maks maks maks maks maks (Banks) A1 0,6 8,3 24,7 56,5 14,4 130,2 7,6 9,3 7,8 176,5 A2 1,7 11,8 54,0 122,0 0,1 45,4 14,4 17,1 3,7 466,0 A3 0,2 3,0 19,1 43,5 1,1 130,6 9,2 11,4 7,6 155,1

A4 2,2 14,2 55,8 76,3 0,4 58,4 16,1 20,1 9,3 301,1 A5 1,2 12,4 26,9 47,8 1,2 103,5 9,4 12,0 8,2 198,6 A6 1,9 11,3 51,0 102,8 0,0 187,3 16,9 21,0 7,0 384,6 A7 -0,2 -2,9 37,9 63,3 2,3 100,8 9,1 11,6 7,8 211,4 A8 0,4 2,8 30,0 65,9 1,1 156,6 11,4 13,5 6,7 196,4 2017 Avarages 2017

- A9 0,8 8,2 23,1 45,2 1,1 143,1 9,9 12,2 8,2 221,3 A10 0,6 5,0 53,0 183,6 0,0 1251,0 23,4 99,1 3,2 226031,0 2013 A11 0,1 1,2 27,9 52,0 1,4 89,7 7,6 8,9 7,1 157,6 A12 1,2 11,1 22,6 43,1 1,1 117,5 10,6 14,1 8,7 207,8 A13 0,2 1,3 31,9 56,3 3,6 89,8 13,7 16,5 9,0 158,2 A14 1,7 14,1 24,1 47,4 0,5 113,4 12,1 15,1 7,2 208,4 Source: The Banks Association of Turkey (TBB). (2018). StatisticalReports, Selected Ratios.

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 60

!

Ten most popular and fundamental ratios in literature are analizedin the study. The effects of financial ratios (criteria=xij) on the bank’s financial performance are not in the same direction. The largerthe K1, K2, K3, K4, K6, K7, K8, K9, K10 coded ratiosare, the greater the bank performance will be. However, the less K5 coded financial ratio of"total loans and receivables/total assets” is, the more it provides positive contribution to the bank performance.

Moora-Ratio Method

In order to apply the MOORA-ratio method, the above-mentioned financial ratios must be normalized. To do this, first the square root of the sum squares of the banks’financial ratios are calculated for each criterion and later the normalization process is proceed by dividing each bank’s financial ratio to this calculation as stated in Equation (1). The final result can be named as normalized ratio (x*ij) for each bank's relevant criteria. Banks’ financial ratios targeted to be maximum must be added and the sum of financial ratios targeted to be minimum must be subtracted from the previous sum. This calculated result (Σ maks - Σ min) shows the performance results of each bank according to MOORA-ratio method. The largest value among these results indicates the best performing bank and the smallest shows the worst performing bank. The analysis results are shown in table 5 below.

Table 5 Moora-Ratio Method-Normalized Decision Making Matrix Alternatives/ Σmaks- Criteria K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 Σ min R A10 0,143 0,147 0,385 0,603 0,000 0,946 0,482 0,884 0,114 1,000 4,705 1 A4 0,515 0,421 0,406 0,251 0,029 0,044 0,333 0,180 0,335 0,001 2,457 2 A6 0,436 0,335 0,371 0,338 0,000 0,142 0,349 0,187 0,251 0,002 2,410 3 A2 0,387 0,351 0,393 0,401 0,009 0,034 0,297 0,153 0,132 0,002 2,140 4 A14 0,395 0,420 0,176 0,156 0,032 0,086 0,251 0,135 0,257 0,001 1,843 5 A12 0,276 0,331 0,164 0,141 0,073 0,089 0,220 0,126 0,312 0,001 1,587 6 A5 0,271 0,367 0,196 0,157 0,081 0,078 0,195 0,107 0,293 0,001 1,584 7 A9 0,190 0,244 0,168 0,149 0,073 0,108 0,204 0,109 0,294 0,001 1,393 8 A8 0,080 0,084 0,218 0,217 0,072 0,118 0,236 0,121 0,240 0,001 1,242 9 A13 0,039 0,038 0,232 0,185 0,234 0,068 0,283 0,147 0,324 0,001 1,083 10 A3 0,055 0,088 0,139 0,143 0,073 0,099 0,189 0,101 0,274 0,001 1,016 11 A11 0,012 0,037 0,203 0,171 0,089 0,068 0,157 0,080 0,256 0,001 0,894 12 A7 -0,050 -0,085 0,276 0,208 0,151 0,076 0,187 0,103 0,280 0,001 0,845 13 A1 0,137 0,246 0,180 0,185 0,941 0,098 0,157 0,083 0,280 0,001 0,427 14 Source: The Banks Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios. R: Ranking

According to the results from Table 5, it can be considered that MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. (A10) has the best performance value and Alternatifbank A.Ş. (A1) has the worst performance value in terms of financial performance. Citibank A.Ş. (A4) cames after MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. The more detailed ranking information are shown in Table 6 below.

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 61

! Table 6 Ranking by Moora-Ratio Method Alternatives Banks Ranking Σ maks-Σ min A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. 1 4,705 A4 Citibank A.Ş. 2 2,457 A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. 3 2,410 A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. 4 2,140 A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A.Ş. 5 1,843 A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. 6 1,587 A5 Denizbank A.Ş. 7 1,584 A9 ING Bank A.Ş. 8 1,393 A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A.Ş. 9 1,242 A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. 10 1,083 A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. 11 1,016 A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. 12 0,894 A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. 13 0,845 A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. 14 0,427 Source: The Banks Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios.

Moora-Reference point approach

According to MOORA-reference point approach, the highest value (max) of each criterion targeted to be a maximum (all criteria other than K5) and the lowest value (min) of the criterion K5 targeted to be minimum are regarded as reference points for the relevant criterion. Then, a new matrix is prepared as shown in Table 7 by taking the absolute value of the difference between each criterion (K1, K2,…K10) in normalized decision making matrix in table 5 and the reference point of the relevant criterion.

Table 7 Moora-Reference Point Approach Matrix Criteria K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 R (maks.value Alternatives maks maks maks maks min maks maks maks maks maks in the row) ri 0,515 0,421 0,406 0,603 0,000 0,946 0,482 0,884 0,335 1,000 A1 0,378 0,175 0,226 0,417 0,941 0,848 0,325 0,802 0,055 0,999 0,999211 A2 0,128 0,070 0,013 0,202 0,009 0,912 0,186 0,731 0,203 0,998 0,997930 A3 0,460 0,333 0,267 0,460 0,073 0,847 0,293 0,783 0,061 0,999 0,999306 A4 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,352 0,029 0,902 0,149 0,704 0,000 0,999 0,998660 A5 0,243 0,054 0,210 0,446 0,081 0,868 0,288 0,777 0,042 0,999 0,999113 A6 0,079 0,086 0,035 0,265 0,000 0,805 0,134 0,697 0,084 0,998 0,998290 A7 0,565 0,506 0,130 0,395 0,151 0,870 0,295 0,781 0,055 0,999 0,999057 A8 0,434 0,338 0,187 0,386 0,072 0,828 0,247 0,763 0,095 0,999 0,999123 A9 0,325 0,178 0,238 0,454 0,073 0,838 0,278 0,776 0,041 0,999 0,999013 A10 0,372 0,274 0,020 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,221 0,000 0,371836 A11 0,503 0,384 0,203 0,432 0,089 0,878 0,325 0,804 0,079 0,999 0,999295 A12 0,238 0,091 0,242 0,462 0,073 0,857 0,263 0,758 0,023 0,999 0,999073 A13 0,476 0,383 0,173 0,418 0,234 0,878 0,199 0,737 0,011 0,999 0,999292 A14 0,120 0,002 0,230 0,447 0,032 0,860 0,232 0,749 0,078 0,999 0,999070 Source: The Banks Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios. ri:reference point R: Ranking

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 62

! For example, K1 criterion value of alternative A1 in normalized decision making matrix shown in table 5 is 0.137 and K1 value of alternative A4 is the maximum value by its value of 0.515. This K1 value belonging to alternative A4 must be taken as the reference point value (ri) and K1 value of A1 (0.378) must be taken as proxy in the MOORA- reference point approach matrix calculated as the difference between 0,515 and 0,137 in Table 7 above. In this table, the maximum criterion (financial ratio) was determined as per row. It means that at first step only the highest value among the other values in each row can be evaluated for ranking in this method. At the second step, among this maximum values (ratios), the smallest value in vertical (last column) points to the bank having the highest financial performance compared to the others according to the MOORA- reference point approach. It can be said that MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş.(A10) has the best performance value and Burgan Bank A.Ş.(A3) has the worst performance value according to Table 7 and 8 prepared by using the MOORA-reference point approach. Arap Türk Bankası A.Ş. (A2) follows MUFG Bank Turkey in terms of financial performance.

Table 8 Ranking According to Reference Point Approach Alternatives Banks Ranking MaksValue A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. 1 0,371836 A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. 2 0,997930 A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. 3 0,998290 A4 Citibank A.Ş. 4 0,998660 A9 ING Bank A.Ş. 5 0,999013 A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. 6 0,999057 A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A.Ş. 7 0,999070 A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. 8 0,999073 A5 Denizbank A.Ş. 9 0,999113 A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A.Ş. 10 0,999123 A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. 11 0,999211 A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. 12 0,999292 A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. 13 0,999295 A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. 14 0,999306 Source: The Banks’ Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios.

Moora-Full Multiplication Form

In MOORA-full multiplication form method, the non-normalized row financial ratios (criteria) must be used for the measurement of the banks financial performances. In applying this method, first the criteria targeted to be maximum (here all criteria except for K5) must be multiplied by each other (illusturated as Aj), then a ranking value (Uj) for each bank can be determined by dividing Aj to the multiplication of criteria (in this case, criterion K5) targeted to be minimum (Bj). In Table 9, the maximum value in the last column (R=Ranking) shows the bank of having the best financial performance.

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 63

! Table 9 Moora-Full Multiplication Form Matrix Criteria K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6 K7 K8 K9 K10 R Alternatives (Uj=Aj/Bj) A1 0,6 8,3 24,7 56,5 14,4 130,2 7,6 9,3 7,8 176,5 29,3 A2 1,7 11,8 54,0 122,0 0,1 45,4 14,4 17,1 3,7 466,0 5185,9 A3 0,2 3,0 19,1 43,5 1,1 130,6 9,2 11,4 7,6 155,1 340,6 A4 2,2 14,2 55,8 76,3 0,4 58,4 16,1 20,1 9,3 301,1 1244,8 A5 1,2 12,4 26,9 47,8 1,2 103,5 9,4 12,0 8,2 198,6 338,7 A6 1,9 11,3 51,0 102,8 0,0 187,3 16,9 21,0 7,0 384,6 7837909,8 A7 -0,2 -2,9 37,9 63,3 2,3 100,8 9,1 11,6 7,8 211,4 190,0 A8 0,4 2,8 30,0 65,9 1,1 156,6 11,4 13,5 6,7 196,4 441,3 A9 0,8 8,2 23,1 45,2 1,1 143,1 9,9 12,2 8,2 221,3 420,9 A10 0,6 5,0 53,0 183,6 0,0 1251,0 23,4 99,1 3,2 226031,0 2276498231,7 A11 0,1 1,2 27,9 52,0 1,4 89,7 7,6 8,9 7,1 157,6 258,1 A12 1,2 11,1 22,6 43,1 1,1 117,5 10,6 14,1 8,7 207,8 392,4 A13 0,2 1,3 31,9 56,3 3,6 89,8 13,7 16,5 9,0 158,2 105,4 A14 1,7 14,1 24,1 47,4 0,5 113,4 12,1 15,1 7,2 208,4 909,1 R: Ranking, Uj: General utility of alternative j

It can be considered that MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. (A10) has the best financial performance but Alternatifbank A.Ş. (A1) has the poorest financial performance according to values shown in Table 9 and Table 10. Deutsche Bank A.Ş (A6) follows MUFG Bank Turkey in the second best rank.

Table 10 Ranking by Moora-Full Multiplication Form Matrix Alternatives Banks Ranking Uj=Aj/Bj A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. 1 2276498231,7 A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. 2 7837909,8 A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. 3 5185,9 A4 Citibank A.Ş. 4 1244,8 A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A.Ş. 5 909,1 A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A.Ş. 6 441,3 A9 ING Bank A.Ş. 7 420,9 A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. 8 392,4 A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. 9 340,6 A5 Denizbank A.Ş. 10 338,7 A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. 11 258,1 A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. 12 190,0 A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. 13 105,4 A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. 14 29,3 Source: The Banks Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios.

Multi-Moora Analysis

Even though the findings of these three MOORA methods may be different from each other, they can be combined in order to reach to more accurate results. For this end, the Multi- MOORA method can be used by combining the results of MOORA- rate method, MOORA- reference point approach and MOORA-full multiplication form method. According to Multi-

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 64

! MOORA method, if any bank’s rank is the same at least in two different MOORA methods, then it can be evaluated as final ranking for that bank. It is called as the frequency and dominance of the analysis. The final ranking is made by using Multi-MOORA method in Table 11 below. As shown in Table 11, in the period covering the years between 2013 and 2017, MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. (A10) is the best in terms of financial performance and ranked in the first place according to all three methods. In spite of this, Alternatifbank A.Ş is the worst and ranked in the last place. Arap Türk Bankası A.Ş. (A2) follows MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. as a second best bank among foreign-owned deposit banks operating in Turkey.

Table 11 Multi-Moora Analysis Ratio Method Referance Point Full Multiplacition Form Multi-MOORA RANKING

Banks Banks Banks Banks

Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives Alternatives

A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A10 MUFG Bank Turkey A10 MUFG Bank Turkey 1 A.Ş. A.Ş. A.Ş. A.Ş. A4 Citibank A.Ş. A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. A2 ArapTürkBankası 2 A.Ş. A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. A6 Deutsche Bank A.Ş. 3 A2 ArapTürkBankası A.Ş. A4 Citibank A.Ş. A4 Citibank A.Ş. A4 Citibank A.Ş. 4 A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A9 ING Bank A.Ş. A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A14 TürkiyeGarantiBanka 5 A.Ş. A.Ş. sı A.Ş. A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A8 ICBC Turkey Bank 6 A.Ş. A.Ş. A5 Denizbank A.Ş. A14 TürkiyeGarantiBankası A9 ING Bank A.Ş. A9 ING Bank A.Ş. 7 A.Ş. A9 ING Bank A.Ş. A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. A12 QNB Finansbank A.Ş. A12 QNB Finansbank 8 A.Ş. A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A5 Denizbank A.Ş. A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. A5 Denizbank A.Ş. 9 A.Ş. A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. A8 ICBC Turkey Bank A5 Denizbank A.Ş. A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. 10 A.Ş. A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. 11 A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. 12 A7 HSBC Bank A.Ş. A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. A13 Turkland Bank A.Ş. A11 Odea Bank A.Ş. 13 A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. A3 Burgan Bank A.Ş. A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. A1 Alternatifbank A.Ş. 14 Source: The author using the data from The Banks Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios.

Conclusion

In this study, by using the Multi-MOORA method as one of the multi-criteria decision making methods, 14 foreign-owned deposit banks operating in Turkey during the period of 2013-2017 were examined in terms of their financial performances. In the evaluation of these banks’performances, ten different criteria that are mostly used in the literature were examined. The financial ratios called as criteria in decision making matrix were obtained from the official site of the Banks Association of Turkey. The MOORA methods can be divided into three sub-methods titled as ratio method, reference point approach and full multiplication form. Each of these methods can provide different results than the others. In order to reach more accurate results, the combination of the results of the three different MOORA methods must be taken into consideration by the reserachers. That is the reason why the author prefers to choose to use the Multi-MOORA method that built on

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 65

! frequency and dominance analaysis. It has based on the principle that if any bank’s rank is the same at least in two different MOORA methods, then it can be evaluated as final ranking for that bank. By using Multi-MOORA method to measure the financial performances of foreign owned deposit banks operating in Turkey, it is concluded that Japanese-owned MUFG Bank Turkey A.Ş. has the best financial performance while Quatar-owned Alternatifbank A.Ş has the worst during 2013-2017 period in Turkey. Of course, the consequence of this study may change according to the time period, performance methods, criteria and alternatives.

References

Altunöz, U. (2017). Analysis of financial performance of banks using the methods of fuzzy MOORA and fuzzy AHP: Experience of Turkish Banks. Route Educational and Social Science Journal, 4(4), 116-132. Atukalp, M.E. (2017). Efficiency analysis of the banks traded in Istanbul Stock Exchange. Full Text Papers of International Conference of Management, Economics and Politics. 239-254. Baležentis, A, Baležentis, T. and Valkauskas, R. (2010). Evaluatingsituation of Lithuania in the European Union: structural indicators and MULTIMOORA method. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16 (4), 578-602. Brauers, W.K.M. and Zavadskas, E.K. (2006). The MOORA Method and Its Application to Privatization In A Transition Economy. Control and Cybernetics. Informatica, 35(2), 445- 469. Brauers, W.K.M. and Zavadskas, E.K. (2012). Robustness of MULTIMOORA: A Method for multi-objective optimization. Informatica, 23(1), 1-25. Ceyhan, İ.F. and Demirci, F. (2017). Financial performance measurement by MULTIMOORA method: an application in leasing companies. Bartın Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(15), 277-296. Ersöz, F veAtav, A. (2011). MULTIMOORA method in multi-criteria decision making problems. Yöneylem Araştırması ve Endüstri Mühendisliği 31. Ulusal Kongresi, 78-87. Kandemir, T. ve Karataş, H. (2016). Analysis of commercial banks’ financial performances by multi-criteria decision making methods: An appliciation on the banks traded in Istanbul Stock Exchange (2004-2014). İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(7), 1766- 1776. Karaca, T., (2011). Proje Yönetiminde Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Tekniklerini Kullanarak Kritik Yolun Belirlenmesi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yayımlanmamış Yüksek LisansTezi, Ankara. Mandic, K., Delibasic, B., Knezevic, S. And Benkovic, S. (2014). Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Economic Modelling, 43, 30-37. Ömürbek, N. ve Aksoy, E. (2017). Ulusal verimlilik istatistiklerine göre imalat sektörlerinin performansının değerlendirmesinde MULTI-MOORA yönteminin uygulanması, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 22(1), 1-19. Ömürbek, N ve Özcan, A. (2016). BİST’de işlem gören sigorta şirketlerinin MULTIMOORA yöntemiyle performans ölçümü. Uluslararası İşletme, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Perspektifleri Dergisi, 1(2), 64-75. Önay, O. (2015). MOORA. İçinde B.F.Yıldırım ve E.Önder (Ed.), Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri. (ss.245-257). Bursa: Dora Yayıncılık. Özbek, A. (2015). Efficiency analysis of foreign-capital banks in Turkey by OCRA and MOORA. Research Journal of Finance and Accounting, 6(13), 21-30.

! ! Social Sciences Research Journal (SSRJ), 2019, Volume 8, Issue 3, Page 54-66 66

! Özbek, A. (2017). Çok kriterli karar verme yöntemleri ve excel ile problem çözümü. Ankara: Seçkin yayıncılık. Seçme, N.Y., Bayrakdaroğlu, A. ve Kahraman, C. (2009). Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using Analytic Hierarchy Processand TOPSIS. Expert System with Applications, 36(9), 11699-11709. Şişman, B. ve Doğan, M. (2016). Türk bankalarının finansal performanslarının bulanık AHP ve bulanık Moora yöntemleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 23(2), 353-371. The Banks Association of Turkey. (2018). Statistical Reports, Selected Ratios. Uygurtürk, H. (2015). Bankaların internet şubelerinin bulanık MOORA yöntemi ile değerlendirilmesi, Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 11(25), 115-128.

! !