06 genel oturum 2 - ISMMMOarchive.ismmmo.org.tr/docs/SEMPOZYUMLAR/SEMPOZYUM... · Birçok ﬂirketin menkul k›ymetleri farkl› ülkelerin bor-salar›nda iﬂlem görmektedir

122

123

Plenary Session IIGenel Oturum II

Oturum KonusuPublic Interest and Financial Reporting

Finansal Raporlama ve Kamu Ç›karlar›n›n Korunmas›

Chair / Oturum Baflkan›: Ahmet YÜKSEL, Dean, School of Business, Golden Horn University of ‹stanbul / Haliç Üniversitesi ‹flletme Fakültesi Dekan›

Cemal ‹B‹fi, University of Marmara / Marmara Üniversitesi

Meeting the Expectations of Financial Statement Users and Rebuilding PublicTrust and Reliability of Financial Statements

Finansal Raporlamaya Kullan›c›lar›n Beklentileri ve Uygulamada Bunlar›n Karfl›-lanma Düzeyi Konusunda Yeniden Yap›lanma

Serdar ÖZKAN, M. Banu DURUKAN, A. Fatih DALKILIÇ, Dokuz EylulUniversity / Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi

Approaches to Measuring Quality of Earnings and Discussion of the Applicabi-lity of These Approaches to ISE Companies

Finansal Raporlamada Ölçme Yaklafl›mlar› ve Bu Yaklafl›mlar›n ‹stanbul Men-kul K›ymetler Borsas›na Tabi fiirketlerde Uygulanabilirli¤inin Tart›fl›lmas›

Cansen Baflaran Symes, Baflaran Auditing, Inc./Baflaran Nas SMMM A.fi.

Financial Reporting in Turkey and A Need of Harmonization

Türkiye’de Finansal Raporlama ve Harmanizasyon Gereksinimi

Mine AKSU, Arman KÖSEDA⁄, Sabanci University / Sabanc› Üniversitesi

The Relationship Between Transparency And Disclosure Scores And Firm Per-formance: Evidence From The Istanbul Stock Exchange

Firma Performans› ‹le Finansal Raporlamada Tam Aç›klama ve Saydaml›k Ara-s›ndaki ‹liflkiler: ‹stanbul Menkul K›ymetler Borsas›na Tabi fiirketler ÜzerindeBir Çal›flma

Plenary Session II - Genel Oturum II

124

125

F‹NANSAL RAPORLAMADA KULLANICILARIN BEKLENT‹LER‹VE UYGULAMADA BUNLARIN KARfiILANMA DÜZEY‹ KONUSUNDA

YEN‹DEN YAPILANMA

Doç. Dr. Cemal ‹B‹fiMarmara Üniversitesi Ö¤retim Üyesi

Say›n Baflkan, Say›n Hocalar›m, de¤erli meslektafllar›m; ben size finansal rapor-lamada kullan›c›lar›n beklentileri ve bunlar›n karfl›lanma düzeyi konusunda ye-niden yap›lanma konusunda bir bildiri sunaca¤›m.

Bu bildirime bafllamadan önce de, bu sempozyumu düzenleyen ‹stanbul SerbestMuhasebeci Mali Müflavirler Odas›na Say›n Baflkan Yahya Ar›kan flahs›ndaeme¤i geçen herkese ayr› ayr› teflekkür etmek istiyorum.

Benim sunum plan›m, girifl bölümü, bunu takiben finansal raporlamada güvenkayb›n›n nedenleri, burada konuflmaya bafllad›k bunu, üçüncü olarak finansal ra-porlamada güvenin tekrar sa¤lanabilmesi için yeniden yap›lanma ve sonuç bö-lümüyle bitecek.

Hepimizin bildi¤i, iflletme ilgilileri farkl› nedenlerle iflletmelerle ilgilenmekte veilgileri sonucunda da karalar vermektedir. Bu kararlar› verirken de iflletme yö-netiminden güvenilir ve yeterli finansal bilgiye, dolay›s›yla güvenilir finansalraporlamaya ihtiyaç duyarlar, bu bir beklenti.

Güvenilir olmayan finansal raporlama ve aç›klamalar eskiden beri iflletmelerdebaflar›s›zl›klara, çöküfllere neden olmufltur. Yak›n geçmiflte yaflanan Enron,WorldCom, gibi önemli flirketler ve dünyan›n di¤er çeflitli bölgelerindeki dahaufak flirketlerle ilgili vakalar, güvenilir olmayan finansal tablolara daha fazladikkatin yo¤unlaflmas›na neden olmufltur.

Buna paralel olarak flirket hissedarlar› ve çal›flanlar›n gelirlerinde ve emeklile-rin, özellikle yurt d›fl›nda emeklilik fonlar› nedeniyle yüksek tutarlarda zayi et-tikleri piyasalarda flirketi yönetenlerin ve bu zararlardan sorumlu olarak görülendi¤er aktörlerin flirketleri batarken, kendilerine bir fley olmamas› ve hatta zen-ginleflmesi, piyasa sistemindeki iflleyiflindeki adaletin de sorgulanmas›na nedenolmufltur.

Örne¤in, Amerika Birleflik Devletlerinde Ocak 1999-May›s 2002 aras›ndaki dö-nemde hisse senedi fiyatlar› yüzde 75’den daha fazla düflen iflletme ve finansalraporlama sorunlar› yaflayan 25 flirketin yöneticileri 25 milyar Amerikan Dola-r›n› ceplerine koyarak hayatlar›na devam etmifllerdir.

Yaflanan son olaylar nedeniyle, güven kayb› bulafl›c› olmufl, sermaye piyasalar›


126

aras›nda yay›lm›flt›r. Bir sektörde yaflanan problemler, benzer özelliklere sahipdi¤er sektörleri de etkilemifl, piyasalar›n ve flirketlerin giderek daha fazla küre-selleflmesi sonucu bu kayg›lar ulusal s›n›rlar› da aflarak, uluslar aras› bir hal al-m›flt›r.

fiirketlerin baflar›s›zl›klar›n›n hemen hemen tamam› yönetimlerin baflar›s›zl›kla-r› ve finansal raporlamadaki baflar›s›zl›klar›n birleflmesi sonucu olmufltur. Finan-sal tablolar›n kullan›c›lar›na iletilmesi gereken durumlarla ilgili aç›klamalar ye-teri kadar yap›lmam›fl, yönetim bunlar› ortaya ç›karma veya önlemede yetersizkalm›fl ve bunun sonucu olarak da raporlama sorunlar› oluflmufltur.

Bir iflletme yapt›¤› iflte baflar›s›zl›k yapmaya bafllad›kça, raporlarda sunulan bil-gilerin tahrif edilmesi için e¤ilim artmaya bafllam›fl ve raporlarda sorun ç›kmaolas›l›¤› artm›flt›r ve ç›km›flt›r.

Bu çal›flmada finansal raporlamada kullan›c›lar›n beklentilerinin temelini olufl-turdu¤unu düflündü¤ümüz, finansal raporlamalar›n ve flirket aç›klamalar›n›n gü-venirli¤i üzerinde duraca¤›z. Odak noktas›, finansal raporlama yaflanan sorun-lard›r. fiirketlerin baflar›s›zl›¤› ve raporlama sorunlar› aras›ndaki yak›n iliflki, yö-netim konular› da ele almam›za neden olmufltur.

Ancak, burada anlat›lanlar›n hiçbiri flirketlerin baflar›s›zl›¤›n›n piyasa ekonomi-si içinde yer alan normal bir durum oldu¤u ve piyasa sisteminin iyi iflleyebilme-si için bunun asl›nda gerekli bir durum oldu¤u gerçe¤ini yads›yamaz. Yani, ku-rumsal yönetim yap›lar›n›n ve raporlama süreçlerinin güçlenmesine ba¤l› olarakart›n finansal raporlama güvenirli¤i, flirketlerin baflar›s›zl›¤›n› engellemeyecek-tir. Buna karfl›l›k, bu alandaki iyileflmeler hileler ve fleffafl›k eksikli¤inden kay-naklanan baflar›s›zl›klar›n önüne geçilmesinde flüphesiz etkili olacakt›r.

Finansal raporlamada güven kayb›n›n nedenlerine bakt›¤›m›z zaman flunlar›görmekteyiz:

Yönetim baflar›s›zl›¤› ve raporlama sorunlar›na ba¤l› flirket baflar›s›zl›klar›n›ngeçmifli oldukça eskilere dayanmaktad›r. Son zamanlardaki flirket baflar›s›zl›kla-r›na bak›ld›¤›nda, yaratt›klar› etkiler aç›s›ndan oldukça önemli oldu¤u inkar edi-lemez. Ancak bu baflar›s›zl›klar› ortaya ç›kar›n nedenlerin geçmiflte ortaya at›lannedenlerle benzerlik gösterdikleri de söylenebilir.

Di¤er taraftan, son dönemlerde yaflanan ve etkileri oldukça büyük olan vakala-r›n yaratt›klar› toplam etki, finansal tablolar›n ve bu tablolar›n haz›rlanmas›ndave raporlanmas›nda yer alan kat›l›mc›lar›n güvenirliklerine önemli ölçüde zararvermifltir.

2001 y›l›na kadar olan dönemde birçok geliflmifl ülkenin hisse senetleri piyasa-lar› uzun süredir görülmemifl rekor seviyelere ulaflm›flt›. Bu art›flta özellikle te-lekomünikasyon, e-ifl gibi sektörlerdeki hisse fiyatlar› ön plana ç›km›fl, o dö-

I. Uluslararas› Muhasebe Denetimi Sempozyumu ve VII. Türkiye Muhasebe Denetimi Sempozyumu ‹stanbul smmmo1 st International Symposium on Accountancy of Turkey and 7 th National Symposium on Accountancy of Turkey

127

nemde piyasa beklentilerine uygun performans sa¤lama bask›s› nedeniyle,amaç, k›sa vadede beklentilere uygun hisse fiyatlar›n› yüksek tutmaya odaklan-m›flt›.

Enron’un çöküflü ve buna olarak ortaya ç›kan denetim zaaf› genel olarak finan-sal raporlaman›n güvenirli¤ine iliflkin alg›lamay› de¤ifltiren geliflme olarak gö-rülmektedir. Enron olay›n› geliflmelerin bir parças› olarak görmek ve büyüklü-¤üyle birçoklar›n›n asl›nda uzun bir süredir ortada olan kurullar›n aç›¤a ç›kma-s›n› sa¤layan olay olarak görmek mümkündür. Bir di¤er deyiflle, Enron olay› za-ten ortada olan olaylara gönüllülük sa¤layan, tetikleyici olay olarak görülebilir.

Worldcom’da yaflanan daha büyük ama daha az karmafl›k etkisi olan olaylar veGlobal Crossing, Tyco, Adelfiya, Xerox’la ilgili yaflanan olaylar, finansal rapor-laman›n güvenilir olmad›¤›na dair alg›n›n güçlenmesine neden olmufltur.

Tüm dünyada hükümetler ve di¤er kurulufllar önlemler al›nmas› gereklili¤ininfark›na vararak araflt›rmalar gerçeklefltirdiler ve komisyon raporlar› haz›rland›.Baz› raporlar tarihsel olaylar baflka türlü gösterse bile, buralarda böyle olaylarolmaz görüflünü savunmaktayd›. Tart›flmalar ABD’de oldu¤u kadar yo¤un ol-mamas›na ra¤men, geliflmifl sermaye piyasalar› olan ülkelerdeki finansal rapor-laman›n güven kayb›, Amerika’daki oldu¤undan daha az olmam›flt›r. Güvenkayb›, sermaye piyasalar› daha az geliflmifl ülkelerde daha az olmufl gibi görün-mektedir. Ancak bu ülkelerdeki finansal raporlama kalitesinin yaratt›¤› fleffafl›k,sorunlar› zaten güven sorununa neden olmaktad›r.

Finansal raporlamada güven kayb›n›n nedenlerine bakt›¤›m›zda, güven kayb›n›nnedenlerini daha iyi anlayabilmek, bu sorunla daha iyi bafla ç›kabilmek ve al›-nacak önlemlerin belirlenmesi için finansal raporlama sürecinde yer alan kat›-l›mc›lar›n ve bu süreçte üstlendikleri rollerin belirlenmesinde fayda görüyoruz.

Bilindi¤i gibi finansal raporlama flirketi, finansal raporlama süreci flirket yöneti-minin alt›nda çal›flan birimlerin finansal tablolar› haz›rlamalar›yla bafllamaktave bu tablolar›n yönetim kurulu taraf›ndan onaylanmas›yla sona ermektedir. Ba-¤›ms›z denetçiler bu süreçte flirket yönetimi ve yönetim kurullar›yla etkileflimiçindedir ve ba¤›ms›z görüfl sunarlar. Finansal raporlar›n da¤›t›m›, medya ve di-¤er arac›lar yoluyla gerçekleflir ve bu raporlar analistler ve kredi derecelendir-me kurulufllar› taraf›ndan yorumlan›r.

Süreç, finansal raporlar›n yaratt›¤› bilgilerin tüketicilere olan, yat›r›mc›lara vedi¤er hissedarlara ulaflmas›yla sona erer. Bu bilgi ak›fl›n›n di¤er bir taraf›ndankurallar› oluflturan ve kurallara uyulmas›n› sa¤lamakla görevli standart koyucu-lar, yat›r›m dan›flmanl›¤› yapan yat›r›m bankalar› ve hukuki dan›flmanl›k yapanuzmanlar bulunmaktad›r.

Bu süreçte yer alan tüm kat›l›mc›lar›n üzerinde sürekli olarak bask› yaratan birortam bulunmaktad›r; kiflisel, finansal veya politik olabilen bu bask›lar bir ara-


128

ya geldiklerinde veya sistemin sa¤lamas› beklenen kontrol mekanizmalar› iflle-medi¤inde daha etkili olmaktad›r. Bu bask›lar›n incelenmesi sistemde nas›l za-y›fl›klar yaratt›klar›n›n ortaya konmas› aç›s›ndan yararl›d›r.

Ben burada tek tek durmayaca¤›m, Say›n Baflkan›n zaman ikaz› var; ama flunusöyleyece¤im:

Evet, bu süreçte bir bask› var. Bu bask›, finansal tablolar›n güvenilirli¤ini önem-li ölçüde etkilemektedir. Size da¤›t›lan sunumda Enron’la ilgili olay, bütün ka-t›l›mc›lar›n bu olay›n içine nas›l girdikleri ve nas›l güvenilir olmayan finansalraporlaman›n ortaya ç›kt›¤› anlat›lm›flt›r.

Y›llard›r finansal raporlaman›n ve flirket aç›klamalar›n›n güvenirli¤inin art›r›l-mas›n› hedefleyen de¤ifliklikler yap›lmaktad›r. Baz› ülkelerde Enron’un çökü-flünden önce bafllat›lm›fl olan çal›flmalar bulunmaktayd›. Enron sonras›nda ise,birçok ülkede önemli konular›n incelenmesi ve gelifltirilmesine yönelik çabalaryo¤unlaflm›fl ve uluslar aras› sahada ulusal sistemlerdeki geliflmelere yön verenstandartlarla ilgili çal›flmalara h›z verilmifltir.

Uluslar aras› Muhasebeciler Federasyonu IFAC, finansal raporlama konusundatoplumun güveninin yeniden sa¤lanabilmesi için uluslar aras› boyutta neler ya-p›labilece¤ini incelemifl ve bu konuda raporlar haz›rlam›flt›r. IFAC’a göre finan-sal raporlamada ulusal ve uluslar aras› geliflmeler aras›ndaki etkileflim önemli-dir.

IFAC taraf›ndan dikkat çekilen uluslar aras› unsurlar flunlard›r:

Küreselleflme olgusu, mallar, hizmetler ve finansman sa¤lanmas› alanlar›ndakigeliflmelere yön veren en önemli faktördür. Menkul k›ymet ihraçlar› art›k sade-ce iflletmelerin kendi ülkeleriyle s›n›rl› de¤il, farkl› bölgelerde uluslar aras› ih-raçlar gerçekleflmektedir. Birçok flirketin menkul k›ymetleri farkl› ülkelerin bor-salar›nda ifllem görmektedir. Örne¤in, 1990’larda Amerikan borsas›nda ifllemgören yabanc› flirket say›s› 3 kat artarak 1200’ün üzerine ç›km›flt›r. Benzer art›fl-lar di¤er piyasalardaki yabanc› firmalar için de geçerlidir. Ancak, düzenlemelerulusal kalm›flt›r. Bunun sonucu olarak da finansal tablonun haz›rlan›fl ve sunu-munu belirleyen standartlar, ulusal standartlar olmufltur. Hisse senetlerin birdenfazla ülkenin borsas›nda ifllem gören iflletmeler, hem kendi ülkesinin kurallar›-na hem de kay›tl› oldu¤u di¤er ülkenin kurallar›na uymak zorunda kalm›flt›r. Pi-yasada flirketlerin finansal durumunu do¤ru olarak gösterdi¤i iddia edilen birdenfazla bilgi setinin bulunmas› bu bilgilerin güvenirli¤ine zarar vermektedir.

Bu durum piyasalar›n etkinli¤ine zarar vermekte, ayn› zamanda da gereksiz ifl-letmeler üzerinde maliyetler ortaya ç›karmaktad›r. Bundan sorunlar›n çözümüiçin tüm ülkelerin bir ülkenin standartlar›n› al›p uygulanmas› gerekti¤i sonucuç›kar›lmamal›d›r.


129

Enron olay›ndan önce, baz›lar› tüm ülkelerin ABD standartlar›n› kabul edip uy-gulamas› gerekti¤ini öne sürmüfltür. Politik olarak bir ülkenin standartlar›ndakarar k›l›n›p, di¤er ülkelerin bu standartlar› uygulamas› Hükümetlerce kabuledilebilir bir durum de¤ildir. Buna alternatif olarak da tarafs›z standartlar›n olufl-turulup, tüm ülkelerden bu standartlar› uygulamas› veya kendi standartlar›na bustandartlar› adapte etmeleri istenebilir.

Enron olay›ndan sonra yap›lan çal›flmalar sonucunda IFAC’›n ulaflt›¤› finansalraporlamada güvenin sa¤lanabilmesi için ortaya koydu¤u hususlar, ana bafll›kla-r›yla flu flekilde s›ralan›yor:

1. Etkin ahlak kurallar› oluflturulmal› ve bu konudaki uygulamalar düzenli ola-rak izlenmelidir.

2. fiirket yöneticileri finansal yönetim ve kontrolün etkinli¤ine daha fazla önemvermelidir.

3. Finansal bilgilerin yan›lt›c› olarak haz›rlanmas›n› teflvik eden durumlar›n or-tadan kald›r›lmas› gerekmektedir.

4. Yönetim kurulu, flirket yönetimi üzerindeki gözetimini art›rmal›d›r.

5. Denetçi, ba¤›ms›zl›¤›na karfl› oluflan bask›lar›n kald›r›lmas›na yönelik çal›fl-malarda, kurumsal yönetim süreci içinde ve denetçilerin kendileri taraf›nda da-ha fazla önem verilen unsur olmal›d›r.

6. Denetimin etkinli¤ini sa¤laman›n bir baflka yolu da, denetim kalite kontrol sü-reçlerine daha fazla önem verilmesidir.

7. Finansal raporlama sürecinde yer alan di¤er kat›l›mc›lar›n ifl yapma kurallar›-n›n ve bunlar›n uygunlu¤unun yak›ndan izlenmesi gerekmektedir.

8. Denetim standartlar› ve düzenlemelerin güçlendirilmesi gerekmektedir.

9. Muhasebe ve raporlama uygulamalar› güçlendirilmelidir.

Buraya kadar yapt›¤›m›z aç›klamalardan vard›¤›m›z sonuç fludur:

‹flletme ilgilileri, iflletme hakk›nda karar alma ve uygulama için iflletme yöneti-minden güvenilir finansal bilgi beklemektedir. Güvenilir finansal raporlar ifllet-melerin hissedarlar›na ve yat›r›mc›lar›na flirkete yat›r›m yap›p yapmama karar-lar›n› alabilmeleri için sunduklar› en önemli bilgi kaynaklar›ndan biridir.

Finansal bilgiler ve iflletme aç›klamalar›na olan güvendeki azal›fl, yat›r›mc›lar›ngeri çekilmelerine ve sermaye maliyetinin de artmas›na neden olmaktad›r, bu daekonomik verimlili¤i azaltmaktad›r.

Finansal raporlamada güvenin yeniden sa¤lanabilmesi için tavsiyelerimiz 3 bafl-l›k alt›nda toplanabilir IFAC düzenlemeleri dikkate al›narak:

1. Finansal raporlaman›n ve flirket aç›klamalar›n›n güvenirli¤inin iyilefltirilme-si hem her ülke içinde ele al›nmas› gereken, hem de uluslar aras› iflbirli¤i içinde


130

ele al›nmas› gereken konulard›r. Her iki seviyede de gerekil önlemler al›nmal›-d›r.

2. Finansal raporlar› piyasada getiren bilgi sunum zincirinin tüm noktalar›ndaönlemler al›nmal›d›r. Finansal raporlamadaki ana sorumlular flirket yönetimi veyönetim kurulu, denetçiler, standart koyucular, düzenleyici kurulufllar ve rapor-lama sürecinde yer alan di¤er kat›l›mc›lar, ki bunlar avukatlar, yat›r›m bankala-r›, analistler, kredi derecelendirme kurulufllar›; hepsinin finansal raporlaman›ngüvenirli¤inin art›r›lmas› için oynayacaklar› önemli roller ve almalar› gerekenönlemler bulunmaktad›r.

3. Bu önerilerin etkili olabilmesi için kiflisel ve kurumsal seviyede dürüstlü¤eba¤l›l›k çok önemlidir.

Sabr›n›z ve ilginiz için çok çok teflekkür ederim.


131

APPROACHES TO MEASURING QUALITY OF EARNINGS ANDDISCUSSION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE APPROACHES

TO ISTANBUL STOCK EXCHANGE (ISE) COMPANIES

Serdar ÖZKAN*

M. Banu DURUKAN*

Fatih DALKILIÇ*

Abstract

The success of companies is determined by their value, namely firm value. Oneof the most critical criteria used in firm valuation models is profitability. Aswell as the profitability figure as a whole its components are also of crucial. Sta-ted differently, sustainability of a company’s profitability level is as importantas its quantitative value. Thus, the ‘quality’ of the earnings is determined basedon the company’s activities that generate them. That is, earnings generated bythe extraordinary activities are not sustainable, not contributing to the quality ofearnings whereas earnings generated by ordinary activities are continuous in-creasing the quality of earnings.

In light of the points mentioned above, this study aims to investigate the studi-es on quality of earnings. The models utilized in these studies to measure thequality of earnings and the factors that are considered in these models are analy-zed, and the applicability of these models to the companies listed at IstanbulStock Exchange in determining their quality of earnings is discussed.

Keywords: Earnings quality, Turkey

Introduction

It’s widely accepted that accounting earnings (the bottom line) is premier firmspecific information provided in the financial statements and this presumption issupported by empirical researches. For example, Liu, Nissim and Thomas(2002) in their study on equity valuation used earnings, variants of earnings(EBITDA), cash flows, dividend and sales as value drivers and they argue that


* Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi ‹flletme Fakültesi ‹flletme Bölümü Kaynaklar Yerleflkesi Buca 35160 ‹zmirTel: (0232) 4535042/3148 – 3167 – 3150

Fax: (0232) 4535062

E-mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

132

earnings perform the best and investors rely on reported earnings more than ot-her performance measures. Francis, Schipper and Vincent (2003) also concludethat “earnings” is the preferred metric which dominates cash flows and EBIT-DA in explaining security returns in industries. Graham, Harvey, and Rajgopal(2004) provide survey evidence indicating that chief financial officers believeearnings, not cash flows to be the key metric considered by outsiders, thus themanagers perceive large market penalties if the firm does not reach quarterlyearnings targets. DeAngelo (1986) also states that “earnings are also used by co-urts to assess fairness, should outside stockholders litigate, as they typically doin buyouts.”

As the outsiders rely on accounting earnings, the financial analysts and mana-gers of the companies use mostly earnings numbers instead of equity, sales orany other summary measure when they express expectations about the perfor-mance of the firms. On the other hand, recent worldwide accounting scandals le-ad accounting regulators such as US SEC to provide deeper analysis on the vo-lume and types of fraud in the market. Many of those reports indicate that mostof the fraudulent financial reporting cases were those on fraudulent earnings(SEC, Fortune 500 Report, 2002; COSO Tradeway Report, 1987; COSO Trade-way Report, 1999).

Since the earnings as a measure is crucial for users of company information, as-sessment of earnings has been a critical task for academics, analysts, investors,standard setters, and regulators for years. Assessment of accounting earnings re-quires identification of the attributes that desirable earnings (qualified earnings)should have. This issue is two fold, one is about the meaning of the term “desi-rability” and the other is “to whom and for what purposes earnings numbers areto be judged desirable”.

Desirability of earnings should be discussed in the scope of “desirability of in-formation.” The question of “what makes information desirable” can be answe-red within the context of usefulness of information. Thus, it can be argued thatif earnings number is useful then it can be assessed desirable.

Lev (1989) defines usefulness as acting of individuals as if they use a specificinformation item. This statement is applicable to earnings information as Balland Brown did in their seminal 1968 study. They state that “an observed revisi-on of stock prices associated with the release of the income report will thus pro-vide evidence that the information reflected in income numbers is useful”. Lev(1989) supports Ball and Brown (1968) statement with the following compre-hensive explanation: “A message (e.g. a financial report or news broadcast) issaid to convey information if it causes a change in the receiver’s probability dis-tribution of the concerned variable. Such a change in the probability distributi-


133

on (beliefs) will trigger an action; hence if an action (reflected by, say, a chan-ge in stock price or volume) can be attributed to a specific information, such in-formation is considered to be useful.”

As a result of a relative decline in the importance of stewardship function of ac-counting over the years, there is a shift to more informative view. The new pers-pective moved standard setters away from measuring the effects of transactionson financial statements (measurement) to reporting useful information in notes(disclosure) (Wild, Subramanyam, Halsey, 2004, p. 75).

In the same manner FASB’s Conceptual Framework states: “the role of financi-al reporting in the economy is to provide information that is useful in makingbusiness and economic decisions, not to determine what those decisions shouldbe (SFAC No:1, par. 33, FASB, 1978).”

IASB’s framework defines the objective of financial reporting as providing in-formation about the financial position, performance and changes in financial po-sition of an enterprise that is useful to a wide range of users in making econo-mic decisions (IASB, Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Finan-cial Statements, par. 12)

In both frameworks, the users, their information needs and their use of financi-al statements are explained in a general context. However, Barragato and Mar-kalevich (2003) discuss specifically the users and their use of earnings informa-tion. They argue that earnings and the varied metrics derived from it are utilizedin making contracting and investment decisions. According to them, low qualityof earnings may cause defective resource allocation for investment decisionsand unintended wealth transfers for contracting decisions. Cormier, Magnan andMorard (2000) discuss earnings under the contractual perspective where ear-nings are posited to be the basis of an implicit contract between investors andmanagers. Under valuation perspective, earnings are posited to be overshado-wed by a firm’s actual dividend decisions. Ball and Shivakumar (2005) alsoemphasize usefulness of earnings to investors, creditors, managers and all otherparties contracting with the firm.

Patel (1989) defines five broad earnings information using areas of economicactivities or markets as follows:

a) Equity capital markets use earnings as a proxy for stock prices,

b) Debt capital markets use earnings while organizing debt covenants,

c) Labor markets use earnings as an instrument for performance measurement,

d) Material and product markets use earnings in supplier-customer transactions, and

e) Political markets use earnings in taxing, tariffing, rate of return regulations,special industry subsidizations, etc.


134

It should be noted that the reported earnings (bottom-line) is affected by measu-rement rules of accounting, and focusing on reported earnings may not meet dif-ferent and sometimes conflicting demands of the above users in their earningsassessments. These users may perceive a measurement error in earnings numberand may avoid direct use of reported earnings in their economic decisions. Thepotential in measuring earnings erroneously led to the discussion of earningsquality. Naturally, variety of users and demands led to different definitions for“earnings quality” and specific tools to assess it.

In light of the points mentioned above, the remainder of this paper is organizedas follows: In the first section earnings quality definitions based on differentconstructs such as persistence, predictability, information content and accrualquality, etc. derived from the studies in the accounting literature are briefly re-viewed. In the second section, the approaches to measuring earnings qualityclassified into a) methods based on disaggregations /decomposition, and b) met-hods related to conservatism. Afterwards the methods of each category are re-viewed. The third section is devoted to demonstrate the studies aiming to me-asure overall quality of earnings by using scores, indices or accounting treat-ments, in other words studies measuring earnings quality by quality indicators.The fourth section provides a brief overview of Turkish accounting system andevaluates the characteristics of Turkish accounting system in terms of interna-tional accounting classifications. Additionally the evaluation of the Turkish ac-counting system is linked to earnings quality in light of the related literature. Thefifth section discusses the applicability of the previously mentioned approachesto measuring the earnings quality to Turkish companies listed on ISE. Finallysection six concludes the paper.

I. Definition of Earnings Quality

In the accounting literature there are numerous studies aiming to measure ear-nings quality, but not purely dedicated to defining it. Schipper and Vincent(2003) state that “although the phrase “earnings quality” is widely used, there’sneither an agreed-upon meaning assigned to the phrase nor a generally acceptedapproach to measure earnings quality.” In most of those studies on earnings qua-lity, before any assessment, the authors state first the earnings quality definiti-ons which are compatible with their assessment methods. These definitions arenaturally based on some earnings attributes (constructs).

In this part of our paper, earnings quality definitions based on different cons-tructs derived from the studies in the accounting literature are briefly reviewed.These constructs are i) persistence, ii) predictability, forecasting ability, smoot-her earnings, iii) information content, usefulness, iv) accrual quality.


135

i) Persistence

Earnings that reflect a steady growth trend are seen desirable (Wild, Subraman-yam, Halsey, 2004, p. 597). Thus, in financial statements analysis unusual, non-operating or non-recurring items reported on the income statement require mo-re attention than others in terms of quality of earnings as these items have nega-tive effect on the sustainability of earnings.

The term “persistence” is widely used interchangeably with sustainable earningsin the literature. Penman and Zhang (2002) state “reported earnings before ex-traordinary items that are readily identified on the income statements, is of go-od quality if it is a good indicator of future earnings. Thus, high quality of ear-nings is “sustainable earnings” as often referred in financial analysis.” Green(1999) argues that “quality of earnings depends on the proportion of earningsderived from recurring sources.” Richardson, Sloan, Soliman and Tuna (2004)define persistence as “the degree to which earnings performance persists into thenext periods.”

Persistence of earnings should be analyzed by taking into account that it is afunction of accounting standards / implementations and reporting entity’s busi-ness model and operating environment (Schipper and Vincent, 2003). Lev(1983) proves that the type of company’s product, the degree of competition, ca-pital intensity and firm size all affect the persistence of company’s earnings.Sloan (1996) indicates that “earnings performance attributable to the accrualcomponents of earnings exhibits lower persistence than earnings performanceattributable to the cash flow components of earnings”. Similarly Dechow andDichev (2002) find a positive relation between accrual quality and earnings per-sistence. Narayanamoorthy (2003) demonstrates that the persistence of standar-dized unexpected earnings (SUE) is negatively affected by accounting conser-vatism (proxied by losses and decreases in earnings).” Basu (1997) discussesconservatism and asymmetric timeliness of earnings and concludes that goodnews earnings are less timely but less persistent than bad news earnings. Thus,the capitalized value of good news earnings partially reflected in current ear-nings and in future earnings. From the accounting principles perspective, redu-cing quality concerns by having more sustainable earnings requires the applica-tion of same accounting principles consistently from period to period (Penmanand Zhang, 2002).

Persistence of earnings plays an important role in company valuation. Since theinvestors rely on earnings numbers more than other measures, “price-to-ear-nings ratio” is agreed to be a fundamental multiple in company valuation. Per-sistent earnings series, on the other hand, produce healthier price-to-earnings ra-tios (return/earnings) for valuation purposes.


136


ii.Predictability, Forecasting Ability, Smoother Earnings

Lipe (1990) defines predictability as “the ability of past earnings to predict fu-ture earnings”. Giner and Reverte (1999) link predictive ability to earnings qua-lity as Christian (2004) does. Christian (2004) concludes that any alteration toearnings stream makes prediction of future earnings challenging due to weak-ness in the quality of earnings. Schipper and Vincent (2003) consider “predic-tive ability as an input to the entire financial reporting package, including ear-nings components and other disaggregations of the summary earnings number,for improving users’ ability to forecast items of interest.” From FASB’s point ofview, quality of earnings is considered to be the usefulness in forecasting ear-nings for future periods in both effective and efficient manner (SFAS No. 132,par. 26, FASB, 1998.)

At first glance, even though earnings persistence and predictability of earningsseem to have similar meanings or converge into the same meaning, they arecompletely different concepts. Lipe (1990) states the difference as persistencedescribing “the time-series relation between the current-period earnings shockand future earnings” whereas predictability “reflecting the variation in the ear-nings shocks.” He also states “the predictability of earnings is a function of theaverage absolute magnitude of the annual earnings shocks, whereas the time se-ries persistence of earnings reflects the autocorrelation in earnings.” Thus, theearnings persistence and the predictability of earnings are two different con-cepts. Stated differently, two earnings series may be equally predictable but oneof them may be more persistent or two earnings streams may be equally persis-tent but one of them may be more predictable.

Similarly, Lev (1989) emphasizes that the role of earnings is to provide inves-tors with information about future securities’ returns. Thus, the earnings withhigher predictive power of future returns are of higher quality.

Carnes, Johns, Biggart and Barker (2003) define quality of earnings if it is smo-othed and have predictive power. They state “smoother earnings stream lowersthe expected costs of dealing with shareholders and strengthen the relationshipbetween accounting earnings and market returns.” They conclude that a success-ful JIT adoption of a company reduces its inventory costs and such a reductionresults in a more predictable earnings stream .9

Chan, Chan, Jegadeesh and Lakonishok (2004) define earnings quality as “theextent to which earnings quality reflects operating fundamentals.” In the context

9 For manufacturing companies, invetory costs are volatile and unpredictable in most cases (O’Glove, 1987).

137

of stock prices, they criticize market fixation on reported earnings while notconcerning the earnings quality. They argue that as there may be temporary de-viations of prices away from their correct values, the measures of earnings qua-lity should consider predictive power for future stock price movements. Simi-larly, Cornel and Landsman (2003) consider earnings to be of good quality if itis “a measure for analyzing the relationships between past performance and thevalue of future growth options” in terms of predictability.

However, one needs to be cautious when using smoothness as a measure of ear-nings quality. As Ayres (1994) states: “income smoothing refers to an attemptto report a steady stream of earnings and growth in earnings.” In his NumbersGame speech Levitt (1998) explains the reason of smoothing with investors pre-ference of smoothly increasing earnings. Since the inpersistent and unpredictab-le earnings can be seen of low quality earnings, providing persistence and pre-dictability may become a major embedded motivation of managers for usingearnings management techniques such as “income smoothing”. In persistencyand predictability analysis, adequate attention should be paid to reveal whethermanagement has intervened to the earnings stream in order to reach smoothedearnings or smoothed earnings is a result of a company’s real events.

iii) Information Content, Usefulness

Some authors directed their studies towards the information content of earningssince the information conveyed by earnings number should be assessed in termsof “how it is calculated.” It’s well known that earnings number may express dif-ferent figures under different accounting rules. Different accounting rules arenot only the issue of international differences. Even in the same country thereare different accounting practices by nature of the regulators (such as tax autho-rities, capital market regulators, etc.). Thus, the answer to the question of “whichearnings number is of high quality” has become a new standpoint for some authors.

McNichols (2002) assumes earnings are of high quality if they accurately repre-sent the economic implications of underlying transactions and events. Ball andShivakumar (2005) discuss the usefulness of financial statements and emphasi-ze financial reporting quality. Epps and Oh (1997) examine the investors’ per-ceived quality (relates to the informativeness of earnings) of US GAAP and fo-reign GAAP earnings as their rules produce different earnings numbers. Hodge(2003) concludes that investors’ perceived quality has declined over time as hasperceived auditor independence and the perceived reliability of audited informa-tion. Schipper and Vincent (2003) discuss earning quality from decision useful-ness (consistent with FASB’ framework) point of view and conclude that ear-nings are of high quality if they represent Hicksian income, which represents thechange in total wealth faithfully.


138

iv) Accrual Quality, Closeness-to-Cash

Francis, LaFond, Olsson and Schipper (2003) state that: “earnings which mapmore closely into cash flows are more desirable.” Dechow and Dichev (2002)argue earnings quality can be assessed by mapping of accruals into last, currentand next period cash flows. Richardson, Sloan, Soliman and Tuna (2004) argu-e that earnings’ cash component provides both relevant and reliable informati-on. Thus, they link earnings quality to cash components of earnings in terms ofpersistence. Barragato and Markelevich (2003) conclude earnings are of highquality as the earnings’ closeness-to-cash increases and argue that “an earningsstream that is predictor of future operating cash flows is of high quality.”

II. Measuring the Quality of Earnings

In the accounting literature, authors approach the measurement of quality of ear-nings from different perspectives consistent with their earnings quality definiti-ons. In the first decade of earnings quality research, the focus was on return/ear-nings association. The main purpose of these studies was “to increase the un-derstanding of how earnings and other accounting information are related to sha-re prices” (Lipe 1990).

FASB addresses the objectives of financial reporting as: “the primary focus offinancial reporting is providing information about an enterprise's performanceprovided by measures of earnings and its components. Investors, creditors, andothers who are concerned with assessing the prospects for an enterprise’s netcash inflows are especially interested in that information. Their interest in anenterprise's future cash flows and its ability to generate favorable cash flows le-ads primarily to an interest in information about its earnings rather than infor-mation directly about its cash flows. Financial statements that show only cashreceipts and payments during a short period, such as a year, cannot adequatelyindicate whether or not an enterprise's performance is successful (SFAC No:1,par. 43, FASB, 1978).”

Lev (1989) discusses the underlying logic of return/ earnings studies under theearnings usefulness context and states “if earnings are intended to facilitate pre-dictions of stock returns, then the extent of the actual returns/earnings correlati-on is obviously an important measure of the usefulness of earnings” by follo-wing FASB’s statement above. According to him, if earnings as financial infor-mation are useful to investors, the earnings should exhibit an appreciable expla-natory power with respect to price revisions around the earnings announce-ments. Moreover, such explanatory power should be considerable both cross-sectionally and over time.

Since Ball and Brown (1968), there are numerous studies in this area of researchsuch as Kormendi and Lipe (1987), Collins and Kothari (1989), Easton and Zmi-


139

jewski (1989) and Lipe (1986) 10 . These studies concentrate on the persistenceand predictability as they are assumed to be potentially important quality cons-tructs. Kormendi and Lipe (1987) model stock returns as a function of the revi-sions in expectations of earnings by assuming that earnings can be representedby a univariate time-series, and then show that the time-series properties of ear-nings will be an important factor in returns/earnings association. The reason ofthe models use of time-series of earnings is that the stock prices reflect expecta-tions before these earnings are announced. Thus, it seems reasonable to corre-late the change in price with unexpected earnings rather than reported earnings.The emphasis on unexpected earnings led to the use of proxies for expected ear-nings as time series.

In the context of return/earnings association (also named as price/earnings rela-tionship research) the change in the stock price around the earnings announce-ment and the change in the company’s earnings are correlated. This associationmetric termed as earnings response coefficient (ERC) is defined by Lipe (1990)as “the coefficient that measures the stock-price response to a one-dollar ear-nings shock- is positively related to both the predictability of earnings series andthe time series persistence of earnings”, and by Teoh and Wong (1993) as “a me-asure of the extent to which new earnings information capitalized in the stock price.”

Thus, higher ERC calculated from an earnings stream assumed to represent thehigher quality of earnings. If one analyses these studies carefully, it’s clear thatthey are focused on ERC rather then the R2 of return/earnings regression. Theyintend to test the relationship between ERC and earnings (Lev, 1989). In thosepioneering ERC studies, the return/earnings relationship has yielded very mo-dest results. However, these unsatisfactory results led researchers to revise andimprove their models 11.

Lev (1989) points out that none of the refinements could provide appreciable R2levels of return/earnings regression, since these studies could not answer somequestions such as why some earnings are more persistent, the impact of accoun-ting techniques on persistence and the issues of identifying the persistent com-ponent of earnings. Even after those refinements, the weak results of the ERCstudies, led researchers to believe that such weakness is due to a) methodologi-cal shortcomings, b) investors’ irrationality, in other words market inefficiency,on returns/earnings relation, and c) low information content of currently repor-ted earnings regarding future outcomes of securities.


10 Lev (1989) provides a broad literature review of return/earnings association studies between 1980 and 1988. 11 See Lev (1989) for these refinements.

140

First two reasons above can be easily linked to the third reason. That is, even ananalysis is conducted in an efficient market and with the best methodology, ifthe information content of the reported earnings does not have the desirable at-tributes, then that analysis may not yield any desirable results. In line with thisargument, the issue of information content of reported earnings centralized aro-und the calculation methods of earnings, which in turn, directed the understan-ding of the effects of arbitrariness of accounting techniques (both measurementand valuation techniques) and of management manipulation on the reported ear-nings.

The focus on information content of earnings can be seen as a shift to a new ap-proach in terms of earnings quality. There are two main contributions of thisnew perspective to earnings quality studies, which are a) avoiding the use ofonly bottom-line earnings in the analysis, and may be more importantly, b) ope-ning a window of using different earnings related metrics derived from earningssuch as using other income statement items or using disaggregated componentsof earnings.

The term “earnings” is used with income or profit interchangeably in the busi-ness life and are measured at various stages in the income statement. In this con-text the main question should be asked as “which earnings that investors viewto be more useful in terms of usefulness” Kang (2004) states “investors gene-rally view a subset of earnings that are associated with the basic revenue gene-rating operation of the firm to be a better indicator of the fundamental earningsgenerating ability of the firm.” And Francis, Schipper and Vincent (2003) conc-lude that the analysts for some industries use EBITDA as the preferred measu-re of earnings. By considering this argument, researchers use appropriate met-rics in their models to yield better results in terms of earnings persistence andpredictability. Table 1 demonstrates the most common earnings metrics used inthe recent literature 12


12 Extraordinary items refer to the items that have a high degree of abnormality and unrelated to the ordinary and typical activities of the company, additionally the underlying events of these items are not reasonably expected to recur in the foreseeable future. Discontinued operations are the items that occur after a disposition of entire divisions or product lines of the company. Income before extraordinary items and discontinued operations is also called “continuing income”. Core income is operating income which excludes special items. Special items refer to unusual or infrequent transactions and do not meet the criteria for being extraordinary. Additionally special items are shown as a separate line item before continuing income on the income statement. Core income equals to continuing income. Reported earnings refer to bottom-line earnings (Wild, Subramanyam, Halsey, 2004).

141


Table 1: Earnings Metrics Used in Studies on Earnings Quality

Earnings Metrics Study

Operating Income after depreciation (Income from Continuing Operations) Sloan (1996)

Income Before Extraordinary Items and Discontinued Operations Barth, Cram, Nelson (2001)

Net Income Before Extraordinary Items Shaw (2003)

Operating Income After Depreciation Barragato, Markelevich (2003)

Net Income Before Extraordinary Items Elgers, Pfeiffer, Porter (2003)

EPS Carnes, Jones, Biggart, Barker (2003)

Net Income, EPS Lang, Raedy, Yetman (2003)

Income Before Extraordinary Items and Discontinued Operations, Core Earnings that are based on firms main operating performance, Gross Profit, and Analysts’ Forecasts aboutnext years income Kang (2004)

Pre-tax income other than securitization-related income Niu, Richardson (2004)

Reported earnings Christian (2004)

i) Measuring Earnings Quality by Disaggregations / Decompositions After the importance of the information content of earnings became due, theresearchers approached the quality measurement in two ways (consistent withtheir quality definitions), which are a) using different metrics from the incomestatement, and b) disaggregating earnings into cash and accrual components. Thispart of the paper is devoted to the discussion of the contributions of these studies.

a) Disaggregating Income Statement ComponentsThe underlying motivation of measuring the earnings quality (in terms of per-sistence) by disaggregating income statement components is the potential abili-ty of earnings components having more explanatory power than the reportedearnings number has alone. In other words, this approach led researchers toexamine whether different components of earnings have different time-seriesproperties (different degrees of persistence) or not. Ramakrishnan and Thomas(1998) indicate “since the price response each period depends on the differentcomponents observed in that period's reported earnings, an ERC applied to

142


13 Such disagrgregation was developed by considering the types of earnings shocks, “where permanent shocks cause all future earnings to change by the amount of the shock, and have been associated with earnings following a random walk process. Transitory shocks have often been described as affecting only current period earnings, and have been associated with earnings following a mean-reverting process. Price irrelevant shocks have been called garbling or measurement error, and represent the difference between reported earnings and economic earnings.”(See details in Ramakrishnan and Thomas(1998) and Wild, Subramanyam, Halsey (2004), p. 313)

aggregate earnings is limited in its ability to explain the overall price response”.This argument is consistent with that of FASB’s following statement:“…the Board believes it is important to avoid focusing attention almost exclu-sively on "the bottom line," earnings per share, or other highly simplified con-densations. Summary data, such as the amounts of net assets, comprehensiveincome, earnings, or earnings per share, may be useful as general indicators ofthe amount of investment or overall past performance and are often used inefforts to compare an entity with many other entities. But, in a complex businessenterprise, summary amounts include many heterogeneous things and events.Components of a financial statement often reflect more homogeneous classes ofitems than the whole statement. The individual items, subtotals, or other parts ofa financial statement may often be more useful than the aggregate to those who makeinvestment, credit, and similar decisions (SFAC No:5, par. 22, FASB, 1984).”Main representatives of this area of research and their disaggregations of earn-ings are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Earnings Disaggregations

Earnings Metrics Study

Gross profit, general administrative expense, depreciation expense, interest expense, income taxes, and other items Lipe (1986)

revenues, operating expense, depreciation, interest expense, taxes and other revenue/expense Wild (1992)

operating income, exceptional income, net financing expenses, tax expenses and depreciation Ballas (1996)

Permanent, transitory and price-irrelevant 13 Ramakrishnan and Thomas (1998)

operating profit, financial profit, extraordinary earnings, Giner and Revertecorporation tax (1999)

Income Before Extraordinary Items and Discontinued Operations, Core Earnings that are based on firms main operating performance, Gross Profit, Analysts’ Forecasts about next years income Kang (2004)

143


The findings of the studies in Table 2 can be summarized as follows:

Lipe (1986) finds “a significant cross-component variation in the return reacti-ons associated with the unexpected changes in the components of earnings”which means that the market responds to additional information provided bycomponents due to their different degrees of persistence. Thus, he supports thatdisaggregations of earnings into components provide statistically significantamount of information that would be lost if only earnings were reported. Wild(1992) finds that disaggregated earnings components provide relevant informa-tion to the investors for their valuation of companies. He also states that “the in-creasingly more disaggregate, or component, accounting data in primary finan-cial statements have been asserted to decrease the quality and effectiveness offinancial communications with shareholders.” Ballas (1996) conclude that allcomponents other then tax expenses are valued by the market; and the compo-nents of earnings are not, consistently, capitalized at a different rate to each ot-her. Ramakrishnan and Thomas (1998) finds a relation between unexpected pri-ce changes (since the last earnings announcement) and the three unexpected ear-nings components (or shocks) in reported earnings. Even though they use thetraditional ERC framework, they multiply each component by a different res-ponse coefficient to give the overall price change. Giner and Reverte (1999)adopt some company specific variables such as size, risk and earnings persisten-ce in their model, and allow parameters to vary between sub-samples. Their re-sults also support the other studies in terms of usefulness of the earnings disag-gregation even for the tax component. Moreover they conclude that disaggrega-tion is useful for small companies, or with a high-risk profile or with transientearnings. They link the weaker significance of extraordinary earnings to the wi-der definition incorporated in the Spanish regulation. Finally Kang (2004) cal-culates EP (earnings-to-price ratio) with different earnings measures, and conc-ludes that “investors place strong emphasis on a firm’s sales-related activitieswhen assessing the fundamental earnings power of the firm and, as a result, theyconsider gross margin to be an important piece of information for their invest-ment-decision making.”

In summary, researchers show empirically the usefulness of disaggregation ofearnings into components. From those studies, some components are proved tobe serving more to company valuation as they are capturing the results of recur-ring events. Some other items are shown to be less helpful as they are capturingthe results of non recurring events and transactions. Thus, the format of the in-come statement plays an important role in component selection. The formatsproviding appropriate line items directly usable, or usable after uncomplicatedadjustments, can be seen more helpful for users in terms of decision making.

144

b) Decomposing Accrual and Cash Components of Earnings

Reported earnings have both accruals and cash components 14. The differencesbetween accrual and cash components of earnings are due to revenue recogniti-on and matching rules of accrual accounting. Revenue recognition and matchingprinciple discriminate between the timing of cash flows and accruals and aim toprovide more timely information by shifting cash flow effects of transactionsand events until the cash flows are realized. Thus, accruals are assumed to con-vey less reliable but relevant information, on the other hand cash flows are as-sumed to convey reliable but less relevant information because of the rules ofaccrual accounting. An appreciable degree of tradeoff between reliable and re-levant information is then becomes one of the main issues of a financial repor-ting system.

From the earnings quality perspective, the researchers use accruals and cashflows decomposition of earnings into two main groups of studies. These are, a)the studies investigating whether earnings are managed or not, by assuming thatearnings management decreases the earnings quality, and b) the studies exami-ning whether different information content of these components may differen-tiate between the responses of the investors in the market while they are valuingthe companies.

To provide the use of accruals in accrual based earnings quality studies, the cal-culation of accrual and cash flow components of earnings become another criti-cal point for researches. Sloan (1996) defines accrual component of earnings asthe change in non-cash working capital less depreciation expense and this defi-nition of Sloan (1996) is widely used in the related literature 15. On the otherhand, such definition of accounting accruals implies them to be a product of ac-counting records and management estimations that have no cash flow effects.The main characteristic of these accounting accruals is that they sum to zeroover time because accruals end up reversing over time, perhaps even within oneyear, thus undoing whatever original effect they had on earnings (Dharan, 2003).


14 Cash flow from operations (CFO) refers to the cash flows from company’s ongoing operations, free cashflows (FCF) refers to the cash flows free to be paid to shareholders and creditors, net cash flow is the net change in the cash position of the company between the beginning and ending of the period (difference in cash and cash equivalents of the beginning and ending balance sheets of the company). Accruals can be defined as the sum of accounting adjustments that make the net income different from the net cash flows. There are two types of adjustments, which are adjustments affecting income such as credit sales and depreciation expense, and adjustments not affecting income such as asset purchases, repayment of a loan (Wild, Subramanyam and Halsey, 2004)

15 See a broad explanation for accruals Richardson, Sloan, Soliman and Tuna (2004).

145


Sloan (1996) investigates whether the investors respond to decomposed accrualand cash components of earnings, and finds that accrual component of earningsshow lower persistence than cash flow component. He also concludes that evenunder such findings, investors fixate on aggregate earnings and do not considerthe different persistence degrees of components while valuing the companiesuntil that information impacts future earnings. Collins and Hribar (2000) supportSloan (1996) in terms of market mispricing of the accruals. Beneish and Vargus(2002) extend Sloan’s (1996) study by suggesting that market participants appe-ar to misprice only the income-increasing accruals. Green (1999) decomposes“earnings surprise” into its cash flow and accrual components and finds thatcash flow surprise is valued more than the accrual surprise in the market.

According to Dechow and Dichev (2002), since the accruals are used to shiftcash flow effects of transactions and events until the cash flows are realized, ac-cruals should depend on some level of estimations. The estimation errors appe-ar when the cash flows are realized, thus the magnitude of the error (the diffe-rence between accruals and cash flows for the same transaction) can be assumedto be a measure for the quality of accruals. Their empirical measure of accrualquality is based on the level of operating accruals mapping into cash flow reali-zations, where a poor match means low accrual quality. The findings of Dechowand Dichev (2002) show that there is a positive relation between accrual qualityand earnings persistence but a negative relation between accrual quality and themagnitude of total accruals, they state: “firms with low accrual quality have mo-re accruals that are unrelated to cash flow realizations, and so have more noiseand less persistence in their earnings 16.” Francis, Lafond, Olsson and Schipper(2002) use Dechow and Dichev (2002) and Jones (1991) model and found thatthe firms with lower earnings quality have lower debt ratings and higher ratiosof interest expense to interest bearing debt than firms with higher earnings quality.

• Decomposing Accruals

Earnings management reduces the earnings quality. Thus, some researchers ap-proach earnings quality from an earnings management perspective. They arguethat if there is no evidence of earnings management, then the earnings quality

16 McNichols (2002) discussed (Dechow and Dichev; 2002) and criticized their use of “magnitude of errors” as a measure for accrual quality which means that they assumed the investors are indifferent between estimation errors that overstate and understate future cash flow realizations by an equal amount.Additionally, he emphasized the importance of discretionary and non-discretionary accruals distinction which is not considered by (Dechow and Dichev, 2002) and added that their model is not applicable if management intervenes the reporting process, since estimation errors caused by management discretion are not likely to be independent of each other and of the cash flow realizations.

146


assumed to be high. From this perspective accruals are also used to detect whet-her earnings is manipulated by managers.

The motivation of this area of research is related with the definition of accruals.As stated above, accruals are defined as the difference between company’s ear-nings and cash flows. So, positive large accruals indicate that earnings are muchhigher than cash flows. Regarding this assumption, some studies aim to investi-gate the relationship between the amount of accruals and the earnings manipu-lation, because higher accruals may be an indicator of management’s use of theaccruals to increase earnings as a measure of performance (such as underestima-ting warranty costs, improper revenue recognition), or involve in opportunisticmanagement of accruals. Chan, Chan, Jegadeesh and Lakonishok (2004) statethis issue as “there is some evidence that accounting accruals are above averagefor firms subjected to enforcement actions by SEC 17. However, there is no do-cumented evidence that managers deliberately manipulate earnings through ac-cruals for firms with high accruals.”

Moreover, to detect earnings manipulation, not only the amount, also the natureof the accruals became an important starting point for many studies. The com-mon approach of these studies is decomposing accruals into its components andthen investigating the relationship between the individual accrual componentsand earnings management. Detecting earnings management is important in as-sessing the quality of earnings (Phillips, Pincus and Rego, 2002). Even thoughthese studies do not aim to measure the earnings quality, it can easily be assu-med that any study on detecting earnings management is serving to assess thequality of earnings at the same time.

• Discretionary and Non-discretionary Components of Accruals

In this line of research, the main assumption is that accruals are the function ofa company’s business transactions and any change in company’s accrualsamong periods should be consistent with the change in business transactions.Therefore, if any change can not be explained by a change in company’s busi-ness activities, then those accruals can be easily assumed as discretionary andsignifying earnings management. Healy (1985) defines discretionary accruals asadjustments to cash flows selected by the manager in order to affect reported netincome. Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney (1995) state: “analysis of earnings mana-gement often focuses on management’s use of discretionary accruals.”

Because the components of the accruals are the focus, and total accruals are agiven data, major studies of this field are devoted to develop models to estima-

17 See Dechow and Dichev (1996).

147

te non-discretionary accruals. Once, non-discretionary accruals are estimated,discretionary accruals -as a proxy of earnings management- are easily calcula-ted by subtracting non-discretionary portion from the amount of total accruals.

For example, Healy (1985) and DeAngelo (1986) estimate non-discretionary ac-cruals first and reach the discretionary accruals by subtracting those estimatednon-discretionary accruals from total accruals. The main limitation of Healy(1985) and DeAngelo (1986) is their assumption of non-discretionary accrualsnot changing across periods. Jones (1991) relax this assumption by consideringthe effects of changes in a company’s economic circumstances such as changesin revenues and changes in property plant and equipments in her model. The ma-in problem with the Jones (1991) model is the inclusion of “change in revenue”variable to estimation of non-discretionary accruals. So, in case of revenue ma-nipulation, Jones (1991) model becomes inappropriate because the non-discre-tionary accruals are estimated from manipulated data. Even with this shortco-ming, the Jones (1991) model has been mainly used in several accrual based ear-nings management studies. For example Jones (1991) in import relief investiga-tions, Teoh, Welch, Wong (1998) found that managers use accruals at the timeof share offerings to report high earnings and Kaznik (1999) reports managersuse accruals to meet previously announced earnings forecasts.

To avoid the shortcoming of Jones (1991) model, Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney(1995) suggest a new model (so called Modified Jones Model) which uses onlycash sales instead of total revenue in the calculation of the change in revenue va-riable. Even in this case, a new shortcoming appears as only the credit sales aresubject to earnings manipulation 18. Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney (1995) arguethat Modified Jones Model is the most helpful model to detect earnings mana-gement, but Bernard and Skinner (1996) argue that discretionary accruals esti-mated using Jones and Modified Jones Models reflect measurement error due inpart to the systematic misclassification of non-discretionary accruals as discre-tionary accruals. Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney (1995) also use an Industry Mo-del in which nondiscretionary accruals are measured using the median of totalaccruals in the same industry.

Guay, Kothari and Watts (1996) assess the effectiveness of alternative discretio-nary accrual models and find that discretionary-accrual models randomly de-compose earnings into discretionary and nondiscretionary components. A betterinterpretation of their study is that discretionary accruals poorly measure the usediscretionary accruals to manage earnings by managers.


18 See Dechow, Sloan and Sweeney (1995).

148

DeFond and Jiambalvo (1994) use Cross-Sectional Modified Jones Model inwhich the parameters are estimated by using cross-sectional data rather than ti-me-series data and reported consistent results using both time-series and cross-sectional versions of the Jones model. They find that discretionary accruals(both total and working capital accruals) are significantly positive in the yearprior to debt covenant violation. In their recent study Bartov, Gul, and Tsu-i (2002) evidence that the Cross-Sectional versions of Jones and Modified JonesModels perform better than the time-series versions. Subramanyam (1996)concludes that the market attaches value to discretionary accruals estimated withthe cross-sectional Jones (1991) model.

• Balance Sheet Decomposition of AccrualsSloan’s (1996) conclusion of “accrual component of earnings show lower per-sistence than cash flow component” motivated researchers to decompose accru-als into balance sheet items and to investigate which of them are more relevantto determine earnings quality. Moreover some items of accruals such as acco-unts receivable (trade loading, early revenue recognition) and inventory (inven-tory valuation methods) give management more discretion and concentrating onthese items may give signals of earnings management (Dechow, Sloan andSweeney, 1995; Wu, 2002).Hribar (2000) and Thomas and Zhang (2002) investigate the relation betweeninventory changes (as component of Sloan’s accrual measure) and stock returns.Hribar (2000) decompose inventory and receivables into discretionary and non-discretionary components and concludes that discretionary components are mo-re associated with investors’ mispricing in the market. Thomas and Zhang(2002) find that inventory change is most strongly related to next year’s abnor-mal returns. They also conclude that abnormal returns are observed for extremedeciles of changes in all three inventory components (raw material, finished go-ods and work-in process) with the highest abnormal returns observed for chan-ges in raw material inventory.

Chan, Chan, Jegadeesh and Lakonishok (2004) develop a model based on thecomponents of accruals to predict future returns and they conclude that “the bulkof the predictive power of accruals stem from changes in inventory and changesin accounts receivable.” According to them, changes in inventory and changesin accounts receivable have different degrees of predictive power. When theydecompose accruals into discretionary and non-discretionary components, theyfind that the discretionary component is the main contributor to the predictabi-lity in returns 19. They also conclude that in homogeneous sets of firms within


19 Their decomposition of discretionary and non-discretionary is based on sales growth, so it differs from Jones (1991). In such decomposition, an increase in sales gives rise to inventory and accounts receiv-able, increasing the non-discretionary accruals.

149


an industry, higher accruals are associated with lower returns and the change ininventories is by far the most important component of accruals.

In their recent study, Richardson, Sloan, Soliman, Tuna (2004) investigate therelation between accrual reliability and earnings persistence. They discuss thereliability of “accrual definition” which is restricted with working capital accru-als and used by the previous research (Healy, 1985; Sloan, 1996, etc). They pro-vide a comprehensive definition and categorization of accruals which includes;a) accruals relating to non-current operating assets, such as capital expenditures,b) accruals relating to non-current operating liabilities, such as post-retirementbenefit obligations c) accruals relating to financial assets, such as long-term re-ceivables, and d) accruals related to financial liabilities, such as long-term debt 20.The major finding of their study is that less reliable accruals introduce costs inthe form of lower earnings persistence and the associated mispricing. From ear-nings quality perspective, they emphasize the need of understanding the infor-mation content of accounting items in terms of reliability-relevancy tradeoff.

ii) Measuring Earnings Quality by Degree of ConservatismFrom informativeness of earnings point of view, as it is emphasized before, ear-nings numbers are the products of accounting entries and management estima-tes. And accounting entries are assumed to reflect the effects of underlyingevents and transactions of the company. Accounting entries and management es-timates should be based on accounting principles, so there is no doubt that ac-counting principles related to recognition, measurement, valuation and disclosu-re tasks have direct effects on earnings and earnings quality. This argument po-ints out mainly to the conservatism principle since it is seen as the most influen-tial principle of valuation in accounting (Sterling 1970). Basu (1997) indicatesthat conservatism influences the accounting practice for at least 500 years.

There are various definitions of conservatism in the literature. Watts (2003a)quotes Bliss (1924) and gives the most famous traditional definition of conser-vatism as “anticipate no profit, but anticipate all losses”. The well known con-servatism approach is FASB’s, which sates: “Conservatism is a prudent reacti-on to uncertainty to try to ensure that uncertainties and risks inherent in businesssituations are adequately considered. Thus, if two estimates of amounts to be re-ceived or paid are about equally likely, conservatism dictates using the less op-timistic estimate (SFAC No:2, par. 95, FASB, 1980).”

20 In such categorization, authors decomposed accruals along broad balance sheet categories and considered the measurement issues underlying each accrual category to make qualitative assessments concerning the relative reliability of each category. These assessments provide the basis for predictions concerning the relative magnitudes of the persistence coefficients. For example accounts receivable and inventories are measured with relatively low reliability and payables are measured with a high degree of reliability.

150

In other words, conservatism dictates accountants to report the lowest valueamong the possible alternative values for assets and the highest alternative va-lue for liabilities. And revenues should be recognized later rather than soonerand expenses sooner than later (Watts, Zimmerman, 1986).

Basu (1997) defines conservative accounting as “the accountant’s tendency torequire higher degree of verification to recognize good news as gains than theverification of bad news as losses.” This definition can be interpreted as to re-cognize losses immediately as they become expected but recognize gains as theybecome realized or realizable. Basu (1997) names this differential response “theasymmetric timelines of earnings” and he uses it to measure conservatism.

As Shroff, Venkataraman and Zhang (2004) also state: “accounting practice pre-fers skepticism in recognizing gains when some uncertainty attaches to the suc-cessful completion of the transaction and requires a higher standard of verifica-tion before recognizing gains. On the other hand, less stringent requirements areimposed in recognizing expenses/losses from incomplete transactions, as man-dated, for example, by standards on pensions, environmental liabilities, and as-set impairment.”

Feltham and Ohlsson (1995) define conservatism in their firm valuation modelas a market expectation that the reported value of net assets of a company willbe less than the true economic value of the company’s net assets. This definiti-on of Feltham and Ohlsson (1995) is a natural result of FASB’s above statement.By following Feltham and Ohlsson (1995), Zhang (2000) indicates that conser-vatism influences the establishment and implementation of accounting stan-dards, so causes the price-to-book ratio (P/B) to exceed one 21.

When the natures of conservative accounting practices come due, the authorsclassify conservative accounting practices in two types. The first type is calledex ante conservatism (Richardson, Tinaikar, 2004), unconditional conservatism(Beaver, Ryan, 2004) or news-independent conservatism (Chandra, Wasley andWaymire, 2004). For example, expensing research and development and adver-tising expenditures instead of capitalizing are unconditional conservatism prac-tices.

The second type is ex post conservatism (Richardson, Tinaikar, 2004), conditio-nal conservatism (Beaver, Ryan, 2004) or news-dependent conservatism (Chan-dra, Wasley and Waymire, 2004) which refers to Basu’s (1997) asymmetric ti-meliness of earnings. Examples of this type of conservative accounting practi-


21 See Watts (2003a) for other definitions of conservatism.

151


ces are the lower-of-cost-or-market rule for inventory valuation, asset write-offsrelated to inventory and goodwill, and recognition of loss versus gain contingencies.

Some authors argue that there is a negative correlation between the two types ofconservatism given above. Another interpretation of this argument is that uncon-ditional conservatism increases price-to-book ratio but decreases the timelinessasymmetry, since the unconditional conservatism practices such as non-capita-lization of assets eliminates the need of write-offs when the bad news come, asthe assets are not capitalized before (Pae, Thornton, Welker, 2004; Beaver andRyan, 2004.

Watts (2003a) provides a broad explanation of the need for conservatism fromfour different but interrelated perspectives, which are: contracting (increasingthe efficiency of contracting with debt-holders and managers), shareholder liti-gation (reducing expected litigation costs), taxation (reducing the present valueof taxes), and regulation (reducing the political costs imposed on standard-set-ters and regulators.)

In the context of earnings quality, conservative earnings which refers to “ear-nings reflecting bad news more quickly than good news” (Basu, 1997) can beassumed to be of high quality. Ball and Shivakumar (2005) indicate that conser-vative financial reports provide more relevant information to investors, credi-tors, managers and all other parties contracting with the company. Such inter-pretation can be linked to Watts’ (2003a) contracting explanations of conservatism.

There are various studies in the accounting literature devoted to asses whetherconservatism exists. Watts (2003b) classify these studies by the measures usedin their models as studies using a) net asset measures, b) earnings and accrualsmeasures and c) earnings/stock return relation measures 22 . These studies all useBasu (1997) definition of conservatism.

In this part of the paper, instead of discussing the studies given in Watts (2003b),it is preferred to focus on the studies mainly concerning conservatism from ear-nings quality perspective. In this area of research, Ball and Shivakumar (2005),Beuselinck, Deloof, and Manigart (2005) and Beekes, Pope and Young (2004)as being the most recent and representative studies of this area will be reviewedhere. The common quality construct used in these studies is the “usefulness offinancial statements to users” which is operationalized by considering Basu’s(1997) timely loss recognition. In other words, they prefer to use ex post (un-conditional, news-dependent) type definition of conservatism. They use this

22 See a detailed literature review in Watts (2003b)

152


construct because their common assumption is that timely loss recognition in-creases the earnings quality from corporate governance and debt contractingperspectives. Ball and Shivakumar (2005) explain the reason of this preferenceas: “While unconditional conservatism seems inefficient or at best neutral incontracting, conditional conservatism (timely loss recognition) can enhancecontracting efficiency.”

Ball and Shivakumar (2005) examine timely loss recognition in a large sampleof UK private and public firms and find that the market demands lower qualityfinancial reporting for private companies than for public companies. Accordingto them, as their financial reporting is mainly influenced by taxation, dividendand other policies, private companies then resolve information asymmetry by an‘‘insider access’’ model instead of using public financial statements in contrac-ting arrangements and in equity transactions. Beuselinck, Deloof and Manigart(2005) examine earnings quality, in terms of earnings management and earningsconservatism for a sample private equity (PE) backed firms in the years aroundPE financing. They find that before PE financing, the reported earnings are lowquality as there is a tendency of higher earnings reporting (earnings reporting)to attract investors. But, after PE financing date, PE investors’ governance posi-tively affects the earnings quality (reduces earnings management and providestimely loss recognition) of their portfolio companies once PE investors are onboard. Beekes, Pope and Young (2004) examine the link between accountingquality and governance, with particular reference to the role of outside directors.They conclude that companies with a higher proportion of outside directors ex-hibit greater conservatism then the companies with a lower proportion of outsi-de directors. They also provide evidence that even if the company uses a big-fi-ve auditor, outside directors have a role to play in increasing accounting quality.

III. Indicators of Earnings Quality

The approaches developed to measure earnings quality were given in the previo-us section. But those approaches do not measure earnings quality directly, theyfirst analyze some criteria (such as accrual quality, existence of earnings mana-gement, etc.) and evaluate that criteria and link them to earnings quality. Thereare some other approaches in the literature which are developed to measure overallquality of earnings with a direct focus. The common approach of these studies is touse earnings quality indicators and assess the quality through those indicators.

The need of this type of studies appeared due to the need of more practical waysto assess earnings quality, because the others require more complex economet-ric models and high empirical analysis.

There are two types of earnings quality indicator using studies in the literature.In the first type, the indicators are developed in terms of indices or scores and

153

the earnings quality levels are assessed by the scores assigned to earnings. Theother approach develops indicators by using some accounting treatments whichpotentially show the increasing or decreasing effects on the earnings quality.The experiences of the accounting world have major roles in the selection ofthose certain accounting treatments which are believed to be the indicators ofhigh or low earnings quality.

i) Quality Scores

In the accounting literature there are two earnings quality scores suggested byLev and Thiagarajan (1993) and Penman and Zhang (2002). Lev and Thiagara-jan (1993) suggest an aggregate fundamental score computed by utilizing fun-damental signals derived from company’s financial statements. A signal refersto a specific configuration of several fundamental variables. Since the funda-mentals are the main sources of information used by investors to asses the finan-cial performance of a company, Lev and Thiagarajan (1993) aim to establish anearnings quality measure which comprises the most widely used non-earningsfundamental signals. In line with this argument, they analyze most famous ana-lyst’s reports to determine the fundamentals that make up their aggregate funda-mental score 23. The non-earnings fundamental signals they use are; inventory,accounts receivable, capital expenditure, gross margin, research and develop-ment expenditure, sales and administrative expenses, provision for doubtful re-ceivables, effective tax rate, order backlog, labor force, LIFO earnings and au-dit qualification, as defined in Table 3.


23 See Lev and Thiagarajan (1993, p.191) for the reports used for this purpose.

154


Table 3: EQ Signals and Their Measurements

SIGNAL MEASURED AS:Inventory ∆ Inventory-∆ SalesAccounts Receivable ∆ Accounts Receivable-∆ SalesCapital Expenditure ∆ Industry Capital Expenditure-

∆ Firm Capital ExpendituresR&D Expenditure ∆ Industry R&D Expenditure- ∆ Firm R&D

ExpendituresGross Margin ∆ Sales-∆ Gross MarginSales and Administrative Expenses ∆ S&A Expenses-∆ SalesProvision for Doubtful Receivables ∆ Gross Receivables-∆ Doubtful

ReceivablesEffective Tax PTE (Tt -1-Tt)

PTEt : pretax earnings at t deflated by beginning price

T: effective tax rateOrder Backlog ∆ Sales-∆ Order BacklogLabor Force ( Salest-1 - Salest )

No. of Employeest-1 No.of Employesst

Salest-1

No.of Employesst-1

LIFO Earnings 0 for LIFO; 1 for FIFOAudit Qualification 1 for Qualified; 0 for Unqualified

(Taken from Lev and Thiagarajan, 1993, p.193)

Each of the fundamental signals listed in the table above are computed for everyfirm and assigned a value of “1” for a positive signal and “0” for a negative sig-nal. These numbers are summed for every firm and each year and standardizedby the number of available fundamentals, to yield an aggregate fundamentalscore. A positive value for a signal implies bad news and a negative value imp-lies good news. As a result, low fundamental scores indicate high quality of ear-nings while high fundamental scores imply low quality. Since the definition ofquality of earnings used by Lev and Thiagarajan (1993) is persistence of repor-ted earnings, this score is tested against earnings response coefficient which isestimated by regressing annual excess stock returns on price-deflated, pretaxearnings change. They argue that there exists a clear association between themessage conveyed by the fundamentals and the earnings response coefficient.

155

Al-Debie and Walker (1999) tested Lev and Thiagarajan’s (1993) the aggregatefundamental score on U.K. firms. Their results were broadly supportive of thefundamental information analysis of Lev and Thiagarajan (1993) but found to behighly conditional according to industry specific circumstances.The second earnings quality score is suggested by Penman and Zhang (2002).They approach the issue from a different perspective compared to Lev and Thi-agarajan (1993) and define high quality earnings to be sustainable earnings. Ac-cording to their approach earnings before extraordinary items that are readilyidentified on the income statement should be a good indicator of future earnings.They argue that if accounting principles are applied consistently by a companythe earnings will be more sustainable. In line with this argument they also builda strong theoretical relation with conservatism principle and earnings quality.They view the analysis of earnings quality as uncovering information in the fi-nancial statements to assess future earnings and equity values. Thus they gatherinformation from financial statements to develop the earnings quality indicator(Q-score) derived from the conservatism index (C-score). The C- score, measu-res the degree to which the firm applies conservative accounting. By “conserva-tive accounting” they mean choosing accounting methods and estimates that ke-ep the book values of net assets relatively low. An accounting practice is moreconservative than another one if it yields lower accumulated earnings. The con-servatism index measures the effect of conservative accounting on the balancesheet. It is a ratio of estimated reserves to net operating assets.

ERitCit =

NOAit

Where; Cit is the conservatism index for firm i at time t.

Estimated reserves denote a total of inventory reserve, research and develop-ment reserve and advertising reserve. These three components are directly relat-ed to the application of conservatism principle within the company. The Q-score, measures the quality of earnings that results from the joint effect of twomeasures. The first measure is the change in the firm’s C-score. The secondmeasure compares a firm’s C-score to the median C-score of the industry thatthe company operates in.


1

1

−

−−=it

it

it

itAit NOA

ERNOAER

Q

−=

it

it

it

itBit

NOA

ER

NOA

ERQ medianIndustry

( ) ( )Bit

Aitit QQQ ×+×= 5.05.0

156

Penman and Zhang (2002) state: “Q-score does not ordinally rank firms on the-ir earnings quality.” Both “high” (positive) and “low” (negative) Q-scores canindicate that current earnings are of poor quality, and a Q-score of zero indica-tes good quality.” Their statistical analysis supports their hypothesis about theability of quality score to predict future returns.

ii) Accounting Treatments as Quality IndicatorsThe second approach to measure overall quality of earnings is the analysis of so-me accounting treatments. These accounting treatments mostly show the charac-teristic of affecting the individual income and expense items of earnings. Someof the sources such as famous financial statement analysis texts and the publica-tions of well known accounting firms, provide a treatment list indicating higherquality, while some others list lower quality indicators. Two selected lists are gi-ven as in Table 4. The main benefit of these lists can be seen as they call somemore focus to certain treatments which have potential affect on income or ex-pense components earnings and earnings quality.


157


Table 4: Accounting Treatments Influencing Earnings Quality

Actions Increasing Earnings Quality Actions Decreasing Earnings Quality

Conservative revenue recognition methods Research and development in progress write-offs arising from business acquisitions

Use of LIFO inventory accounting Inappropriate restructuring charge accounting

Bad-debt reserves that are high relative to Unrecorded stock option compensationreceivables and past credit losses costs

Use of accelerated depreciation methods Front-end income loadingand short lives

Rapid write-off of acquisition Deferral of costsgoodwill and other intangibles

Minimal capitalization of interest and Previously unrecognized deferred tax overhead assets are recognized

Minimal capitalization of computer Overly pessimistic asset impairment software costs charges

Expensing of start-up costs of new Optimistic measurement assumptionsoperations

Use of the completed contract method of Operating actions that pull future earnings accounting into the present

Conservative assumptions used for employee One time transactions to generate gainsbenefit plans

Adequate provisions for lawsuits and other Adoption of less conservative accountingloss contingencies estimates, practices and principles

Minimal use of off-balance sheet Classifying expenditures as assets thatfinancing techniques previously were expensed as incurred

Absence of nonrecurring gains Overly pessimistic asset impairment charges

Absence of non-cash earnings Increasing reliance of earnings sources notcentral to the company’s principal businessactivity and strategy

Clear and adequate disclosures Under-reserving for future expenditures associated with current sales, such as bad debts, warranty obligations, returns and allowances

Taken from White, Sondhi, and Fried (1997) Taken from Merrill Lynch (1998)

158

IV. Accounting System in Turkey

Before any discussion of the applicability of previously discussed approaches tomeasuring earnings quality to ISE companies, a brief overview of accountingenvironment in Turkey is provided below. Additionally some key points of his-torical developments of accounting system in Turkey are given in Appendix.

i) A Brief Overview of the Accounting System in Turkey

Accounting system is an important part of a country’s financial system, and in amodern approach, can be seen as one of the major elements in the economy tomeet information needs of the related parties. The complexity and the variety ofthe informational needs differ as the company becomes open to internationalmarkets. For this reason, both the understanding of the accounting system of anindividual country and understanding the differences and similarities of accoun-ting systems internationally has become a major research area in accounting.

There are numerous studies such as Arce and Mora (2002), McCrae and Nilsson(2001), DuMontier and Labelle (1998) that provide evidence of significant na-tional differences between the association of stock market prices and accountinginformation due to differences in accounting systems. Investors face difficultyin accessing reliable, timely and comparable information. From earnings pointof view, the reported earnings differ based on different national standards for thesame company as well as the differences in the quality and the timing of infor-mation disclosed (Solnik and McLeavy, 2004; Stitle, 2004; Stowe, Robinson,Pinto and McLeavey, 2002). Companies seeking to raise capital in foreign mar-kets incur high costs to comply with different national standards. Regulators areconfronted with the problem of protecting domestic investors and at the same ti-me attracting foreign companies to the domestic market. On the other hand, theinternationalization of capital markets and the significant role of accounting in-formation in these markets, led international and regional bodies such as Inter-national Accounting Standards Committee (IASC), International Organizationof Securities Commissions (IOSCO) and European Union (EU) to enforce acco-unting standards harmonization in an effort to solve the above mentioned infor-mation problems and to remove barriers to cross listings and cross trading 24 .

As an emerging market trying to attract foreign investors and beyond this, as acandidate of EU membership, there is a highly motivated accounting environ-ment (regulatory bodies and accountants) in terms of converging to internatio-nal applications in Turkey. But such convergence efforts are very new and the


24 Detailed information on differences in national accounting standards and their relation to investment decision making can be found in Solnik and McLeavey (2004, 242-256).

159

need of cultural transformation (from accounting perspective) can be seen as itrequires some more time.

In the international accounting literature, there is a need of understanding thedifferences in accounting applications among the countries. These differencesalso show the harmonization level of the countries’ accounting system to inter-national applications. Moreover in the business life, the investors and financialanalysts also need to use financial data for their assessments.

It’s very important to remember that the listed companies in Turkey (regulatedby Capital Markets Board (CMB)), are going to prepare their financial state-ments according to IFRS rules by 2005. But all the financial data available un-til now is prepared under non IFRS climate. Since there’s no one set of generallyaccepted accounting principles applicable for all companies in Turkey 25, to pro-vide a better understanding of Turkish accounting applications, it’s been seenhelpful to show Turkish accounting applications of listed companies (regulatedby CMB) and the differences between international accounting applications asin Table 5.

ii) Turkish Accounting System, International Accounting Classificationsand Earnings Quality

After the brief overview of the accounting environment of Turkey above, thispart of the paper is devoted to evaluate the accounting system of Turkey in termsof international accounting classifications. Additionally, some research studiesare based on the relationships between those classification factors and the ear-nings quality.

International classification of accounting literature defines the environmentalfactors affecting accounting of a particular country as: legal system, sources offinance, tax system, political and economic ties of the countries, influences ofaccounting profession, level of economic development, inflation patterns, edu-cation, and national culture. The common approach of classification studies is toevaluate the countries by those factors and grouping them by their similaritiesand differences 26. The discussion of the factors influencing Turkish accountingsystem and related earnings quality aspects are given below 27:


25 See Appendix.26 See Nobes and Parker (2000) and Choi, Frost, and Meek (1999)27 Consult the Appendix for abbreviations. To get a better understanding of this part, it is highly recommended to

read Appendix on the regulations that exist in Turkey regarding accounting.

160


28 The IASs in Table 5 are those before 2003 revisions of IASB.

Table 5: Differences Between Turkish Accounting Applications and IASs 28

1. In two key areas the absence of Turkish rules leads to important differences from IAS :

• Parent enterprises are not required to consolidate, proportionally consolidate or equity account any investments; however there are rules established as (IAS 22;IAS 27; IAS 28; IAS 31)regards consolidation procedures and accounting principles applicable to consolidated financial statements published on a voluntary basis.

• There are no requirements relating to financial reporting in hyperinflationary economies such as under IAS, although (IAS 29)Turkey has been such an economy for a number of years.

2. Turkish practice differs from that required under IAS because of the absence of specific Turkish rules in the following areas:

• Impairment of assets. IAS 36

• The derecognition of financial assets. IAS 39.35

• The treatment of lease incentives. SIC 15.5

• Discounting of provisions. IAS 37.45

• Provision for employee benefits other IAS 19than lump-sum termination indemnities.

• Accounting for an issuer’s financial IAS 32.18/23; SIC 16instruments and own (treasury) shares.

• Hedge accounting for derivatives. IAS 39.142

3. There are no specific rules requiring disclosures of:

• A primary statement of changes in equity. IAS 1.7

• The FIFO or current cost of inventory IAS 2.36when LIFO is used.

• The fair values of financial assets and IAS 32.77liabilities except for marketable securities.

161


• Transactions with related parties other IAS 24than shareholders, subsidiaries and other equity participations.

• Discontinuing operations. IAS 35

• Segment reporting. IAS 14

There are inconsistencies between Turkish and IAS rules that could lead to differences for many enterprises in certain areas.

• Available-for-sale and derivative IAS 39.69financial assets are not recognized at fair value.

• Trading and derivative liabilities are IAS 39.93not recognized at fair value.

• Foreign exchange losses can be IAS 21.15capitalized as part of the costs of assets IAS 17.12under some circumstances. IAS 19.78

• Finance leases are not capitalized. IAS 12

• Pension obligations are not discounted.

• Deferred tax liabilities are accounted IAS 8.6/12for partially on the basis of timing IAS 7.10differences; deferred tax assets are not allowed.

• Extraordinary items are defined more IAS 33.20widely.

• A different classification of items in a cash flow statement is used.

• In the calculation of earnings per share, the denominator is not adjusted for bonus shares.

In certain enterprises, some other issues could lead to differences from IAS:• Pre-operating, set-up and research costs can be capitalized. IAS 38.42/56• Non-consolidation purchased goodwill must be amortized over a period of five years. IAS 22.42• Lease payments are generally recognized in line with the legal arrangements, which may not be on a IAS 17.25straight-line basis.

162


• Inventories can be held at above net realizable value in some circumstances; and inventories can be valued at the lower of cost and replacement cost. IAS 2.6

• Construction contracts are accounted for on a completed contract basis. IAS 11.22

(Taken from “GAAP 2001, A Survey of National Accounting Rules Benchmarked against International Account Standards”, 2001, www.ifad.net)

Note: Table includes 2001 information. The financial statements in Turkey are prepared according to above rules until 2003.

Legal System: The Commercial Code of Turkey is primarily based on French,German and Italian Commercial Codes. This leads Turkey to be treated as a“code law” country (as opposed to common law). The main characteristic ofcode law countries is that the accounting rules and regulations are incorporatedinto the country’s legal system. Similarly, all accounting rules and standards thatTurkish companies are subject to have been developed by the legal authorities(CMB, BRSA, MOF, TPL, etc). From earnings quality perspective, Ball,Kothari and Robin (2000) find that the loss recognition is less timely in code lawcountries (earnings conservatism). Additionally, with their sound study integrat-ing law and finance, La Porta, Lopez De-Silanes, Shleifer and Vishny (1998)indicate that French code law countries have the weakest quality of accountingin terms of usefulness of accounting data.

Sources of Finance: The code law countries, and so Turkey, are also known asbank based (as opposed to market based) from the source of finance point. Inbank based systems, the major source of finance are banks, and the capital mar-kets in these countries are not well developed. As a typical emerging market, inTurkey the market capitalization is relatively low and even though it is regulat-ed by laws, there is no active corporate bond market, the major financingsources in the economy are banks. Ali and Hwang (2000) find that value rele-vance of accounting data (including earnings) is lower in bank-based countries.

Both Ball, Kothari and Robin (2000) and Ali and Hwang (2000) argue that infor-mation asymmetry in code law (bank based) countries is solved by banks’ andmajor stakeholders’ direct access to financial information about the company.This argument can be discussed for Turkey case as follows:

Even the Turkish economy mostly depends on small and medium sized enter-prises (SMEs), the major problems of SMEs is always linked to the difficultiesof their financing. One of the reasons of the difficulty is always seen as the lack

163

of quality financial reports. In fact this may be seen a general problem of SMEsin the world, but the SMEs in Turkey are in a more difficult position since thefinancial crises in Turkey (especially 2001 crisis) led even banks to prefer to dis-regard the small enterprises in terms of extending financing 29. The SMEs pre-pare the financial statements according to tax regulations and these statementsdo not reflect the financial realities. So the debt contracting in Turkey is mostlybased on asset based lending in which the banks look to the assets of the SMEs/owners as the main source of repayment.

The lower demand for quality financial statements issue looks similar for ISEand larger companies in Turkey. Most of the business groups in Turkey haveformed or acquired a bank in later stages of their development and almost everyprivate bank is under the control of wealthy families (Demira¤ and Serter 2003).Thus, these banks solve information asymmetry with their direct access to com-pany information as they belong to the same groups. The effects of disconcern-ing to the financial reality of the companies, lower demand of financial state-ments and relationship based debt contracts appeared as disastrous cases interms of repayments in famous 2001 economic crises. Baking crises in Turkeyled to the new legal regulations on bank ownership, higher standards of equityand asset requirements and etc. to form a healthier banking structure.

Even though the above classifications differentiate countries as “code law vscommon law” and “bank based vs market based”, (recall to the previous sectionof the paper) Ball and Shivakumar (2005) emphasizes that the “demand” is moreimportant than the law or provider of finance constructs in terms of the motiva-tion for quality financial reports. As it s indicated before, they reach this conclu-sion depending on their study examining the companies in the UK which isknown as the best representative country of common law and market basedgroup.

Taxation: As the Turkish economy mostly depends on SMEs (non-listed com-panies) and the dominant accounting regulations in the economy are TPL based,the international accounting term of being “tax oriented” can be easily used forTurkey. In tax oriented countries, the main role of the financial statements isassumed to be of serving to tax calculations not to the fair presentation of thecompany’s economic facts. Ali and Hwang (2000) find that value relevance ofaccounting data is lower in tax oriented countries.


29 According to the most recent estimates, the SME sector in Turkey, including services, accounted in 2000 for: 99.8% of the total number of enterprises, 76.7% of total employment, 38% of capital investment, 26.5% of value added, roughly 10% of exports and 5% of bank credit. (OECD, 2004)

164

The Influence of Accounting Profession: Consistent with the legal systemclassification, the dominant role of legal authorities on the establishment ofaccounting rules can also be interpreted as the lack of professional bodies’ effecton those rules. There is a similar situation in Turkey where TURMOB, the pro-fessional body, has no authority to regulate accounting principles. Ali andHwang (2000) also find that the value relevance of accounting data is lower forcountries where professional bodies are not involved in the standard settingprocess.Political and Economic Ties: Turkey has no colonial ties to other countries, butthe French and German effects on Turkish accounting system can be linked tothe close relationships with those countries in the past. Moreover, Turkey is acandidate to EU, and there’s no doubt that the accounting development inTurkey will reflect closer patterns to the EU directives in the near future.Inflation: Although the past two years’ inflation rates are showing a decreasingtrend, Turkish economy suffered from hyperinflation for many years. The needof elimination of inflation effects from the financial statements may requiresome additional regulations and practices in inflationary economies. For exam-ple, since 1986, the depreciable assets of the companies have been revalued withthe rates close to inflation issued by MOF and such practice can be seen as adeparture from the use of historical costs. Additionally lower asset useful lives,accelerated depreciation, and the use of LIFO method can be seen as methods tohandle the effects of inflation on accounting data. Most of these methods werealso recognized by CMB regulations until the recent accounting regulationscloser to IFRS.Level of Economic Development: The level of economic development of thecountry, by referring the development of capital markets, affects some account-ing applications such as accounting for derivatives, pension funds, valuation ofgoodwill. These kind of specific accounting treatments are not familiar to theaccountants of Turkey since the companies do not have adequate amount ofexperience about these transactions.Education Level: This construct is about the education level of the country inaccounting area. Since the accounting requirements of the developed countriesare more complex and sophisticated, such requirements also diversify the levelof accounting education across countries. Recent regulatory developments ofMOF, CMB and BRSA lead accountants to improve their accounting knowledgeto be able to serve in the market. Moreover, the accounting curricula in the high-er education is showing a changing pattern in terms of inclusion of hot account-ing topics such as inflation accounting (both tax and CMB regulations) andIFRS.In addition to the above classifications, the correlations between some con-structs should also be considered to place a country in the appropriate groups.


165

For example most of the continental European countries are the member of codelaw group, they have relatively less developed capital markets and the majorsource of finance are banks and the tax rules are dominant in those economies.On the other hand, Anglo-Saxon countries are also known as common law coun-tries and they have developed capital markets, the main source of finance is thecapital markets and tax and accounting rules are separated in those economies.In summary, Turkey is a code law country, belongs to continental Europeanfamily in terms of accounting practices, the major source of finance are banks inthe economy, has a less developed capital market, tax law is dominant in thecountry and instead of professional body, the legal authorities are making therules of accounting.Culture: The other factor is culture which affects accounting applications of acountry. There are numerous studies focusing on the influences of culture onaccounting environment30. The major studies in this area of research areHofstede (1984) and Gray (1988).Hofstede’s (1984) develops cultural dimensions for countries and ranks thecountries according to their scores for each dimension. By following Hofstede’sdimensions, Gray (1988) defines accounting values31 and develops hypothesesby combining Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to his accounting values. SinceHofstede (1984) ranks Turkey with relatively large power distance (societiesaccept a hierarchical order which everybody has a place which needs no furtherjustification), high uncertainty avoidance (societies maintain rigid codes ofbelief and behavior and are intolerant towards deviant persons and ideas), lowerdegree of masculinity (a preference for relationships, modesty, caring for theweak and the quality of life) and lower degree of individualism (a tight socialframework in which people distinguish between in-group and out-groups; theyexpect their in-groups such as relatives, clan, and organizations to look afterthem), Turkey can also be evaluated from Gray’s perspective. This evaluation isshown on Table 6.


30 See Durukan and Özkan (2004) for a comprehensive literature review of culture related accounting studies.31 Professionalism versus Statutory Control: “A preference for the exercise of individual professional judgment

and maintenance of professional self-regulation as opposed to compliance prescriptive legal requirements and statutory control.” Uniformity versus Flexibility “A preference for the enforcement of uniform accounting practices between companies and for the consistent use of such practices over time as opposed to flexibility in accordance with the perceived circumstances of individual companies.” Conservatism versus Optimism “A preference for a cautious approach to measurement so as to cope with the uncertainty of future events as opposed to a more optimistic, laissez-fair, risk-taking approach” Secrecy versus Transparency “A preference for confidentially and restriction of disclosure of information about the business only to those who are closely involved with its management and financing as opposed to a more transparent, open and publicly accountable approach.”(Gray, 1988)

166


Table 6: The Cultural Analysis of The Turkish Accounting System based on

Hofstede (1984) and Gray(1988)

Hofstede’s (1984) Gray (1988) InterpretationRankings

Low Individualism High Statutory Control Even though the professionHigh Uncertainty (or Low Professionalism) of accountancy isLarge Power Distance recognized and TURMOB

Avoidance is establishedin 1989, TURMOB has noauthority to regulate accounting principles.

High Uncertainty High Uniformity The introduction of aAvoidance Uniform Chart ofLarge Power Distance Accounts by MOF in 1994Lower Individualism and its use in the vast

majority of the companies in the country is a good example of uniformity.

High Uncertainty High Conservatism Conservative accountingAvoidance applications such as lowerLow Individualism of cost or market rule, Low Masculinity expensing research devel

opment costs and shorter economic lives of depreciable assets can be seen as good examples for high conservative tax accounting applications. In fact conservative accounting is one of the main characteristic of code law countries.

Large Power Distance High Secrecy The relatively low degreeHigh Uncertainty of voluntary financialLow Masculinity information disclosure inLow Individualism Turkey is a good example

for this construct.

167

V. Discussion of the Applicability of the Earnings Quality Approaches toTurkey

In the previous sections of the paper, the approaches to earnings quality and theTurkish accounting system are summarized respectively. Instead of determiningthe best approach for ISE companies, this section of the paper is mainly devo-ted to the discussion the applicability of those approaches to ISE companies.

When the approaches to the earnings quality are analyzed, it is determined thatthey differ in terms of the following interrelated criteria a) definition of earningsquality b) definition of earnings c) definition of accrual d) definition of cashflow e) the method of earnings, accrual or the cash flow calculations, and f) thedata stream used in the models. There is a strong correlation between these cri-teria, for example the definition of earnings in a study also affects and determi-nes the definition of accruals in that study.

In light of the above criteria, the applicability of the approaches to ISE compa-nies in Turkey can be analyzed as follows:

i) Inflation Effect on Financial Data

Even though the high inflation is not a hot topic in the rest part of the world, Tur-key is known as a hyperinflationary economy for years and there is no doubt thathigh inflation environment distorts the financial data of the companies.

From the earnings quality point of view, there’s no doubt that any use of the fi-nancial statements issued until 2003 will lead to the usage of data which conta-ins inflation effect. As indicted before accounting for inflation is a recent deve-lopment in Turkey and adjusted financial statements are available only since2003. The effect of inflation should not be ignored in the earnings quality analy-sis since the inflation rates have shown a high trend in the past 25 years.

One can argue that, the inflation affects all the companies in the economy so thefinancial data becomes comparable across companies. The main shortcoming ofthis argument is that the assumption of “inflation affects all the companies equ-ally.” It’s clear that all industries are not affected equally from inflation, so dothe companies. From “earnings” point of view, unadjusted financial statementscan not produce correct income numbers and the use of those numbers in theanalysis may not give correct results.

For example, persistence and predictability of earnings can not be analyzed re-liably with the use of unadjusted historical time series in ERC line of studieswhich are used to measure earnings quality.

On the other hand, in most of the cases, if the inflation accounting is not appli-ed, the assets’ value reported on the financial statements are reflected with the-ir historical values which are mostly far (lower) from those assets’ current valu-


168

e. Understatement of earnings results in understatement of expenses and overs-tatement of earnings. Overstatement of earnings can be seen as the non-conser-vative application and leads to lower quality of earnings.

By taking into consideration of inflation’s differential effects on the monetaryand non-monetary items of the financial statements, since 80s, in Turkish acco-unting system the depreciable assets have been subject to revaluation by the useof revaluation rates of MOF. Since the applicability of this method was limitedwith the tangible depreciable assets, the statements containing revalued tangib-le fixed assets can not be treated as inflation adjusted financial statements. Therevaluation of buildings was also a special case since the deprecation expense ofbuildings were permitted to be calculated from the historical cost of the buil-ding, even the buildings’ cost are subject to revaluation. Moreover, in tax regu-lations the application of depreciation and revaluation were not treated as man-datory accounting rules which means that the application of these basic accoun-ting practices left to the manager’s initiative. From listed companies’ point of vi-ew, CMB suggests the consistent application of these accounting principlesfrom period to period, but this time the lack of deferred tax asset and deferredliability accounts, the reported earnings differs from taxable income but still do-es not reflect correct numbers because of the tax liability calculation under dis-cretionary depreciation and revaluation.

In summary any analysis ignoring inflation and using unadjusted earnings num-bers can not provide reliable arguments on earnings quality. Instead of inflationaccounting, only fixed asset revaluation does not serve to derive inflation adjus-ted data.

ii) Lack of or the Inappropriateness of Financial Statements

The financial data to be used in the accounting research is mostly obtained fromthe financial statements of the companies. If the study is conducted in a develo-ped country, then the researchers have alternative sources such as Compustatand other databases. These databases and the data items increase the understan-dability of the content of the items. In Turkey, neither national financial databa-ses nor the clear definition of the items are available, so the primary source foraccounting researches in Turkey is limited with the financial statements disclo-sed by companies.

a) Income Statement

Table 1 shows some alternative earnings definitions used in the earnings qualityliterature. As indicated before the major tendency in related research studies isto use of earnings from continuing operations of the companies. The other ex-pression of this type earnings number is operating income after depreciation as


169

Sloan (1996) preferred to use. Operating income after deprecation excludes non-recurring items such as extraordinary items, discontinued operations, specialitems and non-operating income. Even though these single items are familiar toUS accounting world, in Turkey these items are not known enough because ofthe income statement formats in use.

The principles of financial statements and their formats in Turkey are determi-ned by MOF regulation of 1994 dated Communiqué. The expenses in Turkishtype income statement are classified by function not by nature. A similar formatwas in use for ISE companies under CMB regulations.

In an income statement in which expenses are classified by nature, the depreci-ation expense of the period is shown as a separate line item. By contrast, if ex-penses are classified by function, depreciation expense is included in the functi-on(s) to which it relates.

Consistently, in a Turkish type income statement, depreciation expense of theperiod is included in the cost of products sold (if the product is not sold then onthe balance sheet in inventory), general administrative expense, marketing salesand distribution expenses, research and development expenses and the depreci-ation assigned to unused capacity is reported under an extraordinary loss acco-unt. So in Turkish type income statement there’s no single item of depreciationexpense (a similar situation exists for amortization expenses.) Instead of repor-ting the depreciation expense on the face of the income statement, regulationsrequire it to be disclosed as a footnote item of the income statement. Since thisdata is not available before1998, some researchers may prefer to use the balan-ce sheet approach to have a longer data stream. The balance sheet approach isthe calculation of the depreciation expense as the difference between the currentand previous periods’ accumulated depreciation. This approach may give incor-rect amounts in case the company has some depreciation amount assigned tounused capacity and reported under extraordinary loss line of the income state-ment.

On the Turkish type income statement, there are no lines devoted to “specialitems” and “discontinued operations” and moreover, they are not defined in theaccounting system. In most of the cases, these items are reported under extraor-dinary items in the Turkish accounting system.

The new approach in IFRS climate is not to disclose any extraordinary loss orgain item either on the face or in the notes of income statement after 2003 revi-sions. The extraordinary items were explained in IAS 8 before recent revisions.In 2003, IASB removed the concept of “extraordinary items” from all interna-tional accounting standards. For example, with an addition to IAS 1, IASB sta-tes: “An entity shall not present any items of income and expense as extraordi-


170

nary items, either on the face of the income statement or in the notes IASB, IAS-1, par. 85) 32 .” The reason of such elimination is explained by IASB (Improve-ments to International Accounting Standards, 2003, p. 55) as “The Board deci-ded that items treated as extraordinary result from the normal business risks fa-ced by an entity and do not warrant presentation in a separate component of theincome statement. The nature or function of a transaction or other event, ratherthan its frequency, should determine its presentation within the income state-ment.”

The financial statements prepared according to unrevised IAS then can be seenbetter in terms of serving to evaluation of the earnings persistence and predicta-bility as they reflect separate extraordinary items 33.

In summary, Turkish type income statements until 2005 have separate extraor-dinary gain and loss items but these items defined more widely then formerIASs, after 2005 since ISE companies’ financial statements will be prepared ac-cording to IFRS, Turkish type financial statements will not have extraordinaryitems on the financial statements any more.

b) Statement of Cash Flows

In the previous section, some studies are quoted as their use of accrual qualityconstruct to measure the earnings quality. The main step in those studies is thedecomposition of earnings into its accrual and cash components. The more im-portant decision is the way of decomposition in these studies.

Instead of focusing on the need of cash-accrual decomposition, it’s preferred todiscuss the potential problems of decomposition from ISE companies’ point ofview. To provide a better understanding, this discussion is organized on Sloan’s(1996) accrual / cash flow decomposition, which is mostly used in the related li-terature.

Sloan (1996) defines earnings as the sum of cash flow from operations (CFO)and accruals, and he also defines accrual component of earnings as the changein non-cash working capital less depreciation expense. As it is clear, the researc-hers need CFO and accruals in order to use them in the models. This time thecalculation of accruals comes due.


32 The same statement is used in 2005 version of Turkish Accounting Standard (TAS) No:1 par. 85. 33 IASB’s elimination of extraordinary items was criticized by some respondents to the Exposure Draft. IASB

explains this situation as: ”some respondents to the Exposure Draft argued that extraordinary items should be presented in a separate component of the income statement because they are clearly distinct from all of the other items of income and expense, and because such presentation highlights to users of financial statements the items of income and expense to which the least attention should be given when predicting an entity’s futureperformance” (IASB, 2003, p. 55)

171

In the accounting literature there are two approaches to the calculation of accru-als. The first one is called the “balance approach” which indicates that currentaccruals are increases or decreases in the balances of non-cash current asset andcurrent liability accounts. Accruals then are calculated according to balance she-et approach with the following formula:

Accruals = (Change in non-cash current assets) – (Change in current liabilities)– (Current portion of long-term debt) – (Taxes payable) – (Depreciation expense)

The other approach is called the “cash flow approach” which derives data fromcash flow statements and do not use any data from the balance sheet. Accrualsin this approach are calculated with the following formula:

Accruals = Earnings before extraordinary items from– Cash flows from opera-tions

Even though most of the studies have utilized the balance sheet approach to de-termine the accruals, Hribar and Collins (2002) indicate that CFO from the ba-lance sheet gives erroneous results related to the effects of mergers, acquisitions,divestitures on working-capital balances that do not affect the statement of cashflows.

The main reason of using mostly the balance sheet approach in the US based li-terature is the lack of statement of cash flows in the U.S. until 1988. The use ofbalance sheet approach enables researchers to examine a longer sample period.

In Turkey, the statement of cash flows is not a required financial statement to bedisclosed. The only period that statement of cash flows is available for compa-nies is 1992-1997. So the studies that aim to calculate accruals in order to eva-luate earnings quality can only use the less precise balance sheet approach inTurkey.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The success of companies is determined by their value, namely firm value. Oneof the most critical criteria used in firm valuation models is profitability, namelyearnings. Thus, the quality of earnings is important for sound decisions to bemade by all who are interested in a firm’s performance.

There are various definitions of quality of earnings in the literature. These de-finitions mainly based on the attributes that earnings should possess to be ofhigh quality. These attributes are persistence, sustainability, predictability, fo-recasting ability, smoothness, usefulness, closeness to cash.

Based on each definition, researchers have developed different approaches tomeasuring earnings quality. These approaches mainly comprise many econo-metric and complex methods. However, these approaches do not measure ear-nings quality directly, they first analyze some criteria (such as accrual quality,


172

existence of earnings management, etc.) and evaluate that criteria and link themto earnings quality. There are some other approaches in the literature which aredeveloped to measure overall quality of earnings with a direct focus. The com-mon approach of these studies is to use earnings quality indicators and assess thequality through those indicators.

There are two types of earnings quality indicator using studies in the literature.In the first type, the indicators are developed in terms of indices or scores andthe earnings quality levels are assessed by the scores assigned to earnings. Theother approach develops indicators by using some accounting treatments whichpotentially show the increasing or decreasing effects on the earnings quality.The experiences of the accounting world have major roles in the selection ofthose certain accounting treatments which are believed to be the indicators ofhigh or low earnings quality.

The accounting system of Turkey and the recent developments in the system po-ses certain potential problems in analyzing the quality of earnings of Turkishcompanies. These may be stated under two main headings as the inflation effecton financial data and lack of or inappropriate formats of financial statements forearnings quality analysis.

In light of the above points, it should be noted that if any earnings quality analy-sis is carried for Turkish companies, specific characteristics of the Turkish ac-counting system and the changes in this system over the years should be takeninto account. This also implies that any study using the earnings figure as its da-ta should be aware of the effect of the issue of earnings quality on the findings.Moreover, investors, analysts and creditors should also be aware of these issuesin order to make sound decisions.

APPENDIX

A Brief History of Turkish Accounting System 34

The first step of the analysis of Turkish accounting environment can be startedby the Commercial Code of the country. Commercial Law in Turkey is based onFrench Commercial Code (1850) at the beginning and based on German and Ita-lian Commercial Codes in the later decades, 1926 and 1956. Since the Commer-cial Law only prescribes the minimum book-keeping requirements, Tax Proce-dural Law (TPL) provides more detailed rules for practical accounting applica-tions for all companies except financial institutions such as banks, insurance


34 See also Mugan (1995), Cooke and Çürük, (1996) and The World Bank (2003) for a brief history of Turkishaccounting system in English.

173

companies and companies listed in Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) since they ha-ve their own regulations.

Under the TPL, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Accounting System App-lication General Communiqué Order No.1 in 1992 (became effective in 1994)and introduced a Uniform Chart of Accounts (CoA). This Communiqué prescri-bes the basic accounting concepts (social responsibility, business entity, goingconcern, periodicity, monitory unit, cost, objectivity, consistency, full disclosu-re, prudence, materiality, and substance over form), detailed principles for thepreparation of financial statements, a chart of accounts and formats for financi-al statements (balance sheet, income statement, funds flow statement, profit dis-tribution table, cost of sales statement, statement of changes in shareholders’equity) 35. Even the aim of this Communiqué is defined as: “…to provide a tru-e and fair accounting of operations and results of enterprises and companies ow-ned by legal and real entities that keep accounting records on a balance sheet ba-sis; to secure a fair reflection of the information presented to the interested par-ties through financial statements; by maintaining the consistency and compara-bility of that information and to facilitate the audit of these firms”, the main pur-pose is to provide information to tax authorities. The audit requirement is limi-ted with the tax audit for larger companies. In other words, there is no obligati-on to disclose the financial statements to the public and the financial statementsare not subject to independent financial statements audit. Since the 1992 Com-muniqué, the major regulation of tax authorities can be seen as the 2003 LawNo: 5024 (and 5228) which is also known “inflation adjustment” law. The Law5024 is far from general “inflation accounting knowledge” and the results of ad-justed statements are not clear since the first adjusted statements are still not pre-pared.

Under the Capital Markets Law (CML), the Capital Markets Board (CMB) re-gulates all corporations whose shares are traded on the ISE, brokerage compa-nies operating in the market, mutual funds, and investment funds. In January1989 the CMB issued a Communiqué governing financial reporting by the capi-tal market companies. This Communiqué strongly emphasizes that the financialstatements should contain useful information to the users for their economic de-cisions. Financial statements prepared according to CMB regulations must bepublished and audited. The auditors should be approved by CMB 36. Until 2001financial reporting requirements of capital market companies are mostly based


35 This regulation is available in English at www.turmob.org.tr36 There are 84 independent audit companies approved by CMB. (April, 3,2005)

174

on 1989 Communiqué. In 2001 CMB issued two important communiqués toprovide a higher degree of harmonization with international applications. Theseare known as Communiqué for inflation accounting and communiqué for con-solidation of financial statements and both of them are effective for financial sta-tements for the financial years ending after 1 January 2003. Finally, in Novem-ber 2003 the CMB issued another Communiqué which is on IFRS identical stan-dards. This Communiqué is effective in the first interim (quarterly) financial sta-tements starting from 1 January 2005 and the CMB encourages early adaptation of IFRS.

According to the amendments added to CML in 1999, Turkish Accounting Stan-dards Board (TASB), the official representative of International AccountingStandards Board (IASB) in Turkey, established as an autonomous body in 2002to prepare and issue Turkish Accounting Standards (direct translations of IFRS).The TASB has already issued the Conceptual Framework, TAS-1 Presentationof Financial Statements, TAS-2 Inventories and TAS 7 Cash Flow Statementsby translating related IFRS into Turkish 37. In the near future, it’s intended thatCMB and other regulatory bodies, especially CMB will delegate their powers toset accounting standards to TASB.

Banks are subject to the regulations of Banking Law. After the bank crises inTurkey, Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency (BRSA) was establishedin 2000 as a body with administrative and financial autonomy to regulate banksunder Banking Law. For listed banks, CMB delegates its power to set accoun-ting regulation to BRSA. BRSA issued comprehensive accounting regulation onaccounting standards that have been applicable to banks in 2002. These stan-dards are in line with international applications but there isn’t full compliance toIFRS like CMB’s recent standards. Similarly, banks’ financial statements mustalso be audited by the external auditors approved by BRSA and financial state-ments must be issued to the public.

In the system there are also some sector specific accounting and auditing regu-lations for insurance, leasing, third pillar private pension and factoring compa-nies (under the regulation of Treasury), securities firms, mutual funds, asset ma-nagement companies (under the regulation of the CMB) and existing second andthird pillar pension funds (under the regulation of Ministry of Defense and /orthe General Directorate of Foundations).

All of the above regulations on accounting and auditing are in addition toMOF’s accounting regulations for tax purposes. In other words, listed compani-


37 These standards are published in Official Gazette on January 15, 16 and 18, 2005 and issued.. (http://www.tmsk.org.tr)

175

es regulated by CMB should follow MOF’s rules for tax purposes and followCMB’s rules for financial reporting purposes. Moreover, for most of the non-lis-ted companies, the common opinion is that the financial reporting exists for taxpurposes only. Thus, the book income and taxable income mean the same thingin most cases for those non-listed companies.

Accounting and auditing profession in Turkey has received its legal recognitionin 1989 in accordance with the Accountancy Law No:3568. The Law establis-hes accounting and auditing as a profession and defines three categories of ac-counting and auditing professionals; a) Independent Accountant, (IA) b) Certi-fied Public Accountant, (CPA) and c) Sworn-in Certified Public Accoun-tant.(SCPA). IAs and CPAs are organized into 70 provincial Chambers andSCPAs are organized into 8 provincial Chambers and there are about 29.722IAs, 30.954 CPAs and 3.474 SCPAs in Turkey 38. The Union of Certified Pub-lic Accountants and Sworn-in Certified Public Accountants of Turkey (TUR-MOB) is founded by the Law No. 3568 enacted in 1989 as an official associati-on of the profession through the participation of all the provincial Chambers ofIAs, CPAs and SCPAs. The Union has the power to give professional licenses.The qualifications that are required to be a member of the profession are speci-fied by the Law and only those who have been awarded a license by TURMOBare entitled to render professional services. Even though the TURMOB is estab-lished as an official association of the profession, neither CMB nor BRSA doesnot place any reliance on the oversight activities of TURMOB and use their ownmonitoring and enforcement units in reviewing the compliance of financial sta-tements with their regulations. Moreover, because of the size of the capital mar-kets, the majority of the accountants do not perform financial statement audit,instead they are related to book keeping and taxation compliance.

REFERENCES

Al-Debie, M. , M. Walker, “Fundamental Information Analysis: An Extensionand UK Evidence”, British Accounting Review, Vol.31, 1999, pp. 261-280.

Ali, A., Hwang, L.S., “Country-Specific Factors Related to Financial Reportingand the Value Relevance of Accounting Data”, Journal of Accounting Research,Vol: 38, No:1, Spring 2000, pp.1-25.

Arce, M., Mora, A., “Empirical Evidence of the Effect of European Accoun-ting Differences on the Stock Market Valuation of Earnings and Book Value”,The European Accounting Review, Vol.11, No:3, 2002, pp. 573-579.


38 As of 20.09.2004, www.turmob.org.tr

176

Ayres, F., "Perceptions of Earnings Quality: What Managers Need to Know",Management Accounting, Vol:78, No:9, 1994, pp. 27-30.

Ball, R., L. Shivakumar, “Earnings Quality in UK Private Firms: ComparativeLoss Recognition Timeliness”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol: 39,2005, pp. 83–128.

Ball, R., P. Brown, “An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Num-bers”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.6 (Autumn), 1968, pp. 159-177.

Ball, R., S.P. Kothari, A. Robin, “The Effect of International Institutional Fac-tors on Properties of Accounting Earnings”, Journal of Accounting and Econo-mics, Vol. 29, 2000, pp. 1-51.

Ballas, A. A., “Valuation Implications of the Components of Earnings: Cross-sectional Evidence From Greece”, 1997, http://ssrn.com/abstract=55180

Bankac›l›k Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurulu, “Muhasebe Uygulama Yönetme-li¤i ”, (Banking Regulation and Supervision Agency, “Regulation on Accoun-ting Principles”), Official Gazette No: 24793, 22.06.2002.

Barragato, A.C., A. Markelevich, “Earnings Quality Following Corporate Ac-quisitions”, Paper presented at American Accounting Association 2004 Mid-Atlantic Region Annual Meeting, December 2003.

Barth, M.E., D.P. Cram , K.K. Nelson, “Accruals and the Prediction of Futu-re Cash Flows”, The Accounting Review, Vol.76, No:1, January 2001, pp. 27-58.

Bartov, E., F. A. Gul, and J. S. L. Tsui, “Discretionary-accruals Models andAudit Qualifications”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 30, 2002, pp.421-452.

Basu, S., “The Conservatism Principle and the Asymmetric Timeliness of Ear-nigs”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.24, 1997, pp. 3-37.

Beaver W.H., S.G. Ryan, “Conditional and Unconditional conservatism:con-cept and modeling”, Working paper, 2004

Beekes, W., P. Pope, S. Young, “The Link Between Earnings Timeliness, Ear-nings Conservatism and Board Composition: Evidence from The UK”, Corpo-rate Governance, Vol.12, No: 1, January 2004, pp. 47-59.

Beneish, M., M.E. Vargus, “Insider Trading, Earnings Quality, and Accrual Mis-pricing”, The Accounting Review, Vol.77, No: 4, October 2002, pp. 755-791.

Bernard, V., D. Skinner, “What Motivates Managers’ Choice of DiscretionaryAccruals?”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.22 No:1-3, 1996, pp.313-325.


177

Beuselinck, C., M. Deloof, S. Manigart, “Private Equity and Earnings Qua-lity”, 2005, http://ssrn.com/abstract=483522

Bliss, J.H. “Management Through Accounts”, The Ronald Press Co., NewYork 1924.

Carnes, A.T. , J.P. Jones, T.B. Biggart, K.J. Barker, “Just-in-time InventorySystems Innovation and the Predictability of Earnings”, International Journal ofForecasting, Vol.19, 2003, pp. 743-749.

Chan, K. , L.K.C. Chan, N. Jegadeesh, J. Lakonishok, “Earnings Quality andStock Returns”, 2004, Working paper, University of Illinois at Urbana- Cham-paign, IL. (Forthcoming: The Journal of Business, Electronic Edition, Publishedby the University of Chicago, Vol. 79, No: 4, July 2006.)

Chandra, U., C. Wasley, G. Waymire, “Income Conservatism in the U.S.Technology Sector”, University of Rochester, Financial Research and PolicyWorking Paper No: FR 04-01, 2004.

Choi, F.D.S., C.A. Frost, G.K. , Meek, “International Accounting”, PrenticeHall, Third Edition, USA, 1999.

Christian, C. , “The Value-relevance of Earnings and Operating Cash FlowsDuring Mergers”, Managerial Finance, Vol.30, No:11, 2004, pp. 16-29.

Collins, D. W. and Kothari, S. P. , “An Analysis of Intertemporal and Cross-sectional Determinants of Earnings Response Coefficients”, Journal of Accoun-ting and Economics, Vol.11, 1989, pp. 143-181.

Collins, D.W., P. Hribar, “Earnings-based and Accrual-based Market Anoma-lies: One Effect or Two?”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.29, 2000,pp. 101-123.

Cooke, T.E., T. Çürük, “Accounting in Turkey with Reference to the Particu-lar Problems of Lease Transactions”, The European Accounting Review, Vol.5,No:2, 1996, pp. 339-359.

Cormier, D., M. Magnan, B. Morard, “The Contractual and Value Relevanceof Reported Earnings in a Dividend-focused Environment”, The European Ac-counting Review, Vol. 9 No:3, 2000, pp. 387-417.

Cornell, B., W.R. Landsman, “Accounting Valuation: Is Earnings Quality anIssue?”, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol.59, No:6, Nov/Dec 2003, pp. 20-28.

DeAngelo, L., “Accounting Numbers as Market Valuation Substitutes: A Studyof Management Buyouts of Public Stockholders”, The Accounting Review, Vol:41, 1986, pp. 400-420.


178

Dechow, M.D., I. D. Dichev, “The Quality of Accruals and Earnings: The Ro-le of Accrual Estimation Errors”, The Accounting Review, Vol.77, Supplement2002, pp. 755-791.

Dechow, M.D., R.G. Sloan, A.P. Sweeney, “Detecting Earnings Management”,The Accounting Review, Vol.70, No:2, April 1995, pp. 193-225.

DeFond, M. L., J. Jiambalvo, “Debt Covenant Violation and Manipulation ofAccruals”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.17, 1994, pp. 145-176.

Demira¤, I., M. Serter, “Ownership Patterns and Control in Turkish ListedCompanies”, Corporate Governance, Vol.11, No:1, January 2003, pp. 40-51.

Dharan, B. G., “Accruals Management with Financing and Investing Transac-tions”, Rice University, Working paper, 2003.

Dumontier, P., R. Labelle, “Accounting Earnings and Firm Valuation: theFrench Case”, The European Accounting Review, Vol.7, No:2, 1998, pp. 163-183.

Durukan, M. B., ÖZKAN, S., “Capital Market Development Leading to Acco-unting Harmonization: Culture as a Challenge”, 2004, Paper Presented at theFirst Annual International Accounting Conference in Istanbul, Turkey.

Easton, P. D. , M.D. Zmijewski, “Cross-sectional Variation in the Stock Mar-ket Response to Accounting Earnings Announcements”, Journal of Accountingand Economics, Vol. 11, 1989, pp. 117-141.

Elgers, P.T., R.J. Pfeiffer Jr., S.L. Porter, “Anticipatory Income Smoothing:a Re-examination”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol.35, 2003, pp.405-422.

Epps, R.W., J.W. Oh, “Market Perception of Foreign Financial Reports: Diffe-rential Earnings Response Coefficients Between U.S. and Foreign GAAP”, Jo-urnal of International Accounting, Auditing & Taxation, Vol.6, No:1, 1997, pp.49-74.

FASB, Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts, No:1 Objectives of Fi-nancial Reporting by Business Enterprises, 1978.

FASB, Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts, No:2 Qualitative Charac-teristics of Accounting Information, 1980.

FASB, Statements of Financial Accounting Concepts, No:5 Recognition andMeasurement in Financial Statements of Business Enterprises, 1984.

FASB, Statements of Financial Accounting Standards, No: 132 Employers’Disclosures about Pensions and Other Postretirement Benefits, 1998.


179

Feltham, G., Ohlson, J., “Valuation and Clean Surplus Accounting for Opera-ting and Financial Activities”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.11,1995, pp. 689-731.

Francis, J. , R. LaFond, P. Olsson, K. Schipper, “Costs of Capital and EquityAttributes”, 2003, Working paper, Duke University.

Francis, J., K. Schipper, L. Vincent, “The Relative Incremental ExplanatoryPower of Earnings and Alternative (to earnings) Performance Measures for Re-turns”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol.20, Spring 2003, pp. 121-164.

Giner, B., C. Reverte, “The Value Relevance of Earnings Disaggregation Pro-vided in the Spanish Profit and Loss Account”, European Accounting Review,Vol.8, No: 4, 1999, pp. 609-629.

Graham, J. R., C. R. Harvey, S. Rajgopal, “The Economic Implications ofCorporate Financial Reporting”, Duke University, Working paper, 2004.

Gray, S., “Towards a Theory of Cultural Influence on the Development of Ac-counting Systems Internationally”, Abacus, Vol: 24, No: 1, 1988, pp. 1–15.

Green, J.P., “The Impact of the Quality of Earnings on the Valuation Relevan-ce of Cash Flow Disclosures”, British Accounting Review, Vol.31, 1999, pp.387-413.

Guay, W. R., S. P. Kothari, R. L. Watts, “A Market Based Evaluation of Dis-cretionary Accrual Models”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol. 34 (Supple-ment), 1996, pp. 83-105.

Healy, P., “The Effect of Bonus Schemes on Accounting Decisions”, Journal ofAccounting and Economics, Vol.7, 1985, pp. 85-107.

Hodge, F.D., “Investors Perceptions of Earnings Quality, Auditor Independen-ce, and the Usefulness of Audited Financial Information”, Accounting Horizons,Supplement 2003, pp. 37-48.

Hofstede, G., “Cultural Dimensions in Management and Planning”, Asia Paci-fic Journal of Management, January 1984, pp. 83-84.

Hribar, P., “The Market Pricing of Components of Accruals”, Cornell Univer-sity, Working paper, 2000.

IASB, Improvements to International Accounting Standards, December 2003.

IASB, Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements.

Jones, J.J., “Earnings Management During Import Relief Investigations”, Jour-nal of Accounting Research, Vol.29, No: 2, 1991, pp. 193-228.


180

Kang, T., “Quality of Earnings Inferred from the Profitability of EP TradingRules”, Managerial Finance, Vol.30, No: 11, 2004, pp. 30-44.

Kaznik, R., “On the Association between Voluntary Disclosure and EarningsManagement”, Journal of Accounting Research, Vol.37, No:1, 1999, pp. 57-82.

Kormendi, R., R. Lipe, “Earnings Innovations, Earnings Persistence, and StockReturns”, Journal of Business, Vol.6, No:3, 1987, pp. 323-345.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-De-Silanes, A. Shleifer, R. Vishny, “Law and Finan-ce”, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.106, No:6, 1998, pp. 1113-1155.

Lang, M., J. S. Raedy, M. H. Yetman, “How Representative are Firms that areCross-listed in the United States? An Analysis of Accounting Quality”, Journalof Accounting Research, Vol.41, No: 2, May 2003, pp. 363-386.

Lev, B., “On the Usefulness of Earnings and Earnings Research: Lessons andDirections from Two Decades of Empirical Research”, Journal of AccountingResearch, Vol.27, Supplement 1989, pp. 153-192.

Lev, B., S.R., Thiagarajan, “Fundamental Information Analysis”, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol.31, No: 2, Autumn 1993, pp. 190-215.

Levitt, A., “The Numbers Game”, New York, 1998, http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/speecharchive/1998/spch220.txt

Lipe, R.C., “The Information Contained in the Components of Earnings”, Jour-nal of Accounting Research, Vol.24, Supplement 1986, pp. 37-64.

Lipe, R.C., “The Relation Between Stock Returns and Accounting Earnings Gi-ven Alternative Information”, The Accounting Review, Vol.65, No: 1, January1990, pp. 49-71.

Liu, J., D. Nissim, J. Thomas, “Equity Valuation Using Multiples”, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol. 40, No: 1, March 2002, pp. 135-172.

Maliye ve Gümrük Bakanl›¤›, “Muhasebe Sistemi Uygulama Genel Tebli¤i”,(Ministry of Finance and Customs, “Accounting System Application GeneralCommuniqué”), published in Official Gazette, 26.12.1992.

McCrae, M., H. Nilsson, “The Explanatory and Predictive Power of DifferentSpecifications of the Ohlson (1995) Valuation Models”, The European Accoun-ting Review, Vol.10, No:2, 2001, pp. 315-341.

McNichols, M.F., “Discussion of the Quality of Accruals and Earnings: TheRole of Accrual Estimation Errors”, The Accounting Review, Vol.77, Supple-ment 2002, pp. 61-69.


181

Merrill Lynch, Accounting Bulletin #69, September 1998.

Mugan C. fi., “Accounting in Turkey”, The European Accounting Review,Vol.4, No: 2, 1995, pp. 351-371.

Narayanamoorthy, G., “Conservatism and Cross-Sectional Variation in thePost- Earnings-Announcement Drift”, Yale University, Working paper, 2003.

Niu, F.F., G.D. Richardson, “Earnings Quality, Off-balance Sheet Risk, andthe Financial-Components Approach to Accounting for Transfers of FinancialAssets”, 2004.

Nobes, C. , R. Parker, “Comparative International Accounting”, Prentice Hall,Sixth edition, Great Britain 2000.

OECD, “Small And Med›um-Sized Enterprises In Turkey, Issues and Policies”,2004, www.oecd.org

O'glove, T. L. “Quality of Earnings: The Investor's Guide to How Much Moneya Company is Really Making”, The Free Press, 1987.

Pae, J., D.B. Thornton , M. Welker, “The Link Between Earnings Conserva-tism and Balance Sheet Conservatism”, Queen’s University, Working Paper 2004.

Patell, J.M., “Discussion of On the Usefulness of Earnings and Earnings Rese-arch: Lessons Directions from Two Decades of Empirical Research”, Journal ofAccounting Research, Vol.27, Supplement 1989, pp. 193-200.

Penman, S.H., X.J. Zhang, “Accounting Conservatism, the Quality of Ear-nings, and Stock Returns”, The Accounting Review, Vol.77, No: 2, April 2002,pp. 237-264.

Phillips, J., M. Pincus, S. O. Rego, “Earnings Management: New Evidence Ba-sed on Deferred Tax Expense”, University of Iowa, Working paper, 2002.

Ramakrishnan, R., J. Thomas, “Valuation of Permanent, Transitory and PriceIrrelevant Components of Reported Earnings”, Journal of Accounting, Auditing,and Finance, Vol.13, 1998, pp. 301-36.

Richardson S.A., R.G. Sloan, M.T. Soliman, I. Tuna, “Accrual Reliability,Earnings Persistence and Stock Prices”, December 2004, Working paper, Uni-versity of Michigan.

Richardson, G., S. Tinaikar, “Accounting Based Valuation Models. What Ha-ve We Learned?”, University of Toronto, Working paper, 2003.

Schipper, K., L. Vincent, “Earnings Quality”, Accounting Horizons, Supple-ment 2003, pp. 97-110.


182

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Review of the Periodic Reports ofthe Fortune 500 Companies, 2002, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/fortu-ne500rep.htm.

Sermaye Piyasas› Kurulu, “Sermaye Piyasas›nda Konsolide Mali Tablolara ve‹fltiraklerin Muhasebelefltirilmesine ‹liflkin Usul ve Esaslar Hakk›nda Tebli¤”,(Capital Markets Board, “Communiqué for Consolidation”), Official GazetteNo:24582, 13.11.2001.

Sermaye Piyasas› Kurulu, “Sermaye Piyasas›nda Muhasebe Standartlar› Hak-k›nda Tebli¤”, (Capital Markets Board, “Communiqué for IFRS”), Official Ga-zette No:25290, 15.11.2003.

Sermaye Piyasas› Kurulu, “Standart Genel Hesap Plan› ve Plan›n Kullan›mEsaslar› Hakk›nda Tebli¤”, (Capital Markets Board, “Communiqué for UniformChart of Accounts”), Official Gazette No:20064, 19.01.1989.

Sermaye Piyasas› Kurulu, “Yüksek Enflasyon Dönemlerinde Mali Tablolar›nDüzeltilmesine ‹liflkin Usul ve Esaslar Hakk›nda Tebli¤” (Capital MarketsBoard, “Communiqué for Inflation Accounting”), Official Gazette No:24597,28.11.2001.

Shaw, K.W., “Corporate Disclosure Quality, Earnings Smoothing, and Ear-nings Timeliness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol.56, 2003, pp. 1043-1050.

Shroff, P. K., R. Venkataraman, S. Zhang, “The Conservatism Principle andthe Asymmetric Timeliness of Earnings: An Event-Based Approach”, Univer-sity of Minnesota, Working paper, 2004.

Sloan, R. G., “Do Stock Prices Fully Reflect Information in Cash Flows andAccruals About Future Earnings?”, The Accounting Review, Vol.71, Issue 3,July 1996, pp. 289-315.

Solnik, B., D. McLeavey, “International Investments”, Addison Wesley, USA, 2004.

Stittle, J., “The Reformation of European Corporate Reporting. Towards a Mo-del of Convergence or Confusion?”, European Business Review, Vol.16, No:2,2004, pp. 139-151.

Stowe, J. D., R.T. Robinson, J.E. Pinto, D.W. McLeavey, “Analysis of Equ-ity Investments: Valuation”, AIMR, USA, 2002.

Subramanyam, K.R, “The Pricing of Discretionary Accruals”, Journal of Ac-counting and Economics, Vol.22, 1996, pp.249-281.

Teoh, S. H., T, J, Wong, G. R. Rao, “Are Accruals During Initial Public Offe-rings Opportunistic?”, Review of Accounting Studies, Vol. 3, 1998, pp.175-208.


183

Teoh, S.H. , T.J. Wong, “Perceived Auditor Quality and the Earnings Respon-se Coefficient”, The Accounting Review, Vol.68, No:2, April 1993, pp. 346-366.

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, Fra-udulent Financial Reporting: 1981-1986 - An Analysis of U.S. Public Compa-nies, 1987, www.coso.org/NCFFR.pdf.

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, Fra-udulent Financial Reporting: 1987-1997 - An Analysis of U.S. Public Compani-es, 1999, www.coso.org.

The World Bank, “Turkey: Non-Bank Financial Institutions and Capital Mar-kets Report”, Report No: 25467-TU, February 2003, www.worldbank.org.

Thomas, J. K. and H. Zhang, “Inventory Changes and Future Returns”, Revi-ew of Accounting Studies, Vol.7, 2002, pp. 163-187.

Watts, R.L., “Conservatism in Accounting Part 1: Explanations and Implicati-ons”, Accounting Horizons, Vol.17, No: 3, September 2003a, pp. 207-221.

Watts, R.L., “Conservatism in Accounting Part 2: Evidence and Research Op-portunities”, Accounting Horizons, Vol.17, No: 4, December 2003b, pp. 287-301.

Watts, R.L., J.L. Zimmerman, “Positive Accounting Theory”, Prentice-Hall,NJ 1986.

White, G. I., A.C. Sondhi, D. Fried, “The Analysis and Use of Financial Sta-tements”, John Wiley & Sons Inc., Second edition, USA, 1997.

Wild, J.J. , K.R. Subramanyam, R.F. Halsey, “Financial Statement Analysis”,McGraw-Hill, Eighth edition, Singapore 2004.

Wild, J.J., “Stock Price Informativeness of Accounting Numbers: Evidence onEarnings, Book Values, and Their Components”, Journal of Accounting andPublic Policy, Vol.11, Issue: 2, 1992, pp. 119-154.

Wu, M., “Earnings Restatements: A Capital Market Perspective”, New YorkUniversity, Working paper, 2002.

Zhang, X.J., “Conservative Accounting and Equity Valuation”, Journal of Ac-counting and Economics, Vol.29, 2000, pp. 125-149.


184

185

TÜRK‹YE’DE F‹NANSAL RAPORLAMA VE HARMAN‹ZASYONGEREKS‹N‹M‹

Cansen Baflaran SymesBaflaran Nas SMMM A.fi.

Salona bak›yorum, iki sene sonra yüzde 90 yine ayn› yüzler, biz her yerde bera-beriz, yine bizler bu konular› birlikte tart›fl›yoruz ‹nflallah bundan sonraki sem-pozyumda daha farkl› kitlelere de bu sunumlar› ulaflt›rabiliriz. Çünkü ben hemenhemen soru soracak arkadafllar› bile -e¤er vakit kal›rsa- flu anda tahmin edebili-yorum. Art›k bu bizim seminerlerin çok kitleselleflmifl, gelenekselleflmifl bir gru-bu salonda. Dolay›s›yla hepinize, bütün dostlara tekrar hofl geldiniz diyorum.

Tabii ki, dünyada mesle¤imizdeki de¤iflen konular, Türkiye için flu anda birazda ayr›nt›l› olan bir sürü konuya götürdü. Nitekim bir önceki oturumda son de-rece kapsaml› bir flekilde denetim komiteleri, risk yönetimi, bunlar› dinledik.

Ben diyorum ki, biz bu sabah asl›nda mesle¤in çok temel sorunlar›yla bafllad›k,ben tekrar sizi kapan›fla do¤ru, bizim biraz Türkiye’nin realitelerine ve hepini-zin bildi¤i asl›nda, çok daha iflin özüne ve basitine götürmek istiyorum izninizle.

Standartlar›n olmad›¤› bir dünyada, karikatür asl›nda kendini çok da aç›klamaistemiyor, “benim tenis topumla oynamaya ne dersin” diyen bir tenisçi, demekki dünyada ister muhasebe mesle¤i, ister spor, ne olursa olsun mutlaka temelstandartlara ihtiyac›m›z var.

Bu anlamda tek tip finansal raporlama standard›n›n ihtiyac›n› asl›nda burada çokda tekrarlamaya gerek yok. Bunu biz kan›ksad›k, onun için de Türkiye’de sonderece olumlu geliflmeler var. Ama biliyoruz ki, dünyan›n her yerinde ayn› fle-kilde uygulanan yüksek kalitedeki standartlar, sermayenin da¤›l›m›ndaki verim-lili¤i art›r›yor. Hepimiz biliyoruz, sermaye küresel bir meta. Dolay›s›yla, Türki-ye’nin çok bafll›l›ktan mutlaka uzaklaflmas› laz›m ki, bu konuda zaten oldukçageliflmeler var son y›llarda.

Yat›r›mc›lar yat›r›mlar›yla ilgili daha sa¤l›kl› karar alabiliyorlar, flirketler birlefl-me ve devir ifllemleriyle ilgili stratejik karar alma mekanizmalar›n› gelifltirebili-yorlar ve daha da önemlisi asl›nda, yüksek kalitedeki global standartlar› geliflti-rirken, ülkeler ulusal standart belirleme sürecinde öne ç›kan fikirlerden de yarar-lanabiliyorlar. Dolay›s›yla, hepimizin bu tür standartlara ihtiyac› var.

Standartlardan fazla bahsetmeyece¤im, çünkü Türkiye’deki geliflmeleri herkesson derece iyi biliyor bu salonda. Ben buradan finansal raporlaman›n özüne dö-nece¤im. Çünkü, asl›nda finansal raporlama zaman zaman hepimizin sadece biroutput diye bakt›¤› oldukça karmafl›k ve mutlaka ve mutlaka iyi iflemesi gereken


186

bir süreç. Bunu bir süreç diye düflündü¤ümüz zaman, asl›nda olay›n komplikas-yonu zaten kendili¤inden ortaya ç›k›yor ve bu sabahleyin çok güzel sözlerle ifa-de edildi. Bu süreçteki en ufak bir aksakl›k, flirket üst düzey yönetimlerini, yö-netim kurulu üyelerini, tüm tedarik zincirine -ki birazdan ondan bahsedece¤im-yans›yor, bireylerin, flirketlerin, ülkelerin ve global ekonominin zarar görmesi-ne neden oluyor. Dolay›s›yla, finansal raporlama burada son derece, sürecin ifl-lemesi en temel konumuz bizim.

Finansal raporlaman›n asl›nda gelece¤ine bakt›¤›m›z zaman, tabi-i ki dünyada veri kalitesi flu anda en ciddi konu, burada da sürekli yeni kavram-lar, uygulamalar. Biliyorsunuz dünyadaki en iyi dedi¤imiz standartlar her günyeni de¤iflimlere aç›k, ama bütün bunlar›n ötesinde teknolojilerin gelifltirilmesive uygulanmas›na çok ba¤l›. Yani teknolojiyi kullanmadan istedi¤iniz kadar iyisizin raporlama ve muhasebe standartlar›n›z olsun, do¤ru bilgiyi üretmenize im-kan yok. Dünya buna do¤ru gidiyor.

fiimdi burada biraz de¤iflimden bahsetmek istiyorum, asl›nda sabah da bahsedil-di ama; teknolojiler gelifliyor, internet, bilgi ça¤› diyoruz ve bunlar asl›nda ku-rumsal raporlaman›n sonuçlar›n› kamuoyuyla son derece de¤iflik platformlardapaylafl›yorlar ve bunlar sürekli de¤iflime tabi. Bilgi aç›s›ndan en zengin oldu¤u-muz bir dönemde, sürekli ani de¤iflimlere aç›k ve s›n›rlar› olmayan bir dünyadayafl›yoruz.

Asl›nda salondaki yafl ortalamas›na bak›yorum, burada herkes en az›ndan 10 se-neden fazla ifl hayat›nda. Son senelerde hepimizin yaflad›¤› de¤iflimleri düflününve bu de¤iflimlere ayak uydurmaya çal›flan bir finansal raporlama; bence onuniçin sadece bugünü de¤il, ifl hayat›ndaki gelece¤i düflünmek durumunday›z.

Biliyorsunuz son 10 y›ld›r dünya diyor ki inan›lmaz derecede de¤ifliyoruz. Amayap›lan araflt›rmalar, asl›nda de¤iflim h›z›n›n önümüzdeki 25 y›l içinde bugünün4 kat› daha olaca¤›n› düflünüyor. Dolay›s›yla, biz çok daha h›zl› bir flekilde prob-lemlerimizi sabitleyip, ilerideki daha da h›zl› de¤iflecek olan dünyaya ayak uy-durmak zorunday›z. Ben buna son derece önem veriyorum arkadafllar. Çünkü bi-zim son derece temel problemlerimiz var, ama biz o temel problemlerin yan›n-da da tabii ki dünyadaki ajanday› takip etmeye çal›fl›yoruz. Ama lütfen o temel-leri bir an önce çözelim, çünkü önümüzdeki 25 y›l bizi daha da zorlayacak.

Burada sizinle geçen y›l asl›nda Davos’ta Dünya Ekonomi Forumu’nda kat›ld›-¤›m bir çal›flmadan ç›kan sonuç bildirgesini bafllaflmak istiyorum.

2004 y›l›ndayd›, “kurumlar› yeni bafltan düflünelim.” Bu çok önemli. Çünkü bi-zim mesle¤imizin direkt ilgiledi¤i k›s›m kurumlar. Önümüzdeki 10 y›l içindeflirketler yeniden yap›lanacaklar, ki bu müthifl bir süreçle devam ediyor, bunuhepimiz görüyoruz. Rekabet ortam›nda kal›c› olabilmek için yetenekli elemanaray›fl›na girecekler. Bak›n bu bizim meslek için son derece önemli. Dünyada


187

çok iflsiz var diyoruz, ama dünyada ifl hayat› flu anda yetenekli eleman› bulmak-ta müthifl güçlük çekiyor. Bu, Türkiye’nin çok ciddi bir s›k›nt›s›d›r. Dolay›s›y-la, yetenekli elemanlar› bu mesle¤e çekmek bizim için önümüzdeki dönemler-de, e¤er bu mesle¤in kalitesini art›r›p do¤ru finansal raporlama yapacaksak, sonderece önemli bir güçlük.

Ayn› zamanda flirketlerin yeni davran›fl standartlar› olacak ki, bunlardan bahse-diyoruz, daha aç›k fleffafl›k; bunlar son derece önemli, mesle¤i ve raporlamay›ciddi etkileyecek. Ayr›ca teknolojinin geliflmesiyle flirketlerin sosyal sorumlu-luklar› çok daha artacak, bunu hepimiz biliyoruz.

Burada çok k›sa bir flekilde, bunlar hepsi bildi¤iniz fleyler, ama ben finansal ra-porlamay› bir kademe daha ileri götürüp kurumsal raporlama tedarik zinciri di-ye bunu konumland›raca¤›m. Çünkü finansal raporlama, finansal bilgiler... Biztabii ki bugün onu tart›flal›m, çünkü as›l konumuz o; ama dünya finansal rapor-lamay› aflt›, flu anda kurumsal raporlamay› tart›fl›yor, yani finansal olmayan bil-gilerin de kamuyla paylafl›lmas›. Dolay›s›yla, bizim orada çok da zaman›m›zyok, o da yak›nda bizim ajandam›za daha fliddetli bir flekilde gelecek.

Ben bu çok baz olan fleyleri izninizle h›zl›ca geçece¤im. Çünkü buralarda biz za-man zaman çok ciddi kavram kargaflas›na düflünüyoruz.

Yönetim nedir? Yönetim, hissedarlar lehine de¤er yaratacak kararlar›n al›nmas›için hissedarlar›n paras›n› kullanmaktan kendisini sorumlu tutmal›d›r. Son dere-ce önemli, yönetimin ara rolü bu. Yönetim kurulu ve özellikle ba¤›ms›z üyeler,mali sorumlulu¤un hem yönetim, hem de yönetim kurulunun kendisi taraf›ndanfark edildi¤ini ve sürdürüldü¤ünü sa¤lamak için vard›r. Son derece önemli. Ba-¤›ms›z denetim firmalar›, yönetimin üretti¤i ve raporlad›¤› -Türkiye'de maalesefo aflamaya gelemedik, çünkü ba¤›ms›z denetçiler raporlar› haz›rl›yor- bilgilerüzerinde görüfl beyan etmek zorundad›rlar. Ve burada sorumluluklar›n›n da sa-dece çal›flt›klar› firmalar de¤il, tüm kamuyla oldu¤unu, kamu güvenini olufltur-mak oldu¤unu asla ve asla unutmamal›d›rlar.

Analistler yat›r›mc›lara karar vermek için kullanabilecekleri yüksek kalitedearaflt›rmalar yapmak amac›yla, raporlanan bilgilerin kullan›lmas›ndan sorumlu-lar; ama, ekonomik kâr ihtilaf›, birtak›m ç›karlar için bu bilgileri sapt›ramazlar.Bunlar çok önemli. Çünkü bir finansal raporlama dedi¤iniz zaman flirketin, yö-netimin imzalad›¤› ve ba¤›ms›z denetimin de¤il, ondan sonra kamuyla paylafl›-lan bir tedarik zincirinden bahsediyoruz. Burada herkese rol düflüyor. Dolay›s›y-la bir grubun bu ifli iyi yapmas›yla bu s›k›nt›lar›n üzerinden gelmemiz imkans›z.

Düzenleyici kurumlar son derece önemli. Bu bilgilerin kullan›labilir ve güveni-lir hale getirilmesi için ilkeleri ve kurallar› ortaya koymaktan sorumlular, amabu da yeterli de¤il. Düzenleyiciler ayn› zamanda bütün bu gruplar›n görevlerinido¤ru olarak yapt›klar›ndan emin olmakla sorumlu olup, dikkatli bir yönetim


188

tarz› ve bilgi donat›m›yla, bunun alt›n› önemle çiziyorum; problemleri aktif birflekilde ortaya ç›kar›p önlem almakla sorumlular. Dolay›s›yla, problem ortayaç›kt›ktan sonra “o hata yapt›, o görevini yapmad›” de¤il, önceden bilgi donan›-m› ve aktif olarak bu problemleri -ifl hayat›n›n önüne gelen- bulmak zorundad›r-lar. Son derece önemli, alt›n› çiziyorum.

Bilgi sa¤lay›c›lar bu bilgileri do¤ru paylaflmak, Türkiye’de son derece raporlar-dan al›nm›fl, medyada, internette parça bilgilerle kamuyu yan›ltan çok fazla bil-gi. Dolay›s›yla buras› da çok önemli, bilgi sa¤lay›c›lar; medya, internet, kim der-seniz deyin o bilgiyi tam ve eksiksiz kullanmak zorundad›rlar. Yat›r›mc›lar risk,geri dönüfl, yat›r›m hakk›nda kiflisel kararlar›n› vermek için kulland›klar› bilgiyielde etme, anlama ve analiz etmekten sorumludurlar. Dolay›s›yla bu tamam›ylayat›r›mc›lar›n sorumlulu¤u. Di¤er hissedarlara bilgi için bilgiyi sa¤layan kifliler-den daha büyük sorumluluk talip etmek durumundalar. Sa¤lam bilgileri kullana-rak ald›klar› kararlardan eninde sonunda kendileri sorumlu olacaklard›r; ne dü-zenleyici kurumu, ne denetçi, ne yönetici. Bu yüzden bilginin bütününün mev-cut olmad›¤› veya mevcut bilgiyi anlamada eksiklik yaflad›klar› durumlarda ya-t›r›m yapmayacaklar. Türkiye’de batan bankalara mevduat yat›ran hiçbir yat›-r›mc›ya ben ac›mad›m, kusura bakmay›n. Çünkü birçok fley bilinendi. Dolay›-s›yla, burada yat›r›mc›n›n kendi sorumlulu¤u var, yat›r›mc› kendi sorumlulu-¤unda, bilincinde olacak ve burada kimi nerede ve kendini nerede suçlayaca¤›-n› kesinlikle bilecek.

Bütün bunlardan sonra, tabii ki fleffafl›k, hesap verebilirlik toplum güveni inflaetmek için son derece önemli; ama maalesef yeterli de¤il. Her ikisi de dürüst in-sanlar›n varl›¤›na ba¤l›. Ben Türkiye’deki en temel problemimizin bu oldu¤unudüflünüyorum aç›kças›. Kurallar, düzenlemeler, kanunlar, fikirler, yap›lar, yön-temler, en iyi uygulamalar, teknolojinin en iyi flekilde kullan›lmas› dahi; fleffaf-l›k ve hesap verebilirli¤i garanti alt›na alamaz. Bunu mutlaka ve mutlaka bilmekdurumunday›z.

Dürüst insanlar›n elveriflli olan veya hatta gerekli bir biçimde hofl görülebilirolan› de¤il, do¤ru fleyi yapmas›yla ancak piyasalardaki güveni sa¤layabiliriz. El-veriflli olan çok kolay ve çok ticari, ama do¤ru olan› yapmak çok daha uzun va-deli bir duruflu gerektiriyor. Bu çok önemli.

Sonuçta önemli olan, insanlar›n sadece sözleri de¤il, asl›nda eylemleridir. Benflunu söyleyece¤im: Senelerdir bu sempozyumlara kat›l›yorum, senelerdir biz busöylemleri söylüyoruz; ama ben asl›nda eylemde çok iyi bir noktada oldu¤umu-zu flahsen düflünmüyorum.

Dolay›s›yla, hep toplumsal güven diyoruz, raporlanan bilgi için temel olarak ki-flisel dürüstlük olmadan toplumsal güven de var olamaz. Asl›nda olay›n özü bukadar basit arkadafllar.


189

Burada Nasdaq Stok Market’in eski çevirmeninin bir sözünden al›nt› var, benceson derece günün de gerçe¤ini yans›t›yor, bundan birkaç sene önceki bir sözü ol-makla beraber; günümüz sermaye piyasalar› her ne kadar en geliflmifl bilgi tek-nolojileriyle donanm›fl olsa da, basit gerçeklefl de¤iflmeyecek ve hep basit kala-caklard›r. Sermaye piyasalar›n›n etkinli¤i kamu güvenine, bu güven ise zaman-la sa¤lanan tam, gerçe¤i yans›tan ve güvenilir bilgiye ba¤l›d›r. Bu, tek kelimey-le de fleffafl›k ile sa¤lanabilir.

fiimdi daha fazla fleffafl›k dedi¤iniz zaman, burada hemen bir parantez açaca-¤›m, çünkü Türkiye’nin çok ciddi bir sorunudur bu; fleffafl›k riski beraberindegetirmiyor mu? Getiriyor tabii ki.Ama onun için do¤ru bilgi üreteceksiniz vefleffaf olacaks›n›z, yanl›fl bilgiyle fleffafl›k olmuyor. Evet, rekabette dezavantajolabilir, fleffafl›¤› do¤ru kullanmad›¤›n›z zaman.

Günümüz yöneticilerinin bütün bunlardan sonra iflleri daha m› güçleflti? Kesin-likle, geçmifle göre çok daha zor herkesin ifli. Ben burada bütün yöneticileri, flef-fafl›¤a sahip ç›kmaya davet ediyorum. Bu ister flirketler olsun, ister bizim yönet-ti¤imiz denetim flirketleri, muhasebe bürolar›, vergi bürolar› ne olursa olsun;mutlaka ve mutlaka daha yükse¤i hedefleyin diyorum. Kuruluflunuzun genleri-ne dürüstlük ve fleffafl›k bilincini afl›lay›n diyorum. Bir sonraki güçlü¤ü mutla-ka önceden tahmin edin diyorum ve sadece büyük oyuncularla de¤il, flirketinperformans›na etki eden tüm paydafllarla iletiflim kurun. Kimseyi, o daha küçükortakt›r, o çal›fland›r diye hiç kimseyi lütfen küçümsemeyin.

Ben diyorum ki, bir dahaki sempozyumda niye hayallerimiz gerçek olmas›n; birhaya kural›m, y›l 2007, 8.Sempozyumday›z, art›k biz muhasebe standartlar›n›aflm›fl›z, harmonizasyon diye bir konumuz yok, kurumsal yönetim yerinde;

Biz art›k çok daha sofistike konulara girdik, Türk Ticaret Kanunu delinmedengeçti, biz art›k fleyi tart›fl›yoruz UFRS’nin orta ve küçük ölçekli iflletmelerdekiuygulama sorunlar›n›, Türkiye perspektifinde özel sektörlere göre olan kurum-sal raporlama ilkelerini,

Sivil toplum örgütlerinin finansal raporlama standartlar›n›n örnek bir çal›flmasunuyor, bir tane arkadafl›m›z üniversiteden; SPK’n›n yay›nlad›¤› finansal ra-porlama de¤il kurumsal raporlama ilkeleri, yani finansal olmayan bilgileri deiçeren standartlar› tart›fl›yoruz.

Benim hayalim bu. Çok teflekkür ediyorum.


190

217

‹STANBUL MENKUL KIYMETLER BORSASI fi‹RKETLER‹N‹NfiEFFAFLIK VE KAMUYU B‹LG‹LEND‹RME BAK‹M‹NDAN

DERECELEND‹R‹LMES‹*

Mine AKSUArman KÖSEDA⁄

Yönetim Bilimleri FakültesiSabanc› Üniversitesi

*Araflt›rmada kullan›lan niteliklerin ço¤u ve puanlama metodolojisi için Stan-dard and Poor’s ( S&P) derecelendirme flirketine; asistanlar›n e¤itimi için S&PLondra ofisinden Amra Balic’e ve Sabanc› Üniversitesi Kurumsal Yönetim Fo-rumu Direktörü Melsa Ararat’a; finansal raporlar›n ve web sitelerinin analizin-de dikkatli ve sab›rl› çal›flmalar›ndan dolay› sevgili asistanlar›m›z Aydos Özel,Erkin Solak, Esra Aksu ve Meriç B›çakç›’ya, Türkçe’ye tercümede uzman yar-d›mlar› için de Zeynep Yefliltuna ve Esra Aksu’ya çok teflekkür ederiz..

ÖzetAtlantik’in her iki yakas›nda yaflanan finansal raporlama ve denetim skandalla-r›, bircok ülkede kanun ve standartlar›n en iyi kurumsal yonetim (KY) uygula-malar›n› kapsayacak flekilde de¤iflmesine sebep olmufltur. Geliflmifl ülkelerdebirçok firma da, akademik çal›flmalarda yüksek KY standartlar› ›le yüksek firmaperformans›n›n ba¤lant›l› oldu¤unun bulunmas› nedeniyle, hem yat›r›mc›larakalitelerini göstermek hem de KY uygulamalar›n› gelifltirmek için gönüllü ola-rak KY uygulamalar›n› derecelendiren kurumlar›n hizmetlerinden yararlanmayabafllam›fllard›r. Literatürde KY kalitesinin önde gelen göstergelerinden biri firmalar›n fleffafl›kve kamuyu bilgilendirme (fi&B) uygulamalar› olmufltur. fi&B, finansal tablola-r›n, mülkiyet yap›s›n›n ve genel kurul&yönetim yap› ve iflleyiflinin kamuya aç›k-lanmas›nda ‘eksiksiz ifflaat’ ve ‘fleffafl›k’ ve ‘ayd›nlat›c›l›k’ prensiplerine uyumolarak tarif edilebilir. Biz de bu çal›flmada Standard & Poor’s (S&P) ile iflbirli-¤i yaparak, ‹stanbul Menkul K›ymetler Borsas›nda (‹MKB) ifllem gören en bü-yük ve en likit 52 firmay›, y›ll›k finansal raporlar›nda ve web sitelerinde kamu-ya aç›klanan b›lgilere bakarak de¤erlendirdik. Bu kaynaklarda, üç ana kategori-den oluflan (mülkiyet yap›s› ve yat›r›mc› iliflkileri, finansal fleffafl›k ve bilgi if-flas›, genel kurul/yönetim yap›s› ve iflleyifli) ve en iyi fi&B ilkelerine uygun 106niteli¤in bulunup bulunmad¤›n› ölçtük. Bu 106 nitelik, S&P’nin baz› baflka ül-kelerdeki fi&B çal›flmalar›nda kullandu¤› 98 soruya Türkiye’nin düzenleyici or-tam›na ve Türk Sermaye Piyasas› Kurumu’nun yeni KY önerilerine göre uyar-lanm›fl baz› sorular›n eklenmesi ile gelifltirilmifltir. Çal›flmam›z ayr›ca bu 52 fir-


218

man›n fi&B notlar› ile finansal performanslar› aras›ndaki iliflkiyi de de¤erlendi-rerek di¤er baz› ülkelerde görülen bu iliflkinin ‹MKB flirketleri için de geçerliolup olmad›¤›n› test ederek, firmalara KY/ fi&B prensiplerine uyum için moti-vasyon sa¤lamay› da amaçlamaktad›r.Bu çal›flma ‹MKB firmalar›n›n kamuyu bilgilendirme ve fleffafl›k uygulamala-

r›n›n ilk objektif derecelendirilmesidir. Ayr›ca, kullan›lan metodoloji ve sorula-r›n Standard & Poor’s (S&P) taraf›ndan baflka ülkelerde kullan›lanlarla uyum-lu olmas›, bu önceki çal›flmalar›n sonuçlar› ile karfl›laflt›rmay› mümkün k›lmak-tad›r. Bu evrensel derecelendirmelerin bir amac› da, tüm firma paydafllar›n›n fir-malar ve piyasalar aras›ndaki raporlama kalitesi ve dolay›s›yla yat›r›m risklerifarkl›l›klar›n› tespit etmelerine yard›mc› olmakt›r. Son olarak, fi&B derecelen-dirmeleri yerel ve uluslararas› düzenleyici kurumlar için önemli bir kontrol (mo-nitoring) arac› teflkil etmektedir.

I. Girifl Atlantik’in her iki yakas›nda yak›n geçmiflte yaflanan kurumsal yönetim (KY) vefinansal raporlama skandallar›, flirketlerin uluslararas› piyasalarda uzun vadedevarl›klar›n› sürdürebilmeleri ve sermayenin etkin ve adil da¤›l›m›nda sa¤lamKY ve fleffafl›k ve kamuyu bilgilendirme (fi&B)uygulamalar›n›n önemini göz-ler önüne sermifltir. Bunun sonucunda Birleflik Devletler’deki Sarbanes-OxleyKanunu ile bafllayarak, önceden benzeri görülmemifl s›kl›kta ve sertlikte hukukihükümet müdahaleleri gerçekleflmifltir. fiu anda pek çok ülke mevcut kanunlar›-n›, düzenlemelerini ve yürütme kapasitelerini, en iyi KY uygulamalar› çerçeve-sinde, yeniden yap›land›rma süreci içindedirler. Geliflmifl ülkelerdeki firmalar,durmadan artan raporlama standartlar› ve yükümlülüklerine ek olarak, BirleflikDevletler’deki hisse opsiyonlar›na ait maliyetlerin gider olarak gösterilmesi gi-bi ek bilgileri gönüllü olarak zaman›nda, eksiksiz ve aç›k bir flekilde iffla etme-ye bafllam›fllard›r. Ayr›ca, projelerini finanse etmek için d›fl sermaye piyasalar›-na ihtiyac› olan baz› firmalar, kalitelerini tarafs›z olarak belirletmek ve rekabet-çi sermaye piyasalar›nda sermaye çekebilmek için gönüllü olarak ve büyük üc-retler karfl›l›¤›nda KY uygulamalar›n› ba¤›m›s›z derecelendirme kurumlar›nade¤erlendirtmektedirler. Bu geliflmelere paralel olarak, bir çok ülkede artan say›larda yap›lan teorik veampirik çal›flmalar, bir ülkedeki hukuki kurallar›n menfleinin (örf ve adet huku-kuna karfl› medeni hukukun farkl› gelenekleri) ve bunlar›n uygulanma dercesi-nin, yat›r›mc›n›n ne kadar korundu¤unun iyi bir göstergesi oldu¤unu ortaya koy-mufltur. Yat›r›mc›n›n korunmas› da mali piyasalar›n etkinli¤ini ve yabanc› ser-mayeye eriflimi pozitif yönde etkilemektedir (örne¤in, bak›n›z La Porta ve çal›fl-ma arkadafllar›, 1997; Schleifer ve Wolfenzon, 2002). 40 Firma baz›ndaki ampi-


40 Sadka (2004) finansal tablolar›n ve finansal analist raporlar›n›n kamu ile paylafl›lmas›n›n (piyasa fleffafl›¤›) 30 ülkede verimlilik ve ekonomik büyüme için güçlendirici bir faktör oldu¤una dair hem teorikhem de pratik delil sunmaktad›r.

219

rik çal›flmalarda da daha iyi KY uygulamalar›na sahip firmalar›n sermaye mali-yetlerinin (Sengupta, 1998 ve Mazumdar ve çal›flma arkadafllar›, 2002), kredioranlar› aras›ndaki vade fark›n›n (Yu, 2005) ve risklerin daha düflük oldu¤u; de-¤erlerin ve karl›l›klar›n›nsa daha yüksek (Brown ve Caylor, 2004) oldu¤u; do-lay›s›yla da sermayeye daha kolay eriflebildikleri ve ekonomik krizlerde dahakolay ayakta kalabildikleri tespit edilmifltir.

Bu iliflkiler, ekonomileri geliflmifl ülkelerinkinden daha h›zl› büyümekte oldu-¤undan ve d›fl finansmana duyduklar› fliddetli gereksinim nedeniyle Türkiye gi-bi geliflmekte olan piyasalar için özellikle önemlidir. Bu çal›flma, Türkiye’dekien büyük ve en likit firmalar›n fi&B kalitelerini derecelendirmek ve firma ba-z›nda elde edilen bu ölçümlerle muhasebe karl›l›¤› ve finansal performans ara-s›ndaki iliflkiyi aç›¤a ç›kartmak üzere yap›lan ilk giriflimdir. Farkl› hukuki esas-lar›, farkl› politik, düzenleyici ve kültürel gelenekleri ve çeflitli türlerde temsilmaliyeti problemleri olan yükselen piyasalarda yap›lan bu gibi çal›flmalar, ülke-mizde büyük bir h›zla hayata geçirilmekte olan düzenleyici reformlar için de birkatk› sa¤layacakt›r. Ayr›ca, bu çal›flmalar flimdiye kadar geliflmifl ekonomiler-den oluflan örneklemlerden elde edilen yukar›da bahsetti¤imiz sonuçlar içinfarkl› bir örneklem kullanan bir robustness testi teflkil etmektedir.

Biz bu çal›flmada KY’i, anonim flirketlerde s›k s›k karfl›lafl›lan temsil maliyetiproblemleri ve de bunun sonucunda paydafllar aras›nda ortaya ç›kan bilgi asi-metrisi ve ç›kar çat›flmalar›n› azaltmak için hem düzenleyici kurumlar hem deflirketlerin gönüllü olarak gelifltirdikleri paydafllar›n haklar›n›n birbirine karfl›korunmas›n› sa¤layan bir dizi prensip, ilke ve kurallar mekanizmas› olarak ta-n›ml›yoruz. fiirketler, KY mekanizmalar›n› etkili bir biçimde yerine oturttukla-r›nda, bu gibi temsil maliyeti sorunlar›n›n azalmas›n› bekliyoruz. Bu flekilde iyiyönetilen firmalar›n, ço¤unluk hissedarlar›n›n flahsi menfaatler peflinde koflma-lar›, artan nakit ak›m›n›n yönetim taraf›ndan tüketilmesi, fazla düflük veya afl›r›yat›r›m problemleri gibi temsiliyet maliyetleri daha az olaca¤› için pay sahiple-rinin getirilerinin ve flirketin finansal performans›n›n daha yüksek olmas›n› bek-liyoruz.

fieffafl›k ve kamuyu bilgilendirme (fi&B), KY çerçevesinde yer alan içerikler-den sadece biri olmas›na ra¤men, flirket hakk›ndaki finansal bilgilerin ve di¤erKY uygulamalar›n›n nas›l ve ne aç›kl›kta kamuya sunuldu¤unun ölçüsü oldu¤uiçin iyi KY uygulamalar›n›n en önde gelen göstergelerinden biri olarak kabuledilmektedir. Firman›n ekonomik faaliyetlerinin sonuçlar›n›n ve organizasyonbirimlerinde kullan›lan KY mekanizmalar›n›n yap› ve iflleyifli hakk›ndaki bilgi-lerin, anlafl›labilir, karar vermeye yönelik, fleffaf, güvenilir, zaman›nda ve ek-siksiz olarak iffla edilmesi, paydafllara firman›n mali durumu, karl›l›¤› ve takipetti¤i KY standartlar›n›n kalitesi hakk›nda do¤ru bir bak›fl aç›s› sa¤lar. Bu ba¤-lamda, iyi bir fi&B mekanizmas›, flirkette hem nakit ak›m› hem de oy hakk›n›fazlas› ile elinde bulundurabilen ço¤unluk hakk› olan hissedarlar ve yöneticile-


220

rin (içerden ö¤renenler) s›rf kendi ç›karlar›n› gözeterek özel menfaatler elde et-melerini önlemeyerek az›nl›k hissedarlar›n ve alacakl›lar›n haklar›n› korumakiçin uygulan›r. Böylece firmadaki temsiliyet çat›flmalar›n›n azalmas› ve dolay›-s›yla daha düflük bir sermaye maliyeti ve firma de¤erinin yükselmesi beklen-mektedir. Ayr›ca, iyi fi&B uygulamalar›n›n flirket hakk›ndaki bilgileri artt›rarakyat›r›mc› fark›ndal›¤›n› ve firmaya olan güveni artt›racakt›r. Bu sayede firmayave dolay›s› ile sermayedarlara geri dönen getirinin belirsizli¤i de azalacak ve buda yine sermaye maliyetini azaltarak firman›n de¤erini yükseltecektir (bak›n›z,Berglof ve Pajuste, 2005). ‹yi fi&B uygulamalar›n›n bir baflka avantaj› da KYuygulamalar›na uymaman›n sebep olaca¤› politik maliyetleri azaltmas› ve dola-y›s›yla kanuni davalara maruz kalma riskini azaltmas›d›r 41. Her gülün bir dike-ni oldu¤u gibi, iyi fi&B uygulamalar›n› takip etmenin de olumsuz yönleri var-d›r. Ek bilgilerin üretilmesi, kaydedilmesii, muhafazas›, özetlenmesi ve kamuyailetilmesi için harcanan çaba, zaman ve para flirketler için ciddi bir maliyet olufl-turabilir. Buna ek olarak, afl›r› fleffafl›k firman›n rekabetçi avantaj›n› s›n›rland›-rabilir ve içerden ö¤renenlerinin özel menfaatler elde etmesine karfl› konan s›-n›rlamalar, ço¤unluk hissedarlar›n net bugünkü de¤eri (NPV) pozitif olan proje-leri üstlenmeleri ve yöneticileri gözlemlemeleri için mevcut teflvikleri azaltabi-lir (bak›n›z, Sadka, 2004). Bu yüzden, firman›n ancak bilgilendirmenin avantaj-lar›n›n maliyetinden daha fazla oldu¤u durumlarda ihtiyari bilgilendirme ve flef-fafl›¤› artt›rmas›n› bekleriz.

Tan›nm›fl ve global bir derecelendirme ve finansal hizmetler flirketi olan Stan-dard & Poor’s (S&P), di¤er kredi ve KY derecelendirme hizmetlerinin yan›nda,2001 y›l›ndan bu yana ABD, Latin Amerika, Avrupa, Japonya, Rusya ve gelifl-mekte olan baz› Asya piyasalar›ndaki bir dizi büyük ve likit firman›n fi&B uy-gulamalar›n› derecelendirmek için büyük ölçekli bir araflt›rma yürütmektedir.Biz de Sabanc› Üniversitesi Kurumsal Yöetim Forumu olarak, S&P ile iflbirli¤iyaptarak hem onlar›n araflt›rma metodolojisini kulland›k hem de, önceki araflt›r-malarda kulland›klar› 98 niteli¤i, Türkiye’deki hukuki, kurumsal, kültürel veekonomik ortama ve Türk Sermaye Piyasas› Kurumunun (SPK) ilan etti¤i KYprensiplerinde yer alan fi&B tavsiyelerine uyacak flekilde de¤ifltirdik. Daha son-ra (i) Mülkiyet yap›s› ve yat›r›mc› iliflkilerinin ifflas› (Mülkap), (ii) Finansal tab-lolarda mali fleffafl›k ve bilgilendirme (FinBilg) ve (iii) Genel kurul/yönetim ya-p›s› ve iflleyiflinin ifflas›ndan (GenKur&Yön) oluflan 3 alt kategoride gruplanm›flolan 106 vas›fl›k nihai bir set elde ettik. Sonra ‹stanbul Menkul K›ymetler Bor-sas›nda (‹MKB) yer alan en büyük ve likit 52 firman›n y›ll›k raporlar› (hem ‹n-


41 Field ve çal›flma arkadafllar› (2004) iffla ve dava riski aras›ndaki iliflkiyi analiz birden fazla denklemleri çözerek kamuyu bilgilendirmenin belli baz› davalar› önledi¤ini tespit etmifllerdir.

221

gilizce hem hem Türkçe) ile ‹ngilizce ve Türkçe web siteleri incelenerek bu 106vasf›n araflt›r›lan bilgi kaynaklar›nda bulunup bulunmad›¤› ‘evet’, ‘hay›r’ yada‘N/A – dahil edilemez’ olas› cevaplar› ile s›nand› Ard›ndan da örneklemimizde-ki bütün firmalar yukar›da belirtilen üç kategori içerisinde ve de toplam fi&Bkalitesi aç›s›ndan derecelendirilip s›raland›. Buna göre, flirketlere verdi¤imizfi&B notlar›, mevcut KY uygulamalar›n›n flirket y›ll›k faaliyet rapor ve web si-telerinde yans›t›lan görüntüsünün objektif bir de¤erlendirmesini sunmaktad›r.‹kinci amac›m›z ise IMKB flirketlerinin fi&B puanlar› ile muhasebe ve borsaperformanslar› -- karl›l›k oran› ölçümleri olan aktif karl›l›¤› (ROA) ve öz serma-ye karl›l›¤›n› (ROE) ve de ISE-100 endeks getirisinden ar›nd›r›lm›fl ekstra geti-riyi -- aras›ndaki iliflkiyi incelemektir.

‹MKB firmalar›n›n fi&B puanlar›n›n asl›nda oldukça düflük oldu¤unu tespit et-tik. En düflük puanlar genel kurul/yönetim yap›s› ve iflleyifli kategorisinde al›n-m›flt›r. En yüksek puanlar›n ise finansal fleffafl›k ve bilgilendirme kategorisindeelde edilmesi, bu kategoride yer alan bilgilerin a¤›rl›kl› olarak Uluslararas› Fi-nansal Raporlama Standartlar› ve Genel Kabul Görmüfl Türk Muhasebe ‹lkeleri(GAAP)nin iffla edilmesi zorunlu bilgiler oldu¤u için, pek flafl›rt›c› de¤ildir. Bek-lendi¤i gibi, en yüksek toplam fi&B puanlar›na sahip ve en yüksek FinBilg pu-anlar›na sahip %25lik gurup, en düflük puanl› %25’lik gurupla mukayese edildi-¤inde, sermaye yap›s›nda borç oran› ve muhasebe karl›l›¤› ölçümleri belirgin de-recede farkl› ç›km›flt›r. 2002’de herhangi bir fi&B puan kategorisinde iki uççeyrekte yer alan firmalar›n ekstra getirileri aras›nda istatiksel olarak anlaml› birfark olmamas›na ra¤men, 2003’te toplam fi&B ile GenKur&Yön puanlar› bak›-m›ndan iki uç çeyre¤in ekstra getirileri aras›nda anlaml› bir fark tespit etmekte-yiz. Yani bu senenin fi&B notlar›n›n yine bu senenin yahut gelecek senenin fi-nansal performans›n› etkilemesi beklenmektedir.

Bu çal›flman›n KY konular›nda araflt›rma yapan akademisyenler, finans ve mu-hasebe profesyonelleri ve di¤er piyasa kat›l›m›clar›na katk›lar› olaca¤›n› düflün-mekteyiz. Derecelendirmeler, ‹MKB’de yer alan firmalar›n›n kurumsal bilgilen-dirme uygulamalar›n›n ilk defa objektif bir de¤erlendirmesini sunmaktad›r. Do-lay›s›yla, bu çal›flma ayn› zamanda ‹MKB’de fi&B ile finansal performans ara-s›daki iliflkiyi inceleyen ilk çal›flmad›r. Ayr›ca, daha önceki fi&B çal›flmalar›n-da kullan›lan ayn› niteliklerin ve S&P metodolojisinin kullan›lmas›, IMKB fi&Bpuanlar›n›n di¤er ülkelerde daha önceden elde edilen puanlarla karfl›laflt›r›lma-s›n› mümkün k›lmaktad›r. Dolay›s›yla, böyle evrensel bir derecelendirmenin,firmalar, piyasalar ve sektörler aras› raporlama kalitesinde ve dolay›s›yla yat›-r›m risklerindeki farkl›l›klar› daha iyi de¤erlendirmede ve buna istinaden dahaiyi karar vermede yat›r›mc›lara ve di¤er paydafllara yard›mc› olmalar› beklen-mektedir. Son olarak, fi&B derecelendirmeleri yerel ve uluslararas› düzenleyicikurumlar için anlaml› ve objektif bir gözetim ve düzenleme arac›d›r. fiüphesiz


222

ki, sonuçlar hem firma baz›nda hem de ülke seviyesinde ilginç neticeler sa¤la-yacakt›r.

II. Önceki Araflt›rmalar ve Motivasyon

Bu bölümde, KY’yi ve daha belirgin olarak fi&B’yi firma performans›na ba¤la-yan flirket baz›ndak› araflt›rmalar gözden geçirip, Türkiye’deki fi&B kalitesiniolumsuz yönde etkileyen ve bu çal›flmay› motive eden baz› hukuki, politik, kül-türel ve ekonomik sorunlar› inceleyece¤iz.

II. 1. Önceki Araflt›rmalar

Bu çal›flma finansal raporlamada kamuyu gönüllü olarak fleffaf ve eksiksiz bil-gilendirme prensibinin nedenleri ve sonuçlar› ve KY kalitesi ile firma perfor-mans› aras›ndaki iliflkiyi ele alan çok genifl bir muhasebe ve finans literatürü ileyak›ndan ilgilidir. Brown ve Caylor (2004) Compustat ve Crisp verilerini kulla-narak sekiz yönetim kategorisini içine alan 52 faktörlük bir karma ölçüm olanYönetim Puan›n› (CG Score) performans›n befl göstergesi ile iliflkilendirmifl vedaha iyi yönetilen firmalar›n daha karl›, daha de¤erli, daha sabit, daha az riskliolduklar› ve hissedarlar›na daha çok getiri sa¤lad›klar› tespit edmifltir. Di¤er ba-z› araflt›rmalar da, bu bulgular›n geliflmifl ülkeler ile s›n›rl› olmad›klar›n› göster-mifltir. Örne¤in Bai ve çal›flma arkadafllar› (2004) Çin’de iyi KY göstergeleri ileflirketlerin piyasa de¤erleri aras›nda pozitif bir iliflki gözlemlemifllerdir. Pek çokbak›mdan çal›flmam›za benzer olmalar›na ra¤men, bu çal›flmalar, KY uygulama-lar›n›n ve finansal bilgilerin kamuya ne kadar do¤ru, zaman›nda ve fleffaf olarakaç›kland›¤›ndan ziyade, KY uygulamalar›n›n kalitesi ile ilgilidirler. Kamuyubilgilendirme konusunu irdeleyen Ashbaugh ve çal›flma arkadafllar› (2004) daaç›klanan finansal bilgilelerin kalitesinin ve yönetim kuulu ba¤›ms›zl›¤›n›n özsermaye maliyetini düflürdü¤ünü tespit etmifllerdir.

Ampirik bulgular hem ihtiyari bilgilendirme teorisi, hem de Duffie ve Lando(2001)’nun tamamlanmam›fl (incomplete) muhasebe bilgileri modeli ile tutarl›-d›r. Muhasebe araflt›rmac›lar›, ihtiyari bilgilendirme konusundaki teorik çal›fl-malardan esinlenerek (Verrecchia, 1983; Darrough ve Stoughton, 1990; Felthamve Xie, 1994) kurumsal bilgilendirme kalitesinin sermaye maliyeti ve di¤er flir-kete özel de¤iflkenler üzerindeki pozitif etkisine odaklanm›flt›r. ‹htiyari bilgilen-dirme teorisi, kamuyu bilgilendirmenin maliyetli olmas› dolay›s› ile firmalar›nbaz› özel bilgileri gizli tutacaklar›n› ön görmektedir. Yak›n geçmiflte Shin(2003) sadece iyi haberlerin aç›kland›¤› bir ekonomik denge tutumunun bile mü-kün oldu¤unu göstermifltir. Buna göre, aç›klanan firma de¤eri suni olarak yük-seltilmifl olacakt›r fakat bu sistematik hata iffla kalitesi ile ters orant›l› olacakt›r.Böylece yat›r›mc›lar iffla kalitesi düflük olan flirketleri nakit ak›mlar›na dahayüksek bir iskonto oran› talep ederek bu flirketleri cezaland›racaklard›r.


223

Özet olarak, herhangi bir fleffafl›k eksikli¤i oldu¤u takdirde, bu ayn› zamandaflirket hakk›nda gizlenen kötü haberler oldu¤unun bir göstergesi olacakt›r ve ya-t›r›mc›lar›n akl›nda soru iflaretlerine sebep olacakt›r. Bu nedenle de, bilgilendir-me kalitesinin sermaye maliyeti ve dolay›s›yla firma de¤eri üzerinde olumlu biretkiye sahip olmas› beklenmektedir.

II.2. Türkiye’nin Zay›f KY ve fi&B Düzenlemeleri ve Kültürü

Türkiye’de Ticari Hukuk ile ilgili ilk yasama Osmanl› ‹mparatorlu¤u’nda 1850y›l›nda yap›lm›flt›r ve temeli 1807 tarihli Frans›z Ticaret Kanununa dayal›d›r.1926 y›l›nda yap›lan hukuki reformlar alt›nda bu yasama, ‹sviçre Medeni Kanu-nu ve Yükümlülükler Kanunu, ‹talyan Ceza Kanunu ve Alman Ceza Usul Ka-nununa dayal› bir sistem ile de¤ifltirilmifltir. Ne bunlar, ne de 1957 y›l›ndan be-r› yürürlükte olan mevcut Türk Ticaret Kanunu, muhasebe ve denetleme pren-siplerine dayal› de¤ildir ve dolay›s›yla, mali raporlama konusunu düzenlemez-ler. Bunlar, Türk ifl kültüründeki zay›f kurumsal yönetim ve fi&B uygulamala-r›na yol açmas› beklenen medeni hukuk gelene¤inin gücünün, kurallar›n yeter-siz uygulanmas›n›n ve bir bilgilendirme felsefesi eksikli¤inin alt›n› çizerler. Gö-rünen o ki, Türk firmalar›n d›fl finansman bulmakta yaflad›klar› tarihsel zorluk-taki önemli bir faktör de budur. La Porta ve çal›flma arkadafllar› (1997) haz›rla-m›fl olduklar› Tablo 2 ve 8’de, Türkiye’yi, d›fl sermaye veya borç piyasalar›naen düflük eriflimi olan ve en zay›f kanun uygulama düzeniyle, yat›r›mc› haklar›-n› en az derecede gözeten Frans›z menfleli sivil hukuk sistemi içine koymakta-d›r. Bu tablolar ayn› zamanda Türkiye’de Gayri Safi Yurtiçi Has›la büyümesi-nin tüm hukuki gelenekler›n kullan›ld›¤› ülkelerden daha güçlü olmas›na ra¤-men, d›fl finansmana eriflimin ve yat›r›mc› haklar›n›n, Frans›z menfleli ülkelerinortalamas›ndan bile düflük oldu¤unu göstermektedir. Dolay›s›yla, bu tablolarTürk ekonomisindeki h›zl› büyüme oran› ve d›fl sermaye ihtiyac›n›n alt›n› çizer-ken, yine ayn› tablolar yasalar›n uygulanmas› ve yat›r›mc› haklar›n›n korunma-s› zay›f oldu¤unda, d›fl finansman bulman›n zorlu¤una iflaret etmektedir. Bu iki-lemin ancak iyi KY ve fi&B uygulamalar›na uyarak çözülebilece¤i, bu çal›flma-y› motive eden önemli faktörlerden biridir. Yak›n geçmiflte yap›lan çal›flmalar göstermifltir ki, Türkiye’deki zay›f KY vefi&B gelene¤i çok yak›n geçmifle kadar devam etmifltir. Ararat ve U¤ur (2003)Türkiye’nin sivil hukuk gelene¤i ile bunun etkisiz ve tutars›z düzenleyici çerçe-vesini ve bunu takiben ortaya ç›kan hukuk ve yürütme düzeni yetersizli¤ini; ai-leler taraf›ndan yönetilen konsantre ve piramitsel mülkiyet yap›s›n›; tutars›z vefleffaf olmayan muhasabe ve vergi düzenlemeleri ile enflasyon ve konsolidasyonmuhasebelerinin yoklu¤undan kaynaklanan yanl›fl yat›r›mc› bilgilendirmesinitan›mlamaktad›r. Bu altyap›n›n bir sonucu olarak kurumsal yönetim sorunlar›,zay›f az›nl›k hissedar ve alacakl› haklar›, tutars›z ve fleffaf olmayan bilgilendir-me politikalar›yla ihtiyari kamuya aç›klamalar›n eksikli¤i ve flirket sahipleri ile


224

yönetiminin ayr›lamaz hale gelmeleri çevresinde yo¤unlaflmaktad›r. Bu, rüflve-te, hisse de¤eri kayb›na, varl›klar›n talan ed›lmesine, içerden ö¤renenlerin hisseal›m sat›m›na ve piyasa manipülasyonuna yol açan bir ortam yarat›r. Mc Kinsey, yapt›¤› global bir araflt›rmada kurumsal yat›r›mc›lardan, bir ülkedeyat›r›m yaparken aranan KY önceliklerini tan›mlamalar›n› istemifltir. Araflt›rma31 ülkede faaliyet göstermekte olan kurumsal yat›r›mc›lardan al›nan 201 cevab›kapsamaktad›r. Türkiye’deki yat›r›mlar için yat›r›mc› öncelikleri, incelemeleryap›lan di¤er ülkelerden elde edilen ortalama de¤erlerden oluflan flablonla ben-zerlik göstermektedir: muhasebe bilgilendirmesi, hissedar eflitli¤i ve mülkiyethaklar› tüm ülkelerde geçerli olan en önemli kriterlerdir. Tablo 2, global kurum-sal yat›r›mc›lar›n Türkiye’deki yat›r›m kararlar› için en önemli kabul ett›kleri ilkyedi KY kriterine verdikleri a¤›rl›klar› göstermektedir. Sonuçlar, zaman›nda veanlafl›l›r biçimde muhasebe aç›kl›¤› ve bilgilendirmesinin ve hissedar haklar›n›nkorunmas›n›n yat›r›m karar› verirken kurumsal yat›r›mc›lar›n en önemli KY ön-celikleri oldu¤unu göstermektedir.

Tablo 130 ülkede kurumsal yat›r›mc›lar taraf›ndan seçilen en önemli yedi KY faktörü_____________________________________________________________KY Faktörleri Türkiye Arafltr›lan 30 ülkeMuhasebe bilgilendirme 73% 52%Hissedar eflitli¤i 64% 47% Piyasa denetimi ve iç yap›s› 55% 43% Ele geçirilen piyasalar 45% 23% Mülk haklar› 45% 46%Kredi bilgileri 36% 29% Genel kurul ba¤›ms›zl›¤› 27% 44%_______________________________________________________________Kaynak: Mc Kinsey, Investment Opinion Survey, May/June 2002

Bir yanda flu anda ülkemizde h›zla gelifltirilip uygulamaya geçirilen finansal ra-porlama ve bilgilendirme reformlar›, di¤er yanda ise son zamanlarda Türk po-litikas›nda görünen olumlu geliflmeler, ekonomik reformlar, yeni düzenlemelerve etkin yürütme sonucu olarak yukar›da bahsedilen bu kara tablonun yak›n ge-lecekte de¤iflmesini beklemekteyiz. Bu geliflmelerden baz›lar›: h›zland›r›lm›flözellefltirme, emeklilikle ilgili reformlar›n hayata geçirilmesi ve özel emeklilikfonlar›n›n oluflturulmas›, bankalar›n Bankac›l›k Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kuru-mu taraf›ndan denetlenmesi, SPK’n›n düzenleyici çerçeveyi gelifltirme taahhü-dü, daha iyi yönetilen flirketler için teflvikler sa¤lanmas›, SPK’n›n bilgilendirme,az›nl›k haklar›, yönetim kurulu yap›s› ve yönetimin gözetimi alanlar›nda gelifl-


225


tirdi¤i en son Kurumsal Yönetim Kanunudur. fiüphesiz, Türkiye’nin AB de tamüyeli¤e do¤ru ilerleyifli, bir hukuk devleti olma yolunda ve ifl faaliyetlerindeprofesyonell›k ›le etik davran›fllar›n yerleflmesinde ve daha iyi kurumsal yöne-tim uygulamalar›n›n tesis edilmesinde en etkin faktör olacakt›r.

III. Modelimiz ve HipotezimizFirma baz›nda mevcut bulunan KY ve fi&B mekanizmalar›, paydafllar aras›nda-ki menfaat çat›flmalar›, firma performans› ile yerel ve global ekonomi aras›nda-ki iliflkileri anlatan Jensen and Meckling’in (1976) temsiliyet teorisine dayanantemel modelimiz fiekil 1’de tasvir edilmektedir:

F‹R

MA

Pay

dafll

arA

ras›

nda

Kon

trat

lar›

nO

da¤›

F‹R

MA

Muh

aseb

ePe

rfor

man

s›

Piya

saPe

rfor

man

s›

ÜL

KE

Yer

elE

kono

mi

GL

OB

AL

Eko

nom

i

KY

-fi&

B

Mek

aniz

mal

ar›

fieki

l 1

226


Buna ba¤l› olarak, yönetim ve pay sahipli¤inin ister istemez ayr›ld›¤› anonimflirketlerde görülen temsiliyet çat›flmalar› ile bu flirketlerde uygulanan KY/fi&Bmekanizmalar› aras›nda ve bu mekanizmalarla flirket performans› aras›nda ar-d›fl›k bir iliflki oldu¤unu öne sürüyoruz. Yani bir flirkette ve ekonomideKY/fi&B mekanizmalar› ne kadar kuvvetli ise yahut flirket paydafllar› aras›nda-ki ç›kar çat›flmalar› ne kadar az ise, o flirketin finansal performans›n›n da o ka-dar kuvvetli olmas›n› bekliyoruz. Bu iliflkiler do¤rultusunda da yerel ve globalekonominin iyi yönde etkilenece¤ini tahmin ediyoruz. Bu makalede modelinmerkezini, yani IMKB sirketlerinin fi&B kalitelerini ve bunun flirket perfor-mans› ile iliflkisini inceliyor olaca¤›z.

III. 1. fi&B puanlar›yla performans aras›ndaki ba¤lant:

Albuquerque ve Wang (2005) yat›r›mc› haklar›n›n korunamamas› ile flekillenentemsil›yet çat›flmalar›n›n alt›nda yatan gerçe¤i araflt›ran genel bir dinamik ras-sal denge modeli oluflturarak yat›r›mc› haklar›n›n yeterince korunmad›¤› ülke-lerin daha az veya afl›r› yat›r›m, daha düflük flirket de¤erleri, daha yüksek bekle-nen getiriler ve getiri volatilitesi ve daha yüksek faiz oranlar›na sahip olduklar›-n› görmüfllerdir. Ashbaugh ve çal›flma arkadafllar› (2004) mülkiyet ve kontrolünbirbirinden ayr›lmas›n›n do¤urdu¤u temsil risklerini müzakere etmekte ve dahaiyi yönetilen firmalar›n hissedarlar› için daha düflük temsil riski arz ettikleri vedolay›s›yla bunun daha düflük sermaye maliyeti ile sonuçland›¤›ni neticesinevarmaktad›rlar. Kamuya aç›klamalar›n güvenirlili¤i, zamanl›l›¤›, karar vermedeyard›mc› olmas› ve anlafl›labilirli¤i ne kadar yetersiz olursa, sermaye tedarikçi-lerinin getirileri de o kadar belirsiz olur ve flirket hakk›nda bir tak›m kötü haber-ler oldu¤una dair iflaretler de o kadar güçlenir. Bu da sermaye maliyetini artt›r›r,flirket hisselerine olan ra¤beti azalt›r ve dolay›s›yla afla¤›daki hipotezimizde deoldu¤u gibi firma de¤erlerinde düflüfl beklenir:

H1: Yüksek fi&B puanlar›na sahip olan firmalar›n daha yüksek muhasebe per-formanslar›n›n ve getirilerinin daha yüksek olmas› beklenir.

IV. Örneklem, Veri Gereksinimleri ve Analiz Metotlar›

Bu çal›flma ‹MKB firmalar›n›n fi&B uygulamalar›n› derecelendiren ilk çal›flma-d›r. Bu nedenleö 2003 y›l› faaliyet raporlar› ve web sitelerinde bulunan zorun-lu ve ihtiyari bilgileri objektif olarak de¤erlendirerek hesap edilen fi&B puanla-r› ile firman›n muhasebe ve piyasa performans› aras›ndaki iliflkinin de ›lk kesit-sel analizidir. Örneklem flirketlerimiz aras›nda IMKB’nin en büyük (piyasa de-¤erine göre) ve en likit (al›m-sat›m hacmine göre) 52 firmas› yer almaktad›r. Bufirmalardan 45’i, flu s›rada S&P taraf›ndan takip edilmekte ve IFC/S&P Yükse-len Piyasalar Veritaban›nda yer almaktad›r.

fieffafl›k ve kamuyu bilgilendirme, flirketlerin faaliyet raporlar›nda ve web si-

227


telerinde yer almas› beklenen 106 niteli¤in bulunup bulunmad›¤›n› araflt›rarakde¤erlendirilmektedir. Bu 106 nitelik, S&P’nin dünya çap›nda önde gelen fir-malar›n y›ll›k rapor ve hesaplar›n›n, düzenleyici beyanlar›n›n ve web sitelerininincelenmesinden elde edilen 98 nitelikten yola ç›k›larak gelifltirilmifltir. De¤iflikpiyasa ve bölgelerin özelliklerine hitap etmek için, Rusya ve Türkiye’de kulla-n›lan nitelikler bir miktar de¤ifltirilmifltir. Türkiye çal›flmas›nda, yeni SPK dü-zenlemeleri, aile mülkiyeti, holding kurulufllar› ile bunlara ba¤l› flirketler aras›n-daki iliflkiler, v.s. gibi baz› piyasaya özel hususlar›n dahil edilmesi için Ek 1’deyer alan 106 soruluk nitelikler listesi haz›rlanm›fl ve Ek 1 de sunulmufltur. Bu ni-telikler S&P’nin di¤er çal›flmalar›nda da kulland›¤› üç alt kategori halinde grup-land›r›lmaktad›r:

1. Mülkiyet yap›s› ve yat›r›mc› iliflkileri (MülkYap)

2. Finansal fleffafl›k ve kamuyu bilgilendirme (FinBil)

3. Yönetim kurulu ile yönetimin yap›s› ve iflleyifli (YönKur&Yön)

Objektifli¤in sa¤lanmas› için dahil edilen her nitelik, ‘evet’ (dahil) ya da ‘hay›r’(dahil de¤il) cevaplar›n› temsil eden çift de¤iflkenli bir esasta puanland›r›lmak-tad›r. Her ‘evet’ cevab› bir puana eflittir ve her flirketin toplam puan› afla¤›dakigibi hesaplanm›flt›r:

fi&B = ∑ ∑ Sjk / TOTS (1)

j k

j = nitelik kategorisi alt simgesi,

k = soru maddesi alt simgesi,

TOTS = her kategorideki maksimum ‘evet’ cevaplar›n›n toplam› 42,

Sjk = her bir kategori için, evet cevaplar›n›n toplam›.

fiirketler bizim çal›flmam›zda 100 puan üzerinden notland›r›lmaktad›r ama S&Pdi¤er ülkelerde yapt›¤› çal›flmalarda bir üst say›ya yuvarlayarak 10 puan üzerin-den de fi&B derecelendirmesi yapm›flt›r. fiirketlerin toplam fi&B puan›, 2003 y›-l› için haz›rlanan faaliyet raporlar› ve flirket web sitelerinde bulunan kamuyu ay-d›nlat›c› soru maddelerinin evet cevaplar›n›n her kategorideki maksimum olas›evet say›s›na oran› olarak yans›t›lmaktad›r. Üç alt kategorinin kendine has dere-celendirmesi de her bir alt kategori için maksimum olas› evet say›s›n› referansalarak benzer flekilde hesaplanmaktad›r.

42 Her soru için muhtemel toplam skoru hesaplarken, flirketlere uymayan bilgi kalemleri için üçüncü bir fl›kolan ‘dahil edilemez’ fl›kk›n› eliyoruz (örne¤in, holding dahilinde olmayan bir flirketin grup politikas› olmamas›)

228

Performans›n muhasebe ve piyasa baz›ndaki ölçümleri olarak, ISE-100 endeksgetirisinden ar›nd›r›lm›fl ekstra ayl›k getirileri (Rit - Rmt) ile aktif (ROA = faali-yet kar› / toplam varl›klar) ve öz sermaye (ROE = net kar / sermaye) karl›l›¤›n›nortalama de¤erlerini kullan›yoruz. fi&B puanlar› ve ekstra getiriler aras›ndakiiliflkiyi de¤erlendirirken kulland›¤›m›z di¤er kontrol de¤iflkenleri ise, firma bü-yüklü¤ü (MVE = hisse senedi say›s› x sene sonu kapan›fl fiyat›) ve piyasa de¤e-rinin defter de¤erine oran›d›r (MVE / BVE = sermaye piyasa de¤eri / sermayedefter de¤eri).

Piyasa oyuncular› taraf›ndan alg›lanan muhasebe ve finansal fleffafl›¤›n firmaperformans› üzerindeki etkisini tahmin etmek için birçok analiz metodu kullan›-yoruz. ‹lk olarak örneklem flirketlerimizi fi&B puan› aç›s›ndan en yüksekten endüflü¤e do¤ru dizerek 4 aral›kla¤a ay›rd›k. Sonra grup ortalamalar›na t-testi uy-gulayarak en uçlardaki iki grubun performans ölçümlerinin ortalamalar› aras›n-daki fark›n istatistiksel bak›mdan önemli olup olmad›¤›n› ölçüyoruz. Ard›ndanTürkiye de (Aksu and Önder, 2003) dahil olmak üzere, birçok geliflmifl ve gelifl-mekte olan piyasalarda (Fama ve French, 1993, 1998) getirileri etkiledi¤i göz-lemlenen piyasa de¤erinin defter de¤erine oran› ve piyasa de¤eri büyüklü¤ü gi-bi di¤er risk faktörleri için kontrol ederken, kesitsel bir regresyon modeli kura-rak ba¤›ml› de¤iflkenimiz olan getirileri, ba¤›ms›z de¤iflkenimiz olan fi&B pu-anlar›na karfl› regresyon analizine tabi tutuyoruz.

V. Sonuçlar

V.1 Y›¤›fl›m Ölçüleri ve fi&B Puanlar›

Tablo 2’te yer alan A Paneli, örneklem firmalar›m›z›n fi&B puanlar›n›n ve riskve getiri özelliklerinin y›¤›fl›m ölçülerini sunuyor. 1993 y›l›ndaki ortalama top-lam fi&B puan› ve 3 fi&B kategorisine ait ortalama puanlar, ‹MKB flirketleri-nin fleffafl›k ve bilgilendirme notlar›n›n pek de etkileyici olmad›¤›n›n alt›n› çi-ziyor. E¤er S&P’nin di¤er ülke çal›flmalar›nda yapt›¤› gibi 10 üzerinden ve tamsay›ya yuvarlayarak bir notland›rma yap›l›rsa fi&B puan› 5 olmaktad›r ve bu dahem geliflmekte olan Asya piyasalar›nda hem de k›ta Avrupas›nda’ki bir çok ül-kede elde edilen puana eflittir. Tabi bu karfl›laflt›rmada bu di¤er çal›flmalar›n2001-2002 y›llar›nda yap›lm›fl oldu¤unu ve o tarihten sonra bu ülkelerde de Tür-kiye’de de oldu¤u gibi fi&B kalitesinin artm›fl olmas› ihtimalinin yüksek oldu-¤unu göz önünde bulundurmak laz›md›r. En düsük puanlar (3/10)yönetim kuru-lu ve yönetimin yap› ve iflleyifli konusunda elde edilmifltir. Finansal fleffafl›k vebilgilendirme kategorisinde bulunan niteliklerin ço¤u Türk GAAP’›na göre zo-runlu oldu¤undan, en yüksek puanlar (7/10 ) ve en düflük standart sapma bu ka-tegoride elde edilmifltir. Bu da büyük Türk flirketlerinin zorunlu raporlama ku-rallar›na uydu¤unun fakat paydafllara yeteri kadar iste¤e ba¤l› bilgi sunmad›kla-r›n›n bir göstergesidir. Mülkiyet yap›s› puanlar› ise ortalama 4/10 olarak hesap-


229

lanm›flt›r. Araflt›rma sonuçlar› ve en yüksek dereceyi alan 5 firma (Akbank,Anadolu Efes, Do¤an Yay›n, Koç Holding, Türkcell ve), S&P ve Sabanc› Üni-versitesi taraf›ndan bu konferansla efl zamanl› olarak kamuya aç›klanm›flt›r.

Tablo 2: IMKB firmalar›n›n fi&B puanlar›

Panel A: fi&B Puanlar› ve bunlar›n korelasyonlar›

_______________________________________________________________

De¤iflkenler N Min. Max. Ortalama Std. Sapma

fi&B -Toplam 52 16,19 71,43 41,11 11,06

fi&B -MülkYap 52 3,13 88,00 38,57 18,26

fi&B -FinBil 52 19,44 86,11 64,21 14,25

fi&B -YönKur&Yönet 52 2,70 54,05 20,42 12,18

______________________________________________________________Panel B: Korelasyon Analizi:

MülkYap FinBilg GenKur& Toplam

MülkYap 1 Yön TDS

FinBil 0.245908 1

YönKur&Yönet 0.597626 0.206162 1

Toplam fi&B 0.823519 0.653465 0.778085 1

______________________________________________________________

Panel C: Türkiye ve di¤er ülkelerdeki fi&B puanlar›n›n karfl›laflt›r›lmas›a

Toplam fi&B Mülk Fin GenKur&fiirket #Puan› Yap Bilg Yön

Avrupa 58 46 73 51 351

‹ngiltere 70 54 81 70 124

Non-U.K. 51 41 69 41 227

ABD (faaliyet raporu) 42 25 66 31 500

ABD (kombine) 70 52 77 78 500

Japonya 61 70 76 37 150

Asya – Pasifik 48 41 60 42 99

Latin Amerika 31 28 58 18 89

Geliflen Asya 40 39 54 27 253

Türkiye 41 39 64 20 52

a Kaynak: Türkiye haricinde fi&B puanlar› S&P’nin Transparency and Disclosure Study

(2002)‘den al›nm›flt›r.


230

B Panel’indeyse, üç alt kategorinin kendi aralar›ndaki korelasyonu ve de toplamfi&B puanlar›yla olan korelasyonunu bildiriyoruz. Üç alt kategori puanlar› ara-s›nda, toplam fi&B puanlar›yla en yüksek korelasyona sahip olan MülkYap pu-anlar›yd›. fi&B’nin alt kategorileri aras›ndaki korelasyonlar›n› göz önünde bu-lundurarak, MülkYap ve GenKur&Yön puanlar› aras›ndaki korelasyonun enyüksek (%60) oldu¤unu ve FinBilg ve MülkYap ile FinBilg ve GenKur&Yönaras›ndaki korelasyonlar›n düflük (%20 civar›nda) oldu¤unu gözlemledik. Fin-Bil’in ço¤unlukla bir çok düzenleyici kurum taraf›ndan denetlenen zorunlu GA-AP ifflas› oldu¤undan ve buna karfl›n di¤er iki alt kategoriye dahil ço¤u niteli¤inyönetimin istekli olarak iffla etmeyece¤ini bekledi¤imiz ihtiyari bilgilendirmeleroldu¤undan bu durum pek de flafl›rt›c› de¤il.

C Panel’inde 3 alt kategoriye ait bu puanlar› S&P’nin 2001-2002 fieffafl›k veBilgilendirme çal›flmas›nda yer alan di¤er ülkelerin puanlar›yla karfl›laflt›r›yo-ruz. Bu karfl›laflt›rmaya göre ‹ngiltere ve ABD global olarak en yüksek derece-lendirmeye sahipler. Avrupa K›tas› ve geliflmifl Asya’n›n puanlar› bu iki ülkeyeoranla daha düflük; geliflen Asya ve Latin Amerika ise en düflük bilgilendirmepuanlar›na sahip, özellikle de Yönetim Kurulu ve Yönetim süreçlerinin ifflas›n-da. Türk firmalar› ise geliflen Asya’ya benzer fakat daha yüksek Finansal Bilgi-lendirme puanlar›na ama daha düflük Yönetim Kurulu & Yönetim puanlar›na sa-hipler.

Tablo 3 de ise 3 fi&B kategorisinde en az ve en çok iffla edilen faaliyet raporuve web bilgileri s›ralanm›flt›r. fiirket say›s› kolonu kaç flirketin bahsi geçen bil-gileri iffla ettiklerini göstermektedir. Bu tablo da en düflük (fazla) bilgilendirme-nin Yönetim Kurulu ve Yöneticilerin yap› ve süreçleri (F›nansal Bilgilendirme)de oldu¤unu göz önüne sermektedir.


231

Plenary Session II - Genel Oturum IIT

able

3

fi&B

kat

egor

ileri

nde

flirk

etle

r ta

raf›

ndan

en

az v

e en

faz

la k

amuy

a aç

›kla

nan

bilg

iler

fi&B

E

n fa

zla

iffla

edi

len

fiirk

et

En

az if

fla

fiirk

et

Kat

egor

isi

Say›

s›ed

ilen

Say›

s›

Mül

kiye

t•

ihra

ç ed

ilmifl

ve

hali

haz›

rda

hiss

edar

lar›

n •

Gen

el K

urul

'da

öner

i sun

ma

pros

edür

ü ne

dir?

Yap

›s›

elin

de b

ulun

an a

di h

isse

leri

n sa

y›s›

ned

ir?

• R

esm

i vey

a re

smi o

lmay

an o

y ku

llanm

a•

her

bir

adi h

isse

nin

nom

inal

de¤

eri n

edir

?an

laflm

alar

› vey

a oy

gru

plar

›n›n

var

l›¤›

• en

büy

ük h

isse

dar

kim

dir?

> 37

var

m›?

(aile

sah

ipli¤

iyle

ilgi

li)<

3• %

10'd

an fa

zla

hiss

eye

sahi

p ol

an h

isse

darla

r›n•

Üst

yön

etic

ileri

n pa

y sa

hipl

i¤i b

elir

tilm

ifl m

i?sa

y›s›

ve

kim

li¤i a

ç›kl

anm

›fl m

›?•

Kur

umsa

l vey

a ça

praz

ifltir

akle

r du

rum

unda

nih

ai le

hdar

lar

• ha

lka

aç›k

his

sele

rin

oran

› ned

ir?

belir

tilm

ifl m

i?

Fina

nsal

• hes

apla

r›na

ulus

lara

ras›

muh

aseb

e st

anda

rtlar

›na

• se

ktör

ana

lizi (

faal

iyet

ala

nlar

›na

ayr›

lm›fl

ola

rak)

var

m›?

Bilg

ilend

irm

e(I

AS/

US

GA

AP)

gör

e tu

tuyo

r m

u?•

kons

olid

e fi

nans

al ta

blol

ar (

ya d

a sa

dece

ana

• de

netle

yici

fir

may

a ne

kad

ar d

enet

im ü

cret

i >

50fli

rket

e/ho

ldin

ge a

it ol

anla

r) v

ar m

›?<

8öd

endi

¤i b

elir

tilm

ifl m

i?•

varl

›k d

e¤er

lem

e yö

ntem

leri

nel

erdi

r?•

fizi

ksel

mik

tar

olar

ak s

at›fl

lar

aç›k

lanm

›fl m

›?

(kul

lan›

c› s

ay›s

›,vb.

..).

• ifl

letil

en v

arl›k

lar›

n öz

ellik

leri

nel

erdi

r?•

veri

mlil

ik r

asyo

lar›

(R

OA

, RO

E, v

b...)

ve

rilm

ifl m

i?

Yön

etim

• üs

t düz

ey y

önet

icile

rin

geçm

iflle

rine

•

üst d

üzey

yön

etic

ileri

n lis

tesi

var

m›?

Kur

ulu

&ili

flkin

bir

bilg

i var

m›?

• yö

netic

ileri

n fli

rket

ifltir

akle

rind

eki h

isse

say

›s›?

Yön

etic

iler

• yö

netim

kur

ulu

üyel

eri h

akk›

nda

deta

ylar

>

39•

yöne

tim k

urul

u üy

eler

inin

ana

(ho

ldin

g) fl

irke

tin b

ir m

ensu

bu≤

1(a

d/un

van

d›fl›

nda)

ver

ilmifl

mi?

olup

olm

ad›¤

› bel

irtil

mifl

mi?

(bi

rlefl

ik ifl

tirak

ler/

hold

ingl

er

• yö

netim

kur

ulu

baflk

an› h

akk›

nda

ayr›

nt›la

rdu

rum

unda

)(i

smi/ü

nvan

› d›fl

›nda

) ve

rilm

ifl m

i?•

üst d

üzey

yön

etim

in h

erha

ngi b

ir ü

yesi

nin

herh

angi

bir

ana

hiss

edar

la il

iflki

sini

n ol

up o

lmad

›¤› b

elir

tilm

ifl m

i?)

• yö

netim

kur

ulu

üyel

erin

e yö

nelik

per

form

ansa

day

al›

ücre

tlend

irm

enin

det

ayla

r› v

ar m

›?•

yöne

ticile

rin

ücre

tlend

irilm

esin

deki

kar

ar a

lma

süre

ci?

• yö

netic

ileri

n üc

retle

rini

n de

tayl

ar› v

ar m

›?•

ücre

t/taz

min

kom

itesi

ndek

i isi

mle

r ki

mle

rdir

?•

aday

gös

term

e ko

mite

sind

eki i

sim

ler

kim

lerd

ir?

• den

etim

kom

itesi

nin

yan›

nda

baflk

a iç

den

etim

fonk

siyo

nlar

› var

m›?

232

Tablo 4, Bölüm 4’de ad› geçen flirkete özel risk faktörleri ve performansde¤iflkenlerine ait aritmetik ortalama, ortanca, minimum ve maksimumde¤erlerini içermektedir. ISE firmalar›n›n, 2002’deki ekonomik bunal›m›ndevam etmesi yüzünden, getirileri negatif veya çok düflük olmufltur. Aktifkarl›l›klar› ve öz sermaye karl›l›¤›, s›ras›yla, %5 ve %10 aras›nda de¤iflirkensermaye yap›s›nda ortalama borç oran› da %50 civarlar›nda olmufltur.

Tablo 4Getiri, karl›l›k ve borç sermaye oran› de¤iflkenleri için y›¤›fl›m ölçüleri

ExRet'04 52 -19,70 64,52 0,81 10,05

ExRet'03 52 -6,18 17,90 -0,17 3,84

ExRet'02 52 -4,75 12,67 2,02 3,20

ExRet-AllYrs. 52 -5,69 14,43 0,90 3,02

ROA 50 -0,10 0,24 0,05 0,07

ROE 50 -3,45 0,50 0,09 0,53

BVE 50 18216697 5605438000 1054324779 1324154101

(milyon TL)DTA 50 0,02 0,89 0,51 0,24

MVE 157,351,677 18,875,025,000 1,985,949,851 3,213,389,517

(milyon TL) 49

MVE = (y›l sonu kapan›fl fiyat›) * (tedavülde olan hisse say›s›), 2003 y›l› sonunda,milyon TL olarak ölçüldü;MVE/BVE oran› = sermaye piyasa de¤eri / sermaye defter de¤eri;DTA (borç sermaye oran›) = toplam pasifler / toplam aktifler;ROA = faiz ve vergi öncesi kazanç / toplam aktifler olarak tarif edilen firma per-fromans de¤eri;ROE = yine bir firma performans de¤eri olan, net kar / öz sermaye;ExRet (piyasa ayarlanm›fl ekstra getiri) = gerçek ayl›k getiri – ayl›k piyasa(‹MKB-100) getirisiLnMVE (piyasa de¤erinin ln’i) ve fi&B puanlar› 31 Aral›k 2003’te (t senesi) öl-çülürken bilanço de¤erleri içeren MVE/BVE, DTA, ROA ve ROE oranlar› 31Aral›k 2002’de ölçüldü (t-1 senesi).

V. 2. Hisse getirileri, muhasebe karl›l›¤› ve fi&B puanlar› aras›ndaki iliflkiningöstergeleri

fiirketleri s›ralad›ktan ve onlar› 4 çeyre¤e ay›rd›ktan sonra, en uç bölümler ara-s›ndaki yani en yüksek ve en düflük fi&B puanlar›na sahip firmalar aras›ndakiortalama performans farkl›l›klar›n› ölçen tek yönlü varyans testler uygululad›k.En düflük ve en yüksek puanl› çeyrekler karfl›laflt›r›ld›¤›nda, toplam fi&B puan-lar›n›n ve FinBilg puanlar›n›n en yüksek oldu¤u çeyrekde karl›l›¤›n ve borç ser-maye oran›n›n istatistiksel anlamda daha yüksek olduklar›n› gözlemledik.


233

2002’de herhangi bir fi&B puan kategorisinde iki uç çeyrekte yer alan firmala-r›n ekstra getirileri aras›nda istatiksel olarak anlaml› bir fark olmamas›na ra¤-men, 2003’te toplam fi&B ile GenKur&Yön puanlar› bak›m›ndan iki uç çeyre-¤in ekstra getirileri aras›nda anlaml› bir fark tespit etmekteyiz. 2002’ye k›yasla2003’te fi&B puanlar› ve performans aras›ndaki ba¤›nt›n›n güçlendi¤ini görüyo-ruz. Bu sonuçlar Tablo 5’e ait A ve B Paneller’inde yer almaktad›r.

Tablo 5

fi&B Puanlar›na Dayal› Performans Ölçümleri Aras›ndaki Farklar

A Paneli: fi&B Puanlar›na Dayal›, ‹ki En Uç Çeyrekteki Muhasebe

Karl›l›¤›, Borç Sermaye Oran› ve Getirilerinin Karfl›laflt›r›lmas›

(p-De¤erler)

fi&B Kategorileri

Toplam MülkYap FinBilg GenKur&Yön

ROA -0,005 -0,066 -0,045 0,022(0,875) (0,789) (0,123) (0,477)

ROE -0,089 -0,056 -0,114 -0,059(0,107) (0,303) (0,053) (0,362)

DTA -0,174 -0,142 -0,132 -0,118(0,039) (0,153) (0,093) (0,229)

B Paneli: fi&B Puanlar›na Dayal›, ‹ki En Uç Çeyrekteki PiyasayaAyarlanm›fl Ekstra Getirilerin Ortalamalar›n›n Karfl›laflt›r›lmas›

fi&B Kategorileri

Toplam MülkYap FinBilg GenKur &Yön

ExRet-Tüm Seneler -1,879 -1,158 -0,163 -1,265(0,280) (0,365) (0,911) (0,054)

ExRet '03 -2,199 -0,201 -2,528 -2,329(0,080) (0,877) (0,034) (0,055)

ExRet '02 -0,619 -0,562 0,432 0,04517(0,679) (0,551) (0,717) (0,976)

De¤iflkenlerin tarifleri daha önceki tablolarda sunulmaktad›r.


234

Ard›ndan, her bir fi&B kategorisinden elde etti¤imiz puanlar› ba¤›ml› de¤iflke-nimiz flirketin muhasebe performans› ölçümlerini de ba¤›ms›z de¤iflkenimizolarak regresyon analizine tabi tuttuk. i, firma alt simgesi, j, fi&B kategori altsimgesi ve k, muhasebe karl›l›¤›na ait farkl› ölçümlerimizin alt simgesidir.

PERFik = aij +ßj TDS ij + ei (2)

Maalesef, içinde kontrol de¤iflkenleri olarak piyasa büyüklü¤ü ve piyasa de¤e-rinin defter de¤erine oran› da olan cok de¤iflkenli regresyon modellerimizde,fi&B puanlar›n›n hiçbir performans ölçümümüzdeki de¤iflenkenli¤i aç›klad›¤›yönünde istatistiksel anlamda kayda de¤er bir sonuç elde etmedik. Sonuç olarak,sadece fi&B puanlar› iki en uç çeyrekte olanflirketler aras›nda finansal perfor-mans aç›s›ndan istatistiksel anlamda farklar gözlemliyebildik.

VI. Özet ve Son Söz

Bu çal›flma en büyük ve en likit ‹MKB firmalar›ndan oluflan 52 örneklem firma-s›n›n, 1993 y›l› faaliyet raporlar› ve web sitelerinde, üç kategori içinde gruplan-d›r›lm›fl 106 fi&B niteli¤in dahil olup olmad›¤›n› inceleyerek, fi&B puanlar›n›nobjektif bir de¤erlendirmesini sunmaktad›r. Araflt›rma sürecinde S&P ile ifl bir-li¤i yap›ld› ve Türkiye’deki iffla derecesinin pek parlak olmad›¤›n› ö¤rendik. Ça-l›flma sonuçlar›na göre 52 ‹MKB firmas›n›n notlar› oldukça düflük ç›km›flt›r. Endüflük puanl› fi&B kategorisi 20 puanla Genel Kurul & Yönetim yap›s› ve iflle-yifli olmufltur. Bununla birlikte Türkiye’nin ortalama fi&B notu 10 üstünden 5olarak hesaplanm›flt›r ve bu not da ortalama fi&B notu 6 olan Avrupa K›tas› ilekarfl›laflt›r›labilir bir nottur.

Bu çal›flma ayn› zamanda örneklem firmalar›n finansal performanslar› aras›nda-ki iliflkiyi de incelemifltir. ‹ki en uç fi&B puan çeyrek guruplar›nda sonuçlar›nhipotezimize uydu¤unu görüyoruz. Toplam fi&B puan› bak›m›ndan ve özellik-le Genel Kurul & Yönetim bilgilendirmesi kategorisinde en yüksek puanlar› el-de eden flirketlerin getiri ve muhasebe karl›l›¤› de¤erleri daha yüksektir. Bunara¤men, çok yönlü regresyon analizlerinde istatistiksel olarak önemli sonuçlarelde etmedik. ‹MKB firmalar› ancak zorunda olunca kamuya aç›klama yapt›kla-r› ve ihtiyari bilgilendirme bak›m›ndan zay›f olduklar› için, fi&B puanlar›ndakivaryans›n yeteri kadar büyük olmad›¤› sonucuna vard›k. 2005’ten itibaren, flir-ketlerin SPK’n›n yay›nlad›¤› ihtiyari KY prensiplerine uyum sa¤lamaya baflla-mas›yla, fi&B puanlar›n›n aç›klay›c› güçlerinin artmas›n› bekliyoruz. 2005 y›l›faaliyet raporlar› yay›nland›¤›nda, bu çal›flmay› tekrarlamay› ve daha kapsamlive daha kaliteli zorunlu ve ihtiyari bilgilendirmenin sonucu olarak fi&B puanla-r›n›n ve onlar›n aç›klay›c› gücünün art›p artmayaca¤›n› incelemeyi planl›yoruz.


235

Referanslar

Aksu, M. and Onder, T., 2003. Size and book-to-market effects as proxies forfundamentals and as determinants of returns in the ISE. Working paper, Saban-ci University. http://ssrn.com/abstract=250919

Ararat, M. and M. Ugur, 2003. Corporate governance in Turkey: An overvi-ew and some policy recommendations, Corporate Governance, Vol.3 No.1, pp:58-75.

Ashbaugh, H.S., D.W. Collins and R. Lafond, 2004. Corporate governanceand the cost of equity capital,Working paper, University of Wisconsin, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=639681.

Bai, C., Q. Liu, J. Z. Lu, F. Song, and J. J. Zhang, 2004. Corporate Gover-nance and market valuation in China, Journal of Comparative Economics, 32, p.599-825.

Berglof, E. And A. Pajuste, 2005. What do firms disclose and why? Enforcingcorporate governance and transparency in Central and Eastern Europe, Workingpaper, Stockholm School of Economics.

Brown, L. D. and M. L. Caylor, 2004. Corporate governance and firm perfor-mance. Working paper, Georgia State University.

Darrough, M.N. and N.M. Stoughton, 1990. Financial disclosure policy in anentry game, Journal of Accounting and Economics 12, 219–243.

Duffie, D. and D. Lando, 2001. Term structure of credit spreads with incomp-lete accounting information, Econometrica 69, pp. 633–664.

Fama E. F.and K. R. French, 1993. Common risk factors in the returns onstocks and bonds, Journal ofFinancial Economics 33, 3-56.

______________________ , 1998. Value versus growth: The international evi-dence, The Journal of Finance 53, 1975-1999.

Feltham, G.A. and J. Xie, 1994. Performance measure congruity and diversityin multitask principal-agent relations, Accounting Review 69, 429–453.

Field, L.B.S., Lowry, M. and Shu, S., 2004. Does disclosure deter or trigger li-tigation?, Journal of Accounting and Economics, forthcoming.

Jensen, M. C. and Meckling W. H., (1976) Theory of the Firm: ManagerialBehavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Econo-mics 3, 305-360.

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de Silanes, A. Shleifer, 1997. Legal determinants ofexternal finance, Journal of Finance 52, 1131-1150.


236

Mazumdar, S.C., Sarin, A., Sengupta, P., 2002. To tell or not to tell: the value of corporate disclosure. Working paper, Santa Clara University.

Mc Kinsey, 2002. Investment Opinion Survey, May/June 2002

Ohlson, J., 1995. Earnings, book values and dividends in security valuation,Contemporary Accounting Research 11, 661-687.

Penman, S. H., 1997. Combining earnings and book value in equity valuation.Working paper, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Sadka, G., 2004. Financial reporting, growth, and productivity: Theory and in-ternational evidence, Working paper, University of Chicago, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=652301

Shin, H., 2003. Disclosures and Asset Returns, Econometrica 71, 105-133.

Shleifer, A, and Wolfenzon, D., 2000. Investor Protection and Equity Markets,working paper Harvard Institute ofEconomic Research Paper No. 1906, http://ssrn.com/abstract=245448

Sengupta, P., 1998. Corporate disclosure quality and the cost of debt, AccountingReview 73, 459–474.

Standard and Poor’s, 2002. Transparency and Disclosure Study.

Verrecchia, R.E., 1983. Discretionary disclosure, Journal of Accounting andEconomics 5, 179–194.

Yu, Fang, 2005. Accounting transparency and the term structure of credit spre-ads, Journal of Financial Economics, 75, 1, 55-84.


237

EK 1

Standard & Poor's-CGFT fieffafl›k & Kamuya Aç›klama Çal›flmas› ( 2005)

fiirket y›ll›k raporlar›nda yer al›p almad›¤› kontrol edilen nitelikler

Mülkiyet Yap›s› ve Yat›r›mc› ‹liflkileri

1 ihraç edilmifl ve hali haz›rda hissedarlar›n elinde bulunan adi hisselerin say›s› nedir?

2 ihraç edilmifl ve halka aç›k di¤er tip hisselerin say›s› (imtiyazl› yada oy hakk› olmayan gibi) nedir?

3 her bir adi hissenin nominal de¤eri nedir?

4 her bir di¤er tip hissenin nominal de¤eri (imtiyazl› yada oy hakk› olmayangibi) nedir?

5 onaylanm›fl fakat henüz ihraç edilmemifl adi hisse say›s› nedir?

6 onaylanm›fl fakat ihraç edilmemifl di¤er hisselerin say›s› nedir?

7 en büyük hissedar kimdir?

8 en büyük 3 hissedar kimdir?



11 %3'ten fazla hisseye sahip olan hissedarlar›n say›s› ve kimli¤i aç›klanm›fl m›?

12 %5'ten fazla hisseye sahip olan hissedarlar›n say›s› ve kimli¤i aç›klanm›fl m›?

13 %10'dan fazla hisseye sahip olan hissedarlar›n say›s› ve kimli¤i aç›klanm›fl m›?

14 en az %50 hisseye sahip olan hissedarlar›n kimli¤i aç›klanm›fl m›?

15 halka aç›k hisselerin oran› nedir?

16 e¤er de¤iflik hisse s›n›flar› var ise, nitelikleri aç›klanm›fl m›?

17 türüne göre hissedarlar (bireysel, kurumsal gibi) belirtilmifl mi?

18 çapraz-ifltirak (cross-ownership) oran› nedir?

19 Kurumsal Yönetim Tüzü¤ü veya En ‹yi Uygulama prensiplerine uyup uyulmad›¤›na dair aç›klama var m›?

20 Kurumsal Yönetim Tüzü¤ü/En ‹yi Uygulama prensipleri faaliyet raporunda sunulmufl mu?


238

21 Ana Sözleflme ile ilgili bilgiler (mesela de¤ifliklikler gibi) var m›?

22 Ana Sözleflme detaylar› belirtilmifl mi? (Anonim sözleflme tüzü¤ü,vb…)

23 hisselerin oy kullanma haklar› belirtilmis mi?

24 Yönetim Kuruluna aday gösterme/atamalar› kimler ve nas›l yapabilir?

25 hissedarlar genel kurulu nas›l toplarlar?

26 Yönetim Kurulunu sorgulama yöntemi nedir?

27 Genel Kurul'da öneri sunma prosedürü nedir?

28 son genel kurulun bir özeti var m›?

29 hissedarlar için önemli günlerin takvimi var m›?

30 resmi veya resmi olmayan oy kullanma anlaflmalar›, oy gruplar›n›n varl›¤› aciklanmis mi?(aile sirketlerinde)

31 üst yöneticilerin pay sahipli¤i belirtilmifl mi?

32 kurumsal veya çapraz ifltirakler durumunda nihai lehdarlar belirtilmifl mi?


239

Finansal fieffafl›k & Aç›klamalar

1 flirketin muhasebe politikalar› bel'rtilmis mi?

2 hesaplarda kulland›¤› muhasebe metodlari/ilkeleri belirtilmis mi?

3 hesaplar›n› yerel muhasebe standartlar›na göre tutuyor mu?

4 hesaplar›na uluslararas› muhasebe standartlar›na (IAS/US GAAP) göre tutuyor mu?

5 bilanço uluslararas› muhasebe standartlar›na (IAS/US GAAP) göre mi haz›rlan›yor?

6 gelir tablosu uluslararas› muhasebe standartlar›na (IAS/US GAAP) göre mi haz›rlan›yor?

7 nakit ak›m tablosu uluslararas› muhasebe standartlar›na (IAS/US GAAP) göre mi haz›rlan›yor?

8 hesaplar›n› enflasyona gore ayarl›yor mu?

9 herhangi bir karlilik orani tahmini belirtiliyor mu?

10 detayl› karlilik tahmini var m›?

11 3 ayl›k finansal bilgiler verilmifl mi?

12 sektör analizi (faaliyet alanlar›na ayr›lm›fl olarak) var m›?

13 bagimsiz denetleyici fiman›n ad› belirtilmis mi?

14 ba¤›ms›z denetçi raporunun bir kopyas› mevcut mu?

15 denetleyici firmaya ne kadar denetim ücreti ödendi¤i belirtilmifl mi?

16 denetleyici firmaya denetim d›fl›nda ödenen herhangi bir ücret belirtilmifl mi?

17 holding sirketlerinde konsolide finansal tablolar var mi (yoksa sadece ana flirkete/holdinge ait olanlar mi?)

18 varl›k de¤erlendirme yöntemleri belirtilmis mi?

19 duran varl›klar›n de¤er kayb› yöntemleri hakk›nda bilgi var m›?

20 az›nl›k pay›na sahip oldu¤u ifltiraklerin bir listesi bulunuyor mu?

21 yerel muhasebe standartlar›n›n IAS/US GAAP standartlar›na mutabakat› var mi?

22 ifltiraklerin mülkiyet yap›s› aç›klanm›fl m›?

23 içinde bulundu¤u ifl kolunun/faaliyet alan›n›n detaylar› var m›?

24 üretilen/sa¤lanan ürün veya hizmetlerin detaylar› var m›?

25 uretilen mal/hizmet miktari fiziksel olarak aç›klanm›fl m›? (kullan›c› say›s›, ton, adet vs...).

26 kullanilan varl›klar›n özellikleri aciklanmis mir?


240

27 verimlilik karlilik rasyolar› (ROA, ROE, vb...) verilmifl mi?

28 endüstri rasyolar› verilmifl mi?

29 kurumsal stratejiyle ilgili bir aciklama yap›lm›fl m›?

30 gelecek senelere dair yat›r›m planlar›ndan bahis var mi?

31 gelecek senelerdeki yat›r›m planlar›yla ilgili detayl› bilgi var m›?

32 herhangi bir üretim tahmini var m›?

33 bulundu¤u endüstrideki trendlerden bahsediliyor mu?

34 faaliyet alanlar›n›n herhangi birinde ya da bütünündeki pazar pay› belirtilmifl mi?

35 iliflkili flirketlerle ve flah›slarla yap›lan ifllemlerin bir listesi/kayd› var m›?

36 grup flirketleriyle yap›lan ifllemlerin listesi/kayd› var m›?

37 web sitesinde faaliyet raporu var m›?

Yönetim Kurulu ve Yönetimin Yap›s› ve Süreçleri

1 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin listesi (adlar›) var m›?

2 yönetim kurulu üyeleri hakk›nda detaylar (ad/unvan d›fl›nda) verilmifl mi?

3 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin flu anki görev ve pozisyonlar›na iliflkin detaylar var m›?

4 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin önceki görev ve pozisyonlar›na iliflkin detaylar var m›?

5 üyelerden her birinin kurula ne zaman kat›ld›¤› belirtilmifl mi?

6 üyeler flirket yöneticileri ve d›flar›dan gelenler olarak belirtilmifl mi?

7 yönetim kurulu baflkan›n›n ad› verilmifl mi?

8 yönetim kurulu baflkan› hakk›nda ayr›nt›lar(ismi/ünvan› d›fl›nda) verilmifl mi?

9 yönetim kurulunun flirketteki rolü ile ilgili detaylar var m›?

10 yönetim kurulu yetkisinde olan konular›n listesi verilmifl mi?

11 yönetim kurulu komitelerinin listesi var m›?

12 bir denetleme komitesi var m›?

13 denetleme komitesindeki isimler belirtilmis mir?

14 bir ücretlendirme/tazmin komitesi var m›?

15 ücret/tazmin komitesindeki isimler kimlerdir?

16 bir yonetim kuruluna aday gösterme komitesi var m›?

17 aday gösterme komitesindeki isimler kimlerdir?

18 denetim komitesinin yan›nda baflka iç denetim fonksiyonlar› var m›?

19 strateji/yat›r›m/finans komitesi var m›?


241

20 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin sahip oldu¤u hisselerin say›s› kaçt›r?

21 son yönetim kurulu toplant›s› ile ilgili bilgi var m›?

22 yönetim kurulu üyelerine e¤itim sa¤lan›p sa¤lanmad›¤› belirtilmifl mi?

23 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin ücretlendirilmesindeki karar alma süreci belirtiliyor mu?

24 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin ücretlerinin detaylar› (maafl düzeyleri,vb…) var m›?

25 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin maafllar›n›n flekli (örn. nakit, hisse senedi...gibi) nedir?

26 yönetim kurulu üyelerine yönelik performansa dayal› ücretlendirmenin detaylar› var m›?

27 yöneticilerin ücretlendirilmesindeki karar alma süreci belirtiliyor mu?

28 yöneticilerin ücretlerinin detaylar› (maafl düzeyleri,vb…) var m›?

29 yöneticilerin maafllar›n›n flekli (örn. nakit, hisse senedi...gibi) nedir?

30 yöneticilerin yönelik performansa dayal› ücretlendirmenin detaylar› var m›?

31 üst düzey yöneticilerin bir listesi (yönetim kurulundakiler d›fl›nda) var m›?

32 üst düzey yöneticilerin geçmifllerine iliflkin bir bilgi var m›?

33 CEO'nun kontrat›na ait detaylar aktar›lm›fl m›?

34 yöneticilerin flirketin ifltiraklerinde sahip olduklari hisse say›s› belirtilmifl mi?

35 yönetim kurulu üyelerinin ana (holding) flirketin bir mensubu olup olmad›¤› belirtilmifl mi? (ifltirakler/bagli ortaklik durumlarinda)

36 ana ve ba¤l› flirketler aras›nda herhengi bir grup politikas› olup olmad›¤› belirtilmifl mi?(KY hakkinda)

37 üst düzey yönetim uyelerinin herhangi bir ana hissedarla iliflkisinin olup olmad›¤› belirtilmifl mi? (aile, baska sirkete istirak)


Documents

06 genel oturum 2 - ISMMMOarchive.ismmmo.org.tr/docs/SEMPOZYUMLAR/SEMPOZYUM... · Birçok ﬂirketin menkul k›ymetleri farkl› ülkelerin bor-salar›nda iﬂlem görmektedir