#smrgKİTABEVİ Evaluation of Financial Performance of Companies in Marmara Region Through A Systematic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach - 2024

Editör:
Kondisyon:
Yeni
Sunuş / Önsöz / Sonsöz / Giriş:
Basıldığı Matbaa:
Dizi Adı:
ISBN-10:
6256319806
Kargoya Teslim Süresi:
4&6
Hazırlayan:
Cilt:
Amerikan Cilt
Stok Kodu:
1199229565
Boyut:
16x24
Sayfa Sayısı:
117
Basım Yeri:
Ordu
Baskı:
1
Basım Tarihi:
2024
Kapak Türü:
Karton Kapak
Kağıt Türü:
Enso
Dili:
İngilizce
Kategori:
indirimli
110,60
Havale/EFT ile: 107,28
Siparişiniz 4&6 iş günü arasında kargoda
1199229565
616472
Evaluation of Financial Performance of Companies in Marmara Region Through A Systematic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach -        2024
Evaluation of Financial Performance of Companies in Marmara Region Through A Systematic Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach - 2024 #smrgKİTABEVİ
110.60
Financial performance analysis is critical to users such as managers, business employees, the government, lenders, investors, and others. It is crucial for making forecasts for the future, evaluating a business's position within the industry, and determining its standing relