Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Volume 3 No. 3
September 2013
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Editor in Chief
Prof. Dr. Jos Antnio Filipe, Instituto Universitrio de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL),
Lisboa, Portugal
Managing Editor
Prof. Dr. Sofia Lopes Portela, Instituto Universitrio de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL),
Lisboa, Portugal
Abstracting / Indexing
International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance and Economic Sciences (IJLTFES) is
abstracted / indexed in the following international bodies and databases:
EBSCO
Google Scholar
DOAJ
Scirus
Getcited
Scribd
NewJour
citeseerx
Table of Contents
1. How to Classify a GovernmentCan a perceptron do it? ............................................................. 523
Antnio Caleiro
2. Combining Time Series Analysis and MultiCriteria Decision Making Techniques for
Forecasting Financial Performance of Banks in Turkey ........................................................ ...530
Emrah nder, Ali Hepen
3. Globalization, RegimeSwitching, and EU Stock Markets: the Impact of the Sovereign Debt
Crises .......................................................................................................................................................... 556
Nuno Ferreira, Rui Menezes, Snia Bentes
4. The Seveso Directives and Their Application to Enterprise Risk Management ................ 563
Manuel da Cruz, Sonia R. Bentesecki
5. Determinants of Economic Growth in G20 Countries: A Panel Data Approach .................. 572
Nihat Ta, Emrah nder, Ali Hepen
6. Effect of Internalmarketingmix on Customerpyramidoriented banking service
performance. An Indian Experience ............................................................................................... 583
Selvarasu Appasamy Mutharasu, Krishnaswamy Natarajan, Jos Antnio Filipe
523
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Antnio Caleiro
#
1.
Introduction
2.
The
Bounded
Approach
Rationality
____________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance & Economic Sciences
IJLTFES, EISSN: 20470916
Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)
524
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
3.
4.
The
Classification
Government
of
the
te , by considering
525
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
yt 1 y yt 1 t te ,
where
measures
the
degree
of
where
(1)
output
V V1 V2 ,
where
(5)
is the degree of memory of the
U t Vt 12 t2 yt
.
(6)
In these circumstances it is worth immediately
noticing that, in general, excepting if 1 , the
policies that maximise social welfare (4) are not the
ones that maximise popularity (5). As it plausible
to assume that both and do not exceed 1, it
is immediately clear that only in the case of perfect
memory, i.e. 1, and both periods being
equally important for society, i.e.
yt yt 1 t te ,
(2)
where, following the hypothesis of adaptive
expectations,
te t 1 ,
(3)
where 0 1 and 0 1 .
As said before, a most common kind of linear
classifiers for classification purposes is the socalled perceptron. In order to perform the task of
classifying the government, in what concerns its
behaviour during the mandate, it is required the
determination of the opportunistic and benevolent
solutions. These solutions differ in accordance with
the way time periods are discounted: whereas for
society, therefore also for a benevolent
government, future periods should be less
important than present ones, this is not the case
with an opportunistic government, as future
moments, i.e. those closer to the election day, are
more vital than present ones, in order to explore the
decay in the memory of voters.
Having said that, concerning the government's
objective function, we make the standard
assumption that the incumbent faces a mandate
divided into two periods, t =1,2, such that societys
welfare during the mandate, i.e. the benevolent
government's objective function is given by:
U U 1 U 2 ,
1, an
1B 1 ,
(7)
2B ,
(8)
1O 1
2O .
(9)
(10)
(4)
526
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
y 1B y 0 1
0 ,
(11)
y 2B y 0 1 0 1 ,
y 1O y 0
y 2O y 0
2B 1B ,
. Plainly, when
1B 1O
2B 2O 0 ,
y1B y1O 2
y1B y1O 2
2B 1B , 2O 1O , 1B 1O , 2B 2O
and
2B 1B
(13)
2O 1O
O
2
(12)
O
1
B
1
O
1
B
2
O
2
(14)
and
y1B y1O ,
y2B y2O .
Given that, in the previous mandate, no matter the
kind of government,
it is possible to
output
levels
527
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
y1B y0 2 1
(15)
y 2B 2 y 0 2 2
y 1O y 0 2
y 2O y 0 2
1 2 ,
(16)
(17)
(18)
y ,
y1B
y2B
y1O
y2O
1 B 1 1 B 2 O 1 2 O
2
1
2
1
,
are both between 0 and 1.
(19)
1 , 2 in
(19) are:
Output
2
2
1
,
1 y0 2 1
(O,2)
2
(B,2)
(O,1)
(B,1)
(21)
Perceptron
decision boundary
Inflation
1,2
1
2
2
2
.4
1 y0 2 1
(20)
1
A
y0
BC
2
Note that 1
1
2
1 y0 2 1
528
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
In order to have
y0 2
2 1 ,
1
(22)
2 1 in (21), point B in
y0 2
2 1
.
1
(23)
y0 2
2 1 ,
1
Output
(O,2)
1
1
(O,1)
(25)
(B,2)
(B,1)
it is possible to
y0 2
1 ,
1
(26)
2 2
slope equal to
and
and
O
B
Note that
2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 0.
2
1
1
1
7 Note that
2 1 2 1 2 2 0.
2
1
1
1
5.
Concluding Remarks
529
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the editor-in-chief for having
respected the normal practice of not having prevented
the publication of the article claiming that the
existence of a working version of it would make it
impossible. I also would like to thank Steffen Hrnig
for an extremely useful suggestion. Obviously, the
usual disclaimer applies. It is also my obligation to
acknowledge financial support from Fundao para a
Cincia e a Tecnologia and FEDER/COMPETE
(grant PEst-C/EGE/UI4007/2011).
References
[1] Caleiro, Antnio (2009), How upside down are
political business cycles when there is output
persistence, Research in Economics 63(1), 2226.
[2] Caleiro, Antnio (2012), Output Persistence in
Portugal, International Journal of Latest Trends
in Finance and Economic Sciences 2(3),
(September), 206-210.
[3] Caleiro, Antnio (2013), A Self-Organizing Map
of the Elections in Portugal, The IIOAB Journal,
Special Issue (Neuroscience in Economic
Decision Making) 4(3), (April-June), 9-14.
[4] Grtner, Manfred, (1996), Political business
cycles when real activity is persistent, Journal of
Macroeconomics 18, 679-692.
[5] Grtner, Manfred (1997), Time-consistent
monetary policy under output persistence, Public
Choice 92, 429-437.
[6] Grtner, Manfred (1999), The Election Cycle in
the Inflation Bias: Evidence from the G-7
countries, European Journal of Political
Economy 15, 705-725.
[7] Grtner,
Manfred
(2000),
Political
Macroeconomics: A Survey of Recent
Developments, Journal of Economic Surveys
14(5), 527-561.
[8] Jonsson, Gunnar (1997), Monetary Politics and
Unemployment
Persistence,
Journal
of
Monetary Economics 39(2), (June), 303-325.
[9] Minford, Patrick (1995), Time-Inconsistency,
Democracy, and Optimal Contingent Rules,
Oxford Economic Papers, 47(2), (April), 195210.
[10] Nordhaus, William D. (1975), The Political
Business Cycle, The Review of Economic Studies
42(2), (April), 169-190.
[11] Salmon, Mark (1995), Bounded Rationality and
Learning: Procedural Learning, in Kirman, Alan,
and Mark Salmon (eds.), Learning and
Rationality in Economics, Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 236-275.
530
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
1.
Introduction
____________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance & Economic Sciences
IJLTFES, EISSN: 20470916
Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)
531
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
2.
Literature Review
532
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
533
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
3.
Overview of Data
CRITERIA
SUB CRITERIA
Shareholders' Equity / (Amount Subject to Credit Risk + Market Risk + Operational Risk)
BALANCE
SHEET
RATIOS, %
mance
Evalua
tion of
Turkis
h
GOAL
ASSETSQUALITY,%
SUB CRITERIA
FinancialAssets(Net)/TotalAssets
TotalLoansandReceivables/TotalAssets
534
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
TotalLoansandReceivables/TotalDeposits
ConsumerLoans/TotalLoansandReceivables
LiquidAssets/TotalAssets
LiquidAssets/ShorttermLiabilities
LIQUIDITY,%
TCLiquidAssets/TotalAssets
LiquidAssets/(Deposits+NonDepositFunds)
FCLiquidAssets/FCLiabilities
NetProfit(Losses)/TotalAssets
PROFITABILITY,%
NetProfit(Losses)/TotalShareholders'Equity
IncomeBeforeTaxes/TotalAssets
NetProfit(Losses)/PaidinCapital
NetInterestIncomeAfterSpecificProvisions/TotalAssets
NetInterestIncomeAfterSpecificProvisions/TotalOperatingIncome
NonInterestIncome(Net)/TotalAssets
INCOME
EXPENDITURE
STRUCTURE,%
NonInterestIncome(Net)/OtherOperatingExpenses
InterestIncome/InterestExpense
TotalIncome/TotalExpense
InterestIncome/TotalAssets
InterestIncome/TotalExpenses
InterestExpense/TotalExpenses
TotalAssets
SHAREINSECTOR,
TotalLoansandReceivables
%
TotalDeposits
TotalAssets
SHAREINGROUP,
TotalLoansandReceivables
%
TotalDeposits
TotalAssets/No.ofBranches
TotalDeposits/No.ofBranches
TRYDeposits/No.ofBranches
BRANCHRATIOS,
TRYMILLION
FXDeposits/No.ofBranches
TotalLoansandReceivables/No.ofBranches
TotalEmployees/No.ofBranches(person)
NetIncome/No.ofBranches
(PersonnelExpenses+ReserveforEmployeeTerminationBenefit)/TotalAssets
(PersonnelExpenses+ReserveforEmployeeTerminationBenefit)/NumberofPersonnel
(ThousandTRY)
ACTIVITYRATIOS
ReserveforEmployeeTerminationBenefit/NumberofPersonnel(ThousandTRY)
PersonnelExpenses/OtherOperatingExpenses
OtherOperatingExpenses/TotalAsset
TotalOperatingIncome/TotalAssets
4.
535
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Definition
Explanation
Equal importance
Moderate importance
Strong importance
Extreme importance
2,4,6,8
1
w /w
Aw 2 1
.
w n /w1
w1 /w 2
w n /w 2 .
ai j wi / w j ,
(1)
i, j 1, 2,....n
(2)
w1 /w n w1
w 2 /w n .
nw
. .
1 wn
Aw max w
CI (max n) / (n 1)
(3)
Accept the estimate of w if the consistency ratio (CR)
of CI that random matrix is significant small. If CR
value is too high, then it means that experts answers
are not consistent (Lee, 2012; Saaty, 1980) . When
CR value is less than 0.10 consistency of the
comparisons is appropriate (Millet and Saaty, 2000;
Lee, 2012). The CR is obtained by comparing the CI
with an average random consistency index (RI).
536
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
CR
(5)
useful technique for ranking a number of possible
RI
alternatives according to closeness to the ideal
solution. Expanded developments of TOPSIS were
The following gives the average RI:
done by Chen and Hwang in 1992, Lai, Liu and
Table 5. Average RI values
Hwang (1994). This MCDM technique is widely used
n
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 in many fields, including financial performance
evaluation, supplier selection, tourism destination
RI 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45 1,49 evaluation, location selection, company evaluation,
selecting the most suitable machine, ranking the
carrier alternatives (Behzadian, 2012). One of the
4.2. Using Technique for Order Preference by advantages of TOPSIS is that pair-wise comparisons
Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) to rank the are avoided. TOPSIS is conducted as follows (Tsaur,
alternatives
2011).
CI
C1
x11
x
21
X
xi1
xn1
m Criteria
C2 C j
Cm
x12 x1 j x1m A1
x22 x2 j x2 m A2
xi 2 xij xim Ai
xn 2 xnj xnm An
n Alternatives
rij
wij
k 1 wij2
n
(6)
i=1,2,3,,nj=1,2,3,,m (7)
m
j 1
wj 1 .
vij w j rij
i=1,2,3,,nj=1,2,3,,m
(8)
537
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
NIS A v , v ,..., v
ij
ij
(10)
di*
di
v
m
j 1
ij
,i=1,2,3,,n
(11)
ij
vj
e y
2
t
t 1
(12)
di
i=1,2,3,,n RCi 0,1
di* di
(13)
yt min
2
(14)
y a bx et
Forecasting
(15)
t 1
t 1
et2 yt yt yt a bx
2
(16)
t 1
na b x
5.
,i=1,2,3,,n
RCi
t 1
v
j 1
v*j
min v | j , max v | j
i
(9)
xy
a x b x 2
(17)
(18)
(19)
n
xyt
(20)
538
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
y a bx cx 2 et
e y
2
t
t 1
t 1
yt
2
yt a bx cx
t 1
(21)
na b x c x 2
(22)
xyt a x b x2 c x3
(23)
(24)
yt a x 2 b x3 c x 4
xyt
x
yt ab x et
n
(26)
e log y
2
t
t 1
log yt
t 1
(27)
n
n log a log b x
x log y
log a
yt1
( yt yt 1 yt k 1 )
k
(33)
yt1
1 t
yi
k i t k 1
(34)
yt1
yt yt k
yt
k
k
(35)
log a x log b x
log y
(28)
2
(29)
(30)
x log y
log b
x
t 1
fluctuations.
log y
(25)
(32)
(31)
yt yt 1 (1 ) yt1
(36)
yt yt 1 ( yt 1 yt1 )
(37)
yt yt1 et
(38)
539
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
bt yt yt1 1 bt 1
(50)
yt m yt bt m
(51)
yt yt 1 yt 2 yt k 1
k
(39)
y yt1 yt 2 yt k 1
yt t
k
(40)
at yt ( y yt) 2 yt yt
(41)
(42)
yt
bt
2
( yt yt)
k 1
yt m at bt m
(43)
yt yt 1 yt1
(44)
yt yt 1 yt1
(52)
yt yt 1 yt1
(53)
yt yt 1 yt1
(54)
at 3 yt 3 yt yt
(55)
bt
2 1
6 5 y 10 8 y 4 3 y
t
yt yt 1 yt1
at yt yt yt 2 yt yt
bt
yt yt
1
yt m at bt m
5.2.5. Holts Linear Exponential
Method with Two Parameter
(45)
ct
(46)
2
y 2 yt y
2 t
1
(57)
yt yt 1 yt1 bt 1
(56)
(49)
1
y t m at bt m ct m 2
2
(58)
6.
540
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
541
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
goal of the decision process is performance problem, the weights of the criteria to be used in
evaluation of selected banks in Turkey in the first evaluation process are calculated by using AHP
level of the hierarchy. The main financial ratios are on method. In this phase, the financial expert is given the
the second level, sub-ratios are on the third level and task of forming individual pairwise comparison
alternative banks are on the fourth level of the matrix by using the Saatys 1-9 scale.
hierarchy. After forming the decision hierarchy for the
Table 6. The pairwise comparison matrix main financial ratios
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C1
1.00
0.17
0.33
0.25
0.50
0.20
0.13
0.11
0.14
0.17
C2
6.00
1.00
4.00
3.00
5.00
2.00
0.25
0.20
0.33
0.50
C3
3.00
0.25
1.00
0.50
2.00
0.33
0.17
0.14
0.20
0.25
C4
4.00
0.33
2.00
1.00
2.00
0.50
0.17
0.14
0.20
0.25
C5
2.00
0.20
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.25
0.14
0.11
0.14
0.17
C6
5.00
0.50
3.00
2.00
4.00
1.00
0.20
0.17
0.25
0.33
C7
8.00
4.00
6.00
6.00
7.00
5.00
1.00
0.50
2.00
3.00
C8
9.00
5.00
7.00
7.00
9.00
6.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
C9
7.00
3.00
5.00
5.00
7.00
4.00
0.50
0.33
1.00
2.00
C10
6.00
2.00
4.00
4.00
6.00
3.00
0.33
0.25
0.50
1.00
Weights
max, CI, RI
CR
542
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
ASSETS QUALITY, %
LIQUIDITY, %
PROFITABILITY, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
SHARE IN SECTOR, %
SHARE IN GROUP, %
BRANCH RATIOS, TRY MILLION
ACTIVITY RATIOS
0.285
0.058
0.145
0.116
0.203
0.081
0.022
0.016
0.030
0.043
max = 10.59
CI = 0.0652
RI = 1.49
0.044
Consistency ratios of the experts pairwise (BRANCH RATIOS) and 0,020 (ACTIVITY
comparison matrixes are calculated as 0,044 (Main RATIOS). They all are less than 0.1. So the weights
Financial Ratios), 0,027 (CAPITAL RATIOS), 0,038 are shown to be consistent and they are used in the
(BALANCE SHEET RATIOS), 0,045 (ASSETS financial performance evaluation. The most important
QUALITY),
0,042
(LIQUIDITY),
0,064 criterion is Net Profit (Losses) / Total Assets
(PROFITABILITY),
0,037
(INCOME- (0.1057) and the least important criterion is FX
EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE), 0,008 (SHARE IN Deposits / No. of Branches (0.0010).
SECTOR), 0,008 (SHARE IN GROUP), 0,025
Table 8. Global weights obtained by AHP
Rank
FINANCIAL RATIOS
1
2
3
PROFITABILITY, %
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
ASSETS QUALITY, %
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
PROFITABILITY, %
LIQUIDITY, %
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
ASSETS QUALITY, %
PROFITABILITY, %
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
LIQUIDITY, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
LIQUIDITY, %
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
ACTIVITY RATIOS
ASSETS QUALITY, %
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
SHARE IN SECTOR, %
LIQUIDITY, %
ACTIVITY RATIOS
BRANCH RATIOS, TRY MILLION
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
PROFITABILITY, %
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
SHARE IN GROUP, %
ASSETS QUALITY, %
SUB RATIOS
Net Profit (Losses) / Total Assets
Shareholders' Equity / Total Assets
Consumer Loans / Total Loans and Reciv.
Shareholders' Equity / (Amount Subject to Credit Risk + Market
Risk + Operational Risk)
Net Profit (Losses) / Total Shareholders' Equity
Liquid Assets / Total Assets
(Shareholders' Equity-Permanent Assets) / Total Assets
Total Loans and Receivables / Total Deposits
Net Profit (Losses) / Paid-in Capital
Net on Balance-sheet Position / Total Shareholders' Equity
Liquid Assets / Short-term Liabilities
Interest Income / Total Assets
Liquid Assets / (Deposits + Non-Deposit Funds)
Shareholders' Equity / (Deposits + Non-Deposit Funds)
TC Assets / Total Assets
Interest Income / Total Expenses
Total Operating Income / Total Assets
Financial Assets (Net) / Total Assets
Total Deposits / Total Assets
Total Income / Total Expense
Total Deposits (SHARE IN SECTOR, %)
TC Liquid Assets / Total Assets
Personnel Expenses / Other Operating Expenses
Net Income / No. of Branches
On Balance-sheet FC Position / Shareholders' Equity
Income Before Taxes / Total Assets
TC Deposits / Total Deposits
Interest Expense / Total Expenses
Total Deposits (SHARE IN GROUP, %)
Total Loans and Receivables / Total Assets
Global
Weights
0.1057
0.1020
0.0763
0.0736
0.0583
0.0494
0.0449
0.0448
0.0293
0.0289
0.0286
0.0248
0.0217
0.0180
0.0176
0.0176
0.0162
0.0160
0.0128
0.0123
0.0118
0.0107
0.0106
0.0106
0.0103
0.0101
0.0095
0.0090
0.0086
0.0083
543
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Rank
FINANCIAL RATIOS
Global
Weights
SUB RATIOS
31
32
CAPITAL RATIOS, %
0.0072
0.0070
33
ACTIVITY RATIOS
0.0069
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
SHARE IN SECTOR, %
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
LIQUIDITY, %
BRANCH RATIOS, TRY MILLION
SHARE IN GROUP, %
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
41
ACTIVITY RATIOS
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
0.0022
50
51
0.0021
0.0020
52
ACTIVITY RATIOS
0.0019
53
54
55
56
57
INCOME-EXPENDITURE STRUCTURE, %
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
BRANCH RATIOS, TRY MILLION
BALANCE SHEET RATIOS, %
BRANCH RATIOS, TRY MILLION
0.0016
0.0014
0.0014
0.0011
0.0010
0.0065
0.0065
0.0063
0.0057
0.0048
0.0047
0.0044
0.0044
0.0043
0.0036
0.0032
0.0032
0.0030
0.0028
0.0026
Table 9. Input values sample of the TOPSIS analysis for the year 2011
RATIOS
Weights
0.0736
0.1020
0.0106
0.0028
0.0162
Shareholders' Equity /
(Amount Subject to
Credit Risk + Market
Risk + Operational Risk)
Shareholders'
Equity / Total
Assets
Personnel
Expenses / Other
Operating
Expenses
Other Operating
Expenses / Total
Asset
Total Operating
Income / Total
Assets
15.61
14.30
13.38
16.98
16.96
13.24
15.86
32.09
14.23
16.89
14.07
14.69
15.65
16.94
17.18
16.14
14.19
8.20
9.48
10.43
13.14
14.54
10.15
14.75
17.10
11.06
11.99
11.09
10.82
10.98
12.77
12.33
11.58
11.21
50.06
42.42
42.96
39.45
66.78
41.73
60.07
53.24
41.99
38.93
52.26
42.31
48.92
50.41
43.43
42.32
46.34
1.63
1.89
2.18
1.82
3.23
3.80
2.78
3.38
3.62
2.19
2.15
2.49
3.40
2.98
3.41
4.36
3.99
3.86
5.54
4.96
4.56
5.81
6.09
4.22
3.73
4.71
5.41
5.05
5.39
6.37
4.26
6.49
6.36
5.22
BANKS
Ziraat Bank
Halk Bank
Vakflar Bank
Akbank
Anadolubank
Sekerbank
Tekstil Bank
Turkish Bank
Turk Ekonomi
Garanti Bank
Is Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Denizbank
Eurobank Tekfen
Finans Bank
HSBC Bank
ING Bank
544
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
RATIOS
Table 10. Weighted evaluation for the bank evaluation for the year 2011
BANKS
Ziraat Bank
Halk Bank
Vakflar Bank
Akbank
Anadolubank
Sekerbank
Tekstil Bank
Turkish Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Garanti Bank
Is Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Denizbank
Eurobank Tekfen
Finans Bank
HSBC Bank
ING Bank
Min or Max
A*
A-
Shareholders'
Equity / (Amount
Subject to Credit
Risk + Market
Risk +
Operational Risk)
Shareholders'
Equity / Total
Assets
Personnel Expenses /
Other Operating
Expenses
Other Operating
Expenses / Total
Asset
Total Operating
Income / Total
Assets
0.01650
0.01511
0.01414
0.01795
0.01793
0.01399
0.01676
0.03391
0.01504
0.01785
0.01487
0.01553
0.01654
0.01791
0.01816
0.01706
0.01500
+
0.03391
0.01399
0.01685
0.01948
0.02142
0.02700
0.02987
0.02086
0.03031
0.03513
0.02272
0.02462
0.02277
0.02224
0.02256
0.02624
0.02533
0.02380
0.02302
+
0.03513
0.01685
0.00270
0.00229
0.00232
0.00213
0.00360
0.00225
0.00324
0.00287
0.00226
0.00210
0.00282
0.00228
0.00264
0.00272
0.00234
0.00228
0.00250
0.00210
0.00360
0.00037
0.00043
0.00049
0.00041
0.00073
0.00086
0.00063
0.00076
0.00082
0.00049
0.00049
0.00056
0.00077
0.00067
0.00077
0.00098
0.00090
0.00037
0.00098
0.00290
0.00416
0.00372
0.00341
0.00435
0.00456
0.00316
0.00279
0.00353
0.00406
0.00378
0.00404
0.00477
0.00319
0.00487
0.00477
0.00391
+
0.00487
0.00279
Ziraat Bank
Halk Bank
Vakflar Bank
Akbank
Anadolubank
Sekerbank
Tekstil Bank
Turkish Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Garanti Bank
Is Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Denizbank
Eurobank Tekfen
Finans Bank
HSBC Bank
ING Bank
di*
di-
RCi
0.041
0.040
0.043
0.036
0.047
0.055
0.058
0.064
0.056
0.033
0.041
0.043
0.037
0.057
0.038
0.047
0.060
0.041
0.053
0.039
0.044
0.035
0.026
0.025
0.036
0.025
0.050
0.041
0.041
0.055
0.030
0.051
0.036
0.025
0.500
0.568
0.477
0.551
0.430
0.315
0.297
0.361
0.309
0.601
0.496
0.487
0.600
0.347
0.575
0.429
0.293
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
BANK
Garanti Bank
Denizbank
Finans Bank
Halk Bank
Akbank
Ziraat Bank
Is Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Vakflar Bank
Anadolubank
HSBC Bank
RCi*
0.601
0.600
0.575
0.568
0.551
0.500
0.496
0.487
0.477
0.430
0.429
545
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
12
13
14
15
16
17
Turkish Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
Sekerbank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Tekstil Bank
ING Bank
0.361
0.347
0.315
0.309
0.297
0.293
Depends on the RCj values (Appendix: Table 12Table 14), the rankings of the alternatives for the
years 2002-2011 are shown on Table 13.
Proposed model results show that Akbank is the best
performing bank during the years 2007-2011 and
2009-2011 (Table 14).
BANK
Akbank
Anadolubank
Denizbank
EurobankTekfen
FinansBank
GarantiBank
HalkBank
HSBCBank
INGBank
IsBank
Sekerbank
TekstilBank
TurkEkonomiBank
TurkishBank
VakflarBank
YapKrediBank
ZiraatBank
2002 2003
4
1
13
17
15
9
7
15
8
6
16
14
2
4
3
2
12
10
11
7
17
11
5
16
14
12
6
5
10
8
1
13
9
3
2004
1
9
11
14
10
12
5
4
7
8
6
17
16
13
3
15
2
2005
3
13
9
15
10
7
8
2
4
6
11
16
14
12
5
17
1
2006
3
13
6
17
2
9
5
4
14
10
11
16
15
8
7
12
1
2007
2
9
11
17
8
3
5
4
14
6
10
15
16
13
7
12
1
2008
5
2
12
17
11
4
8
1
15
6
13
16
14
7
10
9
3
Table 14. Performance ranking for the years 2007-2011 (5 years) and 2009-2011 (3 years)
Top Performing Banks During 2007-2011
Rank
Bank
Average
1
Akbank
2.8
2
Garanti Bank
2.8
3
Ziraat Bank
3.2
4
Finans Bank
5.6
5
HSBC Bank
6
6
Halk Bank
6.2
7
Is Bank
6.4
8
Anadolubank
7
9
Denizbank
8.8
10
Yap Kredi Bank
9.2
11
Vakflar Bank
9.4
12
Sekerbank
12.4
13
Turkish Bank
12.8
14
Turk Ekonomi Bank
14.2
15
ING Bank
14.8
16
Tekstil Bank
15.2
17
Eurobank Tekfen
16.2
546
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
7.
Concluding Remarks
References
[1] Abbott, M. Wu, S. & Wang, W. (2013). The
productivity and performance of Australia's
major banks since deregulation. Journal of
Economics & Finance. Vol. 37, Issue 1, p122135.
[2] Almazari, A. A. (2011). Financial Performance
Evaluation of Some Selected Jordanian
Commercial Banks. International Research
Journal of Finance & Economics. Issue 68, p5063.
[3] Al-Nimer, M. eta l. (2012). The Diffusion of
Performance Evaluation Measures: An Empirical
Study in Jordanian Banks. International Journal
of Business & Management. Vol. 7 Issue 14,
p76-87.
[4] Ayadi, O. F. Adebayo, A. O. & Omolehinwa, E.
(1998). Bank performance measurement in a
developing economy: an application of data
envelopment analysis. Managerial Finance. Vol.
24, Issue 7, pp.5 16.
[5] Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency,
http://www.bddk.org.tr
[6] Banks
Association
http://www.tbb.org.tr
of
Turkey,
547
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
548
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
with
APPENDIX
Criteria
Shareholders' Equity / (Amount Subject to Credit Risk + Market Risk + Operational
Shareholders' Equity / Total Assets
(Shareholders' Equity-Permanent Assets) / Total Assets
Shareholders' Equity / (Deposits + Non-Deposit Funds)
On Balance-sheet FC Position / Shareholders' Equity
Net on Balance-sheet Position / Total Shareholders' Equity
N(on+off) Balance-sheet Position / Total Shareholders' Equity
Weights
max, CI, RI
CR
0.259
0.358
0.158
0.063
0.036
0.101
0.024
max = 7.22
CI = 0.0363
RI = 1.32
0.027
Weights
max, CI, RI
CR
0,285
0,058
0,145
0,116
0,203
0,081
0,022
0,016
0,030
max = 9,44
CI = 0.055
RI = 1.45
0,038
Weights
max, CI, RI
0,110
0,057
0,308
0,525
max = 4,12
CI = 0.041
RI = 0,9
CR
0,045
Weights
max, CI, RI
0,425
0,246
0,093
0,187
0,049
max = 5,19
CI = 0.047
RI = 1,12
CR
0,042
549
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Weights
max, CI, RI
0,520
0,287
0,050
0,144
max = 4,17
CI = 0.057
RI = 0,9
CR
0,064
Weights
max, CI, RI
CR
0,054
0,027
0,039
0,019
0,078
0,151
0,305
0,216
0,111
max = 9,44
CI = 0.054
RI = 1.45
0,037
Weights
Total Assets
Total Loans and Receivables
Total Deposits
0,297
0,164
0,539
max, CI, RI
max = 3,01
CI = 0.005
RI = 0,58
CR
0,008
Weights
Total Assets
Total Loans and Receivables
Total Deposits
0,297
0,164
0,539
max, CI, RI
max = 3,01
CI = 0.005
RI = 0,58
CR
0,008
Weights
max, CI, RI
CR
0,159
0,237
0,046
0,032
0,106
0,070
0,350
max = 7.20
CI = 0.033
RI = 1.32
0,025
Weights
max, CI, RI
CR
0,160
0,102
0,043
max = 6,12
0,249
0,065
0,379
CI = 0.025
RI = 1,24
0,020
550
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
551
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
CAPITAL
RATIOS, %
BALANCE
SHEET
RATIOS, %
ASSETS
QUALITY,
%
LIQUIDITY,
%
PROFITABI
LITY, %
INCOMEEXPENDIT
URE
STRUCTUR
E, %
Local
Weights
0.2847
0.0583
0.1454
0.1162
0.2035
0.0813
SHARE IN
SECTOR, %
0.0219
SHARE IN
GROUP, %
0.0159
BRANCH
RATIOS,
TRY
MILLION
0.0302
Max
Local
Weights
Global
Weights
0.2586
0.0736
0.3583
0.1020
0.1578
0.0449
0.0633
0.0180
0.0361
0.0103
0.1015
0.0289
E it
TC Assets / Total Assets
0.0244
0.0070
0.3023
0.0176
0.0351
0.0020
0.1111
0.0065
0.0244
0.0014
FC Assets / FC Liabilities
0.0184
0.0011
0.1634
0.0095
0.0730
0.0043
0.2204
0.0128
0.0518
0.0030
0.1101
0.0160
0.0572
0.0083
0.3079
0.0448
0.5248
0.0763
0.4249
0.0494
SUB RATIOS
Min
0.2464
0.0286
0.0925
0.0107
0.1867
0.0217
0.0495
0.0057
0.5196
0.1057
0.2866
0.0583
0.0499
0.0101
0.1439
0.0293
0.0542
0.0044
0.0267
0.0022
x
x
x
x
x
x
0.0393
0.0194
0.0778
0.1507
0.3050
0.2163
0.1106
0.2973
0.1638
0.5390
0.2973
0.1638
0.5390
0.1590
0.2375
0.0462
0.0318
0.1056
0.0696
0.3504
0.0032
0.0016
0.0063
0.0123
0.0248
0.0176
0.0090
0.0065
0.0036
0.0118
0.0047
0.0026
0.0086
0.0048
0.0072
0.0014
0.0010
0.0032
0.0021
0.0106
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
552
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
ACTIVITY
RATIOS
0.0427
0.1604
0.0069
0.1024
0.0044
0.0434
0.0019
0.2488
0.0106
0.0655
0.0028
0.3794
0.0162
Table 12. Performance rankings for the years 2002 and 2003
Financial Performance of the banks for the year 2002
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.531
0.510
0.505
0.480
0.474
0.431
0.424
0.419
0.383
0.372
0.368
0.359
0.315
0.313
0.298
0.277
0.233
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Akbank
HSBC Bank
Ziraat Bank
Halk Bank
Turkish Bank
Finans Bank
Is Bank
Vakflar Bank
Denizbank
ING Bank
Sekerbank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Garanti Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
Tekstil Bank
Anadolubank
0.666
0.578
0.520
0.500
0.440
0.434
0.387
0.377
0.362
0.346
0.339
0.335
0.323
0.314
0.297
0.247
0.240
Table 13. Performance rankings for the years 2004 and 2005
Financial Performance of the banks for the year 2004
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Akbank
Ziraat Bank
Vakflar Bank
HSBC Bank
Halk Bank
Sekerbank
ING Bank
Is Bank
Anadolubank
Finans Bank
Denizbank
Garanti Bank
Turkish Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
Yap Kredi Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Tekstil Bank
0.672
0.620
0.608
0.565
0.523
0.495
0.482
0.481
0.471
0.453
0.444
0.426
0.394
0.354
0.338
0.318
0.268
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ziraat Bank
Akbank
HSBC Bank
ING Bank
Vakflar Bank
Is Bank
Garanti Bank
Halk Bank
Denizbank
Finans Bank
Sekerbank
Turkish Bank
Anadolubank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
Tekstil Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
0.801
0.787
0.786
0.783
0.769
0.762
0.748
0.745
0.742
0.731
0.716
0.706
0.705
0.685
0.670
0.648
0.196
553
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Table 14. Performance rankings for the years 2006 and 2007
Financial Performance of the banks for the year 2006
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ziraat Bank
Finans Bank
Akbank
HSBC Bank
Halk Bank
Denizbank
Vakflar Bank
Turkish Bank
Garanti Bank
Is Bank
Sekerbank
Yap Kredi Bank
Anadolubank
ING Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Tekstil Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.648
0.604
0.561
0.544
0.487
0.477
0.461
0.442
0.433
0.417
0.318
0.317
0.315
0.311
0.297
0.281
0.265
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Ziraat Bank
Akbank
Garanti Bank
HSBC Bank
Halk Bank
Is Bank
Vakflar Bank
Finans Bank
Anadolubank
Sekerbank
Denizbank
Yap Kredi Bank
Turkish Bank
ING Bank
Tekstil Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.691
0.654
0.645
0.614
0.570
0.564
0.553
0.533
0.459
0.442
0.399
0.399
0.396
0.381
0.351
0.321
0.300
Table 15. Performance rankings for the years 2008 and 2009
Financial Performance of the banks for the year 2008
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
HSBC Bank
Anadolubank
Ziraat Bank
Garanti Bank
Akbank
Is Bank
Turkish Bank
Halk Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Vakflar Bank
Finans Bank
Denizbank
Sekerbank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
ING Bank
Tekstil Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.566
0.565
0.562
0.544
0.541
0.503
0.498
0.466
0.461
0.450
0.428
0.416
0.402
0.398
0.343
0.334
0.283
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Akbank
Ziraat Bank
Garanti Bank
Finans Bank
HSBC Bank
Anadolubank
Is Bank
Denizbank
Halk Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Vakflar Bank
Sekerbank
ING Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Tekstil Bank
Turkish Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.627
0.606
0.600
0.558
0.539
0.528
0.503
0.499
0.499
0.478
0.477
0.381
0.380
0.368
0.368
0.357
0.277
Table 16. Performance rankings for the years 2010 and 2011
Financial Performance of the banks for the year 2010
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Akbank
Finans Bank
Garanti Bank
Ziraat Bank
Halk Bank
Is Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
0.655
0.630
0.630
0.626
0.568
0.559
0.544
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Garanti Bank
Denizbank
Finans Bank
Halk Bank
Akbank
Ziraat Bank
Is Bank
0.605
0.599
0.575
0.570
0.554
0.499
0.497
554
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Anadolubank
HSBC Bank
Vakflar Bank
Denizbank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Sekerbank
Tekstil Bank
ING Bank
Turkish Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.526
0.502
0.470
0.441
0.428
0.373
0.368
0.344
0.317
0.263
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0.488
0.478
0.428
0.427
0.358
0.345
0.311
0.305
0.293
0.288
Table 17. Estimated financial performance rankings for the years 2012 and 2013
Estimated Performance of the banks for the year 2012
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Garanti Bank
Ziraat Bank
Akbank
Halk Bank
Is Bank
Denizbank
Finans Bank
Anadolubank
HSBC Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
Vakflar Bank
Sekerbank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Turkish Bank
ING Bank
Tekstil Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.680
0.637
0.574
0.573
0.569
0.568
0.558
0.538
0.491
0.469
0.461
0.428
0.385
0.342
0.320
0.309
0.278
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Garanti Bank
Ziraat Bank
Denizbank
Is Bank
Halk Bank
Akbank
Anadolubank
Finans Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
HSBC Bank
Vakflar Bank
Sekerbank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Turkish Bank
ING Bank
Tekstil Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.685
0.626
0.580
0.577
0.574
0.551
0.545
0.543
0.492
0.472
0.447
0.434
0.391
0.333
0.311
0.308
0.278
Table 18. Estimated financial performance rankings for the years 2014 and 2015
Financial Performance of the banks for the year 2014
RANK
BANK
RCi*
RANK
BANK
RCi*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Garanti Bank
Ziraat Bank
Denizbank
Is Bank
Halk Bank
Anadolubank
Akbank
Finans Bank
Yap Kredi Bank
HSBC Bank
Sekerbank
Vakflar Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Turkish Bank
Tekstil Bank
ING Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.685
0.611
0.589
0.583
0.571
0.548
0.530
0.528
0.511
0.456
0.439
0.436
0.397
0.326
0.309
0.304
0.280
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Garanti Bank
Denizbank
Ziraat Bank
Is Bank
Halk Bank
Anadolubank
Yap Kredi Bank
Akbank
Finans Bank
Sekerbank
HSBC Bank
Vakflar Bank
Turk Ekonomi Bank
Turkish Bank
Tekstil Bank
ING Bank
Eurobank Tekfen
0.684
0.598
0.598
0.593
0.570
0.551
0.532
0.516
0.515
0.446
0.445
0.432
0.405
0.322
0.313
0.302
0.288
555
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Shareholders' Equity / (Amount Subject to Credit Risk + Market Risk + Operational Risk)
Table 19. Forecasting example for the Shareholders' Equity / (Amount Subject to Credit Risk + Market Risk + Operational Risk) parameter
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Forecasting Method
Ziraat Bank
72.0
95.1
50.6
47.7
39.5
25.4
20.1
23.2
19.2
15.6
15.97
14.29
12.60
10.92
Halk Bank
102.0
99.3
58.9
49.6
32.0
20.0
14.5
16.0
15.9
14.3
12.71
11.62
10.70
9.92
Vakflar Bank
14.9
14.9
17.3
25.4
19.7
15.4
14.3
15.4
14.4
13.4
14.37
13.98
13.60
13.21
Akbank
39.1
44.5
36.2
21.4
20.7
18.9
18.2
22.5
20.6
17.0
15.40
14.37
13.42
12.54
Anadolubank
13.9
14.3
15.0
14.1
15.2
14.3
18.5
20.0
18.8
17.0
16.94
16.98
17.01
17.04
S Trend Function
ekerbank
10.4
16.5
15.8
20.2
16.7
16.8
14.7
16.3
14.0
13.2
15.35
15.37
15.39
15.41
Tekstil Bank
13.3
12.2
12.7
12.0
14.2
13.2
17.9
20.8
19.4
15.9
19.51
20.30
21.09
21.88
Turkish Bank
61.3
67.4
40.9
30.9
50.2
31.9
34.5
28.8
24.7
32.1
25.89
24.56
23.23
21.90
15.4
14.9
14.3
12.3
14.3
14.9
17.7
17.7
14.4
14.2
15.66
15.78
15.90
16.01
Garanti Bank
12.7
16.6
16.8
15.1
14.1
15.4
16.1
21.2
19.6
16.9
19.29
19.80
20.32
20.83
Bankas
25.3
28.4
29.0
25.0
23.9
20.5
15.2
18.3
17.5
14.1
13.87
12.85
11.90
11.03
15.1
18.6
18.3
7.2
12.3
13.7
15.7
17.8
16.1
14.7
15.12
14.86
14.12
14.05
Denizbank
19.0
18.2
18.9
14.1
15.5
13.2
17.2
19.0
16.4
15.6
15.50
15.31
15.12
14.93
Eurobank Tekfen
30.5
26.7
26.6
22.6
16.9
21.8
17.9
26.0
20.3
16.9
17.11
16.32
15.56
14.85
Finans Bank
8.6
12.7
14.1
13.5
16.8
13.0
16.0
18.0
16.7
17.2
16.76
16.35
15.74
14.93
HSBC Bank
31.7
32.6
19.9
13.2
11.8
13.7
15.4
17.3
16.5
16.1
14.55
14.44
14.35
14.27
S Trend Function
ING Bank
22.6
16.3
16.7
17.2
12.7
12.8
13.8
15.6
14.6
14.2
13.12
12.91
12.73
12.55
556
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
nuno.ferreira@iscte.pt
2
rui.menezes@iscte.pt
*
ISCAL
Avenida Miguel Bombarda, 20, Lisboa, Portugal
3
smbentes@iscal.ipl.pt
1.
Introduction
the
the
of
the
____________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance & Economic Sciences
IJLTFES, EISSN: 20470916
Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)
557
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
2.
Methodology
2.2
STR Model
(1)
558
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
2.3
Dataset
3.
Empirical results
St
Ri t1
Ri t2
3Mt
Y10 t
trend
Ri t1
Ri t2
3Mt
Y10 t
trend
Ri t1
Ri t2
3Mt
Y10 t
trend
Ri t1
Ri t2
3Mt
Y10 t
trend
Notes :
Market Fstatistic
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
FR
FR
FR
FR
FR
IR
IR
IR
IR
IR
2,77E07
1,83E01
6,62E01
6,54E09
6,43E03
1,90E06
3,81E02
1,59E01
9,99E01
1,80E02
2,46E07
1,44E03
1,18E01
5,65E02
4,83E01
2,20E08
2,30E03
8,06E05
3,02E01
H04
H03
H02
Model
5,91E02
5,67E04
8,72E01
1,01E02
1,01E01
6,51E02
1,15E02
7,69E01
9,87E01
1,32E02
3,14E04
6,09E01
5,24E01
5,24E01
3,56E01
6,35E02
5,35E05
4,34E02
1,09E05
7,64E01
4,51E03
7,66E01
6,15E01
2,98E07
1,02E01
1,70E03
5,99E01
2,11E01
8,49E01
6,54E01
5,29E03
8,77E02
1,66E01
1,66E01
7,75E01
1,56E07
7,71E02
5,59E01
1,63E01
3,39E01
5,18E06
4,76E02
2,32E01
1,02E03
1,81E02
1,17E04
1,85E02
5,81E02
9,72E02
5,39E02
9,88E04
2,94E02
2,71E02
2,71E02
2,56E01
7,71E03
2,57E03
1,37E03
3,10E01
1,06E01
LSTR1
LSTR1
LINEAR
LSTR2
LSTR1
LSTR1
LSTR1
LINEAR
LINEAR
LSTR1
LSTR1
LINEAR
LINEAR
LINEAR
LINEAR
LSTR2
LINEAR
LSTR1
LSTR1
LINEAR
559
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
SD
pva l ue
es ti ma te
Estimate
SP
PT
es tima te
Variable
SD
pva l ue
FR
es ti ma te
IR
SD
pva l ue
2,698
0,403
es ti ma te
SD
pva l ue
LinearPart
CONST
Ri t1
0,042
0,008
0,000
CONST
Y10 t
0,001
0,000
0,016
Ri t1
Ri t1
0,623
0,118
0,000
Ri t1
Y10 t
0,091
0,000
0,243
Ri t2
Ri t1
0,149
0,098
0,131
Ri t2
Y10 t
0,022
0,000
0,706
Y10 t
Ri t1
0,002
0,001
0,274
Y10 t
Y10 t
0,000
0,001
0,992
3Mt
Ri t1
0,137
0,051
0,007
3Mt
Y10 t
0,003
0,009
0,788
CONST
Ri t1
0,043
0,008
0,000
CONST
Y10 t
0,008
0,005
0,121
Ri t1
Ri t1
0,719
0,126
0,000
Ri t1
Y10 t
0,674
0,000
0,031
Ri t2
Ri t1
0,582
0,108
0,164
Ri t2
Y10 t
0,151
0,000
0,016
Y10 t
Ri t1
0,000
0,002
0,234
Y10 t
Y10 t
0,002
0,002
0,783
3Mt
Ri t1
0,094
0,054
0,005
3Mt
Y10 t
0,153
0,105
0,373
Gamma
Ri t1
10,129
6,693
0,131
Gamma
Y10 t
0,561
0,000
0,704
C1
Ri t1
0,033
0,003
0,000
C1
Y10 t
7,289
0,000
0,000
C2
Ri t1
C2
Y10 t
0,046
0,687
0,058
0,001
0,291
0,015
0,163
0,115
0,004
0,074
0,002
0,000
0,613
0,805
0,000
2,258
16,254
1,695
0,283
5,397
18,441
4,767
0,320
6,349
0,378
0,722
0,376
0,396
0,001
0,001
0,443
0,011
0,007
0,107
0,004
0,040
0,919
0,124
0,109
0,258
0,026
0,034
0,443
0,129
0,109
0,237
0,000
0,000
0,601
0,002
0,001
0,170
0,023
0,022
0,296
0,286
0,144
0,048
NonlinearPart
4,604
0,000
0,046
0,708
0,088
0,002
0,311
16,273
0,057
0,015
0,167
0,121
0,004
0,076
18,136
0,005
0,002
0,000
0,466
0,679
0,000
0,370
0,000
2,269
16,061
1,785
0.28440
5,433
0,798
0,218
2,705
18,382
4,796
0,320
6,353
0,288
0,068
0,402
0,383
0,710
0,374
0,393
0,006
0,001
0,095
0,035
0,008
0,020
0,011
0,068
0,224
0,180
0,003
0,547
0,169
0,184
0,261
0,343
0,000
1,235
0,187
0,164
0,000
0,012
0,000
0,045
0,001
0,956
0,548
0,348
0,002
1,088
0,227
0,016
0,437
0,196
0,026
4,567
3,536
0,197
0,106
0,007
0,000
0,151
0,257
0,556
0,163
0,050
0,001
0,171
560
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
Market:
PT
FR
SP
IR
Model:
St:
LSTR1
LSTR2
LSTR1
LSTR1
LSTR2
Ri t1
Y10 t
Ri t1
Ri t1
Ri t1
Lag
Fvalue
5,130
Fvalue
a
6,894
a
Fvalue
Fvalue
Fvalue
12,385
0,768
3,445
12,256
0,855
3,348
LSTR1
Y10 t
Fvalue
12,941
a
18,061
6,646
3,832
12,632
11,621
12,925
7,058
3,481
8,672
7,999
8,623
4,680
2,817
6,714
2,280
6,224
6,751
6,225
6,546
3,595
9,822
Significantatthe5%level.
nonlinear component.
ParameterConstancy:H0:yes
T.F.
H:
PT
FValue
FR
IR
a
Ri t1
H1
5,879
3,763
2,532
Ri t1
H2
4,016
2,342
1,422
2,567
1,252
2,068
NoRemainingNonlinearity:H
H3
3,149 0:no 1,883
Ri
t1
Y10t
H1
1,865
Market:
Y10
t
H2St:
1,429
Y10t
H3
1,681
2,961
FValues
1,665
F2
F3
Ri t1
1,58E04
2,77E03
3,00E02
2,61E02
PT
1,039
Significantatthe5%level.
SP
F4
1,736
PT
Y10 t
5,95E+03
1,90E01
4,34E02
1,88E03
SP
Ri t1
5,81E03
7,54E01
2,27E04
3,78E01
FR
Ri t1
6,78E02
1,80E01
5,68E02
3,39E01
IR
Ri t1
Y10 t
3,48E05
5,37E03
1,53E02
4,93E03
2,05E05
3,44E06
9,08E02
3,33E01
IR
561
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
St:
Statistics:
PT
Ri t1
Test:
155,293
Y10 t
Test:
153,053
Ri t1
F:
23,278
Y10 t
F:
22,876
SP
67,995
FR
127,849
IR
164,610
211,286
9,166
18,512
24,973
34,121
4.
Conclusion
562
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
References
[1] Aslanidis, N., Christiansen, C., 2012. Smooth
transition patterns in the realized stock-bond
correlation. J. Empirical Finance, 19, 454-464.
[2] Brggemann, R. Riedel, J., 2011. Nonlinear
interest rate reaction fuctions for the UK. Econ.
Model., 28, 1174-1185.
[3] Calvo, G.A., Izquierdo, A., Meja, L.-F., 2004.
On the empirics of sudden stops: the relevance
of balance-sheet effects. NBER Working Paper
10520.
[4] van Dijk, D., Terasvirta, T., Franses, P.H., 2002.
Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models A
Survey of Recent Developments. Econometrics
Rev., 21, 1-47.
563
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
ISCAL Instituto Superior de Contabilidade e Administao de Lisboa and BRU/UNIDE Instituto Universitrio
de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Lisbon, Portugal
smbentes@iscal.ipl.pt
1.
Introduction
564
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
2.
2.1
Seveso I Directive
2.2
Seveso II Directive
565
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
566
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
2.3
3.
However
technological
and
economic
developments have brought new dimensions to
business risks, sometimes producing effects that are
difficult to control. In this context, we can mention:
3.1
Defining
Management
Enterprise
Risk
567
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
568
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
3.2
Components and Steps of Enterprise
Risk Management
Having clarified the meaning and extent of ERM
it is now necessary to shed some light on how ERM
should be carried out. Following COSO (2004), ERM
comprises:
Internal environment;
Objective setting;
Event identification;
Risk assessment;
Risk response;
Control activities;
Information and communication;
Monitoring.
569
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
associated to ERM
new co-ordinating
Chief Risk Officer
activities related to
4.
3
This approach commonly relies on the following one-directional
steps (Ackerman, 2001): (i) identify the question(s); (ii) identify
risks; (iii) risk measurements; (iv) formulate strategies to limit risk;
(v) implement strategies; (vi) monitor results and repeat In the
same line, another consulting firm (ARI, 2001) considers the
following steps: (i) identify risk on an enterprise basis; (ii) measure
it; (iii) formulate strategies and tactics to limit leverage it; (iv)
execute those strategies and tactics; and, (v) monitor process.
5.
Conclusions
570
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
References
[1] Ackerman, S. (2001), The enterprise in
enterprise risk management, Casuality Actuarial
Society Enterprise Risk Management Seminar.
[2] ARI Risk Management Consultants (2001),
Enterprise risk management: The intersection of
risk
and
strategy,
http://www.riskadviser.net/Cases/case.htm.
[3] Arruda, L. (2004), A Gesto de Riscos. Curso de
Tcnicos Analistas de Riscos, Mdulo IV:
Anlise de Riscos Industriais, Associao
Portuguesa de Seguradores, Lisboa.
[4] Breasley, M.S., R. Clune and D.R Hermanso
(2008), The impact of enterprise risk
management on the internal audit function,
Journal of Forensic Accounting IX (1), pp. 120.
[5] Casualty Actuarial Society Enterprise Risk
Management Committee (2003), Overview of
Enterprise
Risk
Management,
<http://www.casact.org/reserach/erm/overview.
pdf>.
[6] Chenhall, R.H. (2003), Management control
systems design within its organizational context:
findings from contingency-based research and
directions for future, Accounting Organizations
and Society 28 (2-3), pp. 127-168.
[7] Committee of sponsoring Oraganizations
(COSO) of the Treadway Comission (2004),
571
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
572
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
1.
Gross
Domestic
Product,
Introduction
____________________________________________________________________________________
International Journal of Latest Trends in Finance & Economic Sciences
IJLTFES, EISSN: 20470916
Copyright ExcelingTech, Pub, UK (http://excelingtech.co.uk/)
573
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
2.
574
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
3.
575
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
(1)
k 1
i 1,..., N ,
t 1,..., T
i 1,..., N ,
(2)
t 1,..., T
4.
Variable
Current account balance
Population (*10,000,000)
Unemployment rate
Inflation, average consumer prices
Volume of exports of goods and services
Volume of imports of goods and services
Growth rate in general government gross debt
Growth rate in general government revenue
Growth rate in general government total expenditure
Gross national savings
Total investment
Units
Percent of GDP
Persons
Percent of total labor force
Percent change
Percent change
Percent change
Rate
Rate
Rate
Percent of GDP
Percent of GDP
576
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Variable
Obs
Mean
ngdp
nid_ngdp
ngsd_ngdp
pcpipch
tm_rpch
tx_rpch
198
198
198
198
198
198
2247.547
.2280678
.2407581
.0465638
.0738092
.0476785
lur
lp
bca_ngdpd
ggxwdg_gr
ggr_gr
ggx_gr
196
198
198
198
198
198
.0830784
16.47114
.0129634
1.090097
1.104398
1.100209
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
3077.303
.0666081
.0950934
.0496962
.1196233
.0789862
97.403
.10778
.11134
-.01344
-.54587
-.24196
15653.37
.48584
.53474
.45134
.52255
.27765
.050227
29.0687
.0631424
.222862
.1254302
.08843
.02978
1.9771
-.09962
.7317608
.490437
.9401937
.30409
135.3821
.28538
3.563901
1.623843
1.519621
lur
lp
1.0000
-0.0398 1.0000
-0.1310 0.7785 1.0000
-0.2860 -0.1209 -0.0651 1.0000
-0.1310 0.2098 0.2403 0.0965 1.0000
0.0304 0.2911 0.2571 0.0939 0.5484 1.0000
-0.2428 -0.4046 -0.3250 0.2803 -0.0277 -0.1446 1.0000
0.3018 0.7439 0.6243 -0.0811 0.1238 0.3155 -0.2359
-0.1713 0.0942 0.6964 0.0388 0.1454 0.0719 -0.0562
0.0203 0.0307 -0.0401 0.2908 -0.3356 0.0522 0.1121
-0.2394 0.1985 0.3395 0.4460 0.5490 0.3652 0.1211
-0.2568 0.2607 0.3012 0.5777 0.1184 0.0601 0.1736
1.0000
0.1344
0.1261
0.1810
0.2370
Table 4: (continued)
bca_ng~d ggxwdg~r
bca_ngdpd
ggxwdg_gr
ggr_gr
ggx_gr
1.0000
-0.1063
0.3225
0.1972
1.0000
-0.0110
0.3283
ggr_gr
ggx_gr
1.0000
0.5840
1.0000
577
ngdp
5000 10000 15000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
7 ggxwdg _ grit 8 ggr _ grit 9 ggx _ grit 10 ngsd _ ngd it 11nid _ ngdpit uit
and the random effects model is
7 ggxwdg _ grit 8 ggr _ grit 9 ggx _ grit 10 ngsd _ ngdit 11nid _ ngdpit i uit
i stands for the country number, t stands for the year,
uit is the error term for the fixed effects model and
i uit is the composite error term for the random
effects model. If the country effects are uncorrelated
with the regressors, they are known as random effects.
In the random effects model, because there is no
correlation between the country specific effects and
(4)
7 ggxwdg _ grit 8 ggr _ grit 9 ggx _ grit 10 ngsd _ ngd it 11nid _ ngdpit uit
Firstly, the null hypothesis that constant terms are
equal across countries is tested to determine if the
pooled ols regression will produce inconsistent
estimates. Pooling test examines whether the
intercepts take on a common value and also known
as the test for heterogeneity. Hypothesis is tested with
F test
H 0 : 1 2 ... N 0
F 17; 167 318.63 prob F 0.0000
578
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
lp
lur
pcpipch
tx_rpch
tm_rpch
ggxwdg_gr
ggr_gr
ggx_gr
ngsd_ngdp
nid_ngdp
_cons
OLS_ALL
-20795.508
40536.146
0.6086
86.6794
9.0726365
0.0000
-19105.686
3937.8631
0.0000
-11643.572
4633.4907
0.0128
-288.05526
2860.1311
0.9199
-258.61622
2144.3833
0.9041
246.20577
957.27342
0.7973
-369.91052
2213.26
0.8674
-1470.7494
3177.0526
0.6440
10012.573
40128.229
0.8032
-45072.857
40157.543
0.2632
12860.605
2928.3727
0.0000
FE_ALL
RE_ALL
-1273.3258
8281.4613
0.8780
1047.0582
60.570788
0.0000
-7344.7459
3077.0753
0.0181
804.78161
1027.2994
0.4345
-627.2042
568.21817
0.2713
210.82021
415.00306
0.6121
194.70315
195.14302
0.3198
567.05566
437.08882
0.1963
-1125.6047
674.98903
0.0973
-1888.8218
8118.2812
0.8163
-6527.8979
8658.1863
0.4519
-12186.613
1062.7447
0.0000
10244.125
12731.097
0.4210
161.524
35.401347
0.0000
7631.6385
4409.526
0.0835
954.79785
1586.31
0.5472
-2468.7299
858.77948
0.0040
8.9230555
641.09106
0.9889
440.1285
300.43694
0.1429
1094.4565
672.70532
0.1037
-2542.3342
1033.498
0.0139
-11345.537
12495.492
0.3639
23325.73
12989.709
0.0725
-2590.0982
1725.3333
0.1333
579
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
lp
bca_ngdpd
nid_ngdp
_cons
FE
RE
FE_RB
-7763.6146
2790.0497
0.0060
1064.4479
57.338028
0.0000
-2493.4479
1322.6402
0.0611
-9320.9708
2405.3268
0.0002
-12618.191
829.86401
0.0000
6660.6738
4186.0231
0.1116
137.73187
31.8472
0.0000
-869.34636
2117.0613
0.6813
9957.238
3336.5945
0.0028
-2838.3459
1373.2236
0.0387
FE_PCSE
-7763.6146
3654.8707
0.0486
1064.4479
144.65103
0.0000
-2493.4479
2345.6457
0.3026
-9320.9708
5340.5012
0.0990
-12618.191
2022.8941
0.0000
FE_DK
-12882.199
3212.5937
0.0001
44.541245
10.596397
0.0000
-3293.0229
1703.7132
0.0533
-7272.8518
3740.521
0.0519
4252.7806
1044.4052
0.0000
-7763.6146
2389.7306
0.0047
1064.4479
94.631885
0.0000
-2493.4479
1095.4531
0.0361
-9320.9708
4666.9423
0.0621
-12618.191
754.83991
0.0000
Table 8: The Lagrange Multiplier and the Likelihood Ratio Test Results
Lagrange Multiplier Test
LM 619.58
483.62
2
1
prob 0.0000
2
prob 2 0.0000
2
1
Fixed Effects
(b)
Random Effects
(B)
Difference
(b-B)
lur
lp
bca_ngdpd
nid_ngdp
-7763.615
1064.448
-2493.448
-9320.971
6660.674
137.732
-869.346
9957.238
-14424.29
926.72
-1624.10
-19278.21
prob 2 0.0000
The Hausman tests null hypothesis is rejected.
Country specific effects are correlated with the
regressors. Because the random effects estimator is
580
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
Hypothesis
Test Statistic
Probability
H 0 : i2 2
182 1663.07
p 182 0.0000
Serial Correlation
Baltagi-Wu LBI.
H0 : 0
LBI 0.8328
Modif. Bhargavaet.al. DW
H0 : 0
DW 0.4128
Wooldridges Serial
Correlation
F1;17 294.61
p F1;17 0.0000
Contemporaneous
Correlation
Breusch-Pagan LM
H 0 : No contemporaneous correlation
2
153
526.44
2
p 153
0.0000
Pesaran CD
H 0 : No contemporaneous correlation
CD 6.81
p CD 0.0000
Friedmans R
H 0 : No contemporaneous correlation
R 33.07
p R 0.0111
Frees Q
H 0 : No contemporaneous correlation
Qtest 4.254
0.10
: 0.2828
0.05
: 0.3826
0.01
: 0.5811
581
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
5.
Concluding Remarks
Acknowledgments
This study was supported financially by Istanbul
University (BAP-Project no: 36374). It is my
obligation to acknowledge financial support from
Istanbul University BAP Department.
References
[1] Ahn, S. C., Moon, H. R. (2001). Large-N and
Large-T Properties of Panel Data Estimators and
the Hausman Test, USC CLEO Research Paper,
No. C01-20
[2] Baltagi, B. H. (2010). Econometric Analysis of
Panel Data, Fourth Edition, John Wiley&Sons
Ltd, 2010
[3] Beine, M., Docquier, F., Oden-Defoort, C.
(2011). A Panel Data Analysis of the Brain Gain.
World Development (39), 4, 523532
[4] Bortolotti, B., Fantini, M., Siniscalco, D. (2003).
Privatisation around the world: evidence from
panel data. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 305
332
[5] Current Account Surpluses in the EU, European
Economic Series, September 2012.
[6] Frees, E. W., (2004). Longitudinal and Panel
Data, Analysis and Applications in the Social
Sciences, New York, Cambridge University
Press
[7] Gujarati, D. N., Porter, D. C., (2009). Basic
Econometrics, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, New
York
[8] Haas, R. de, Lelyveld, I. van, (2006). Foreign
banks and credit stability in Central and Eastern
Europe. A panel data analysis. Journal of
Banking & Finance 30, 19271952
[9] Hill, R. C., Griffiths, W. E., Lim, G. C. (2008).
Principles of Econometrics, 3rd press, John
Wiley & Sons
[10] Hsiao, C. (2003). Analysis of Panel Data, 2nd
press, New York, Cambridge University Press,
2003
[11] Maddala, G.S., Lahiri, K. (2009). Introduction to
Econometrics, 4th press., West Sussex, John
Wiley & Sons
[12] Lee, C. C., Chang, C. P., (2007). Energy
consumption and GDP revisited: A panel
analysis of developed and developing countries.
Energy Economics, 29, 1206 1223
582
Int. Jour. Of Latest Trends in Fin. & Eco. Sc.
583
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
Effect of Internal-marketing-mix on
Customer-pyramid-oriented banking service
performance. An Indian Experience
Selvarasu Appasamy Mutharasu #1, Krishnaswamy Natarajan #2, Jos Antnio Filipe*
#
Annamalai University, India
1
aselvarasu@gmail.com
krishnaadhy@yahoo.com
*
Instituto Universitrio de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), BRU IUL
Lisbon, Portugal
jose.filipe@iscte.pt
2
1.
Introduction
2.
Literature Review
584
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
585
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
3.
586
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
4.
Methodology
CUB-Consumer loan
CUB-Easy ride
CUB-Yoha Vahana
CUB-Sulabh
CUB-Dharani Loan
CUB-Swamy Griha
CUB-Vidhyavani
CUB-Bazaar
CUB-Easy business
CUB-Dharani special
CUB-Sona
587
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
IM
EC IV
H3
H 4
IM
H14
H2
EC III
EC I
TITANIUM
H3
H14
TIERII
TIER I
TIER III
IC
IM
H15
INVESTMENT
H12 H13
H6
H 5
H7
INTERNAL
CUSTOMER SERVICE
H10
WHOLESALE
CORPORATE
H 8
H9
BRAND VALUE
(PARTNERSHIP)
H11
CORPORATE
VALUE
(OWNERSHIP MISSION)
Internal
Marketing
[IM] Mix
Compensation/
Reward
Internal
Communication
Intangible Benefits
Senior/
Supervisor
support
Table 1.
Work
Intermediary
Customer Value
Tier-I Internal Customer
Tier II Internal Customer
Tier III Intern
Brand Value
Banking
Service
Performance
588
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
Task Name
Quarter 1
M
-1
Definition phase
Quarter 2
M M M
-2 -3 -4
M
-5
Quarter 3
M M M
-6
-7
-8
M
-9
Quarter 4
M
M
-10 -11
M
-12
Stage
0
1
2
3
4
5
Colour Code
Green
Blue
Purple
Red
Yellow
Light Blue
Duration
2Months
3Months
3Months
3Months
4Months
1Month
Dependency
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
589
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
displays/exhibits.
Supervisor/senior
leadership
specifies understanding the organization to prepare
for a promotion, increasing job responsibility, getting
innovative assignments, setting promotional goals
and communicating employees desire. Intangible
benefits are treating with respect, treating
well, enhancing
interpersonal
relationship,
allowing comfortable working environment,
developing talents and potential and work
interestingly. Intermediary denotes variables namely
work related information flow, group activities to
gain understanding from others and channel for
filing complaints.
Customer-pyramid orientation is studied using
interview method with the question components like
familiarity and ideas of the term IM, reason for
adopting IM and its role, fundamental aim of IM,
implementation of IM and its key activities/key
benefits, difficulties in implementing IM,
measuring effectiveness of IM and changes and
improvements in IM practice.
Banking service performance is a measure of
performance only construct planned based on the
internal customer service value, brand value and
corporate value as independent and interdependent
factors. Internal Customer values are the intangible
benefits promised to bank staff while performing
their task in association with other levels of bank
employees in the organization. Branding service
value is established by a service contract internally
for creating ownership for service brands across all
levels of the organization (Dobree and Page, 1990).
The following components namely building a brand
proposition,
overcoming
internal
barriers,
measuring delivery against the proposition,
continual increment and expansion are measures
of brand value. Corporate value is based on the
corporate reputation and its assessment have been
done in financial methods like share market
valuation, intrinsic value and statutory reports on
corporate reputation (Dowling, 2006). Corporate
value drivers are human, knowledge apart from
reputation and financial etc. It is important to
measure the realization of customer pyramid
orientation in an upside-down pattern in relation to
corporate value. Corporate value comprises of
internal
components
like
mission,
vision,
organizational value, core values, brand architecture,
service attributes and internal brand identity (Urde,
2001). The distribution of variables, factors and
dimensions of internal marketing are presented in the
following table.
590
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
Customer-pyramid Orientation
Scale
Manageability support
Support service
Productivity Support
5.
Implications
Discussion
of
Results
and
591
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
6.
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
This work was financially supported by FCT
through
the
Strategic
Project
PEstOE/EGE/UI0315/2011.
References
[1] Ahmed, P. K. and Rafiq, M. (2003), Internal
marketing issues and challenges, European
Journal of Marketing; 37, 9; pg. 1177
[2] Ballantyne,
David.
(2000b),
Internal
relationship marketing: a strategy for knowledge
renewal, The International Journal of Bank
Marketing, 18, 6; 274-286.
[3] Ballantyne, David (2000a), The Strength and
weaknesses of Internal Marketing in Varey, R.
And Lewis, B.(Eds), Internal Marketing
Directions for Management, Routledge,
London.
[4] Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Corporate branding
and Connoisseurship, Journal of General
management, Vol.21 n.1, pp 24-46.
592
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
[1] http://ivija.com/ivijasuite/ivija360,
visited on 20.11.2012
website
593
Int. J Latest Trends Fin. Eco. Sc.
2013
APPENDIX A
Construct of Interview Schedule, IM perception Scale and CPO and BSP Scale adopted and derived
Interview schedule adopted for interviewing the senior executive officers, branch managers and front-line
employees in banking service
1. Are you familiar with the term IM?
2. What are the underlying ideas of IM within the organization?
3. Why has IM been adopted within the organization? What is its role?
4. What are the fundamental aims of IM in this organization?
5. How is IM implemented within the organization? What are the key activities?
6. What are the key benefits of the adoption of IM?
7. What are the main difficulties with the implementation of IM?
8. How is the effectiveness of IM measured?
9. What needs to be changed or improved in order to improve the IM practice within the organization?
II.
Questionnaire IM Perception scale
Communication
1. The company often announces new policies to us by holding meetings.
2. The company often shares work-related information at Employee events.
3. Web normal can gain understanding of the company policies and practice through attending
formal meetings such as department meetings.
4. Company regularly communicates its philosophy and values through training courses.
5. Company regularly reinforces our identification with the company through participation with
external sponsor events.
Supervisor
1. Our direct supervisor should motivate us to give him /her best efforts
2. Our direct supervisor is always proactively understand if we encounter job related problems
3. Our direct supervisor fully understand our work performance
4. Our direct supervisor tries to have us provide feedback about him/her leadership
5. Our direct supervisor is regularly discuss with about career development
Intangible Benefits
1. The company treats employees with respect
2. The company treats employees well
3. In my work, I can enhance my interpersonal relationship
4. The company tries to provide us a very comfortable working environment
5. My current job allows me to develop my talents and potential
6. The company tries to make our work interesting
Compensation/Reward
1. The company regularly investigates and understands the employees benefits of competitors
2. The company regularly investigates and understands the employees salary scale of competitors
3. The company sets up different incentive schemes for different departments
Intermediary
1. The company often announces and shares work-related information with us on the intranet
2. The company often sponsors various employee related group activities to gain support and
understanding from employees
3. The company provides us good channel for filing complaints
III.
Customer pyramid orientation scale
1. Manageability support
2. Support services
3. Productivity support
IV.
Banking service performance scale
1. Internal customer service value [performance based value of service contract]
2. Brand value [building a brand proposition, overcoming internal barriers, measuring delivery against the proposition, continual increment and expansion]
Corporate value [mission, vision, organizational value, core values, brand architecture, service
attributes, and internal brand identity]
The journal welcomes high quality original research papers, survey papers,
review papers, tutorial, technical notes as well as discussion papers.
International Economics
Economic Development
Financial Economics
Financial Analysis
Transition Economies
Corporate Finance
Economic Policy
International Finance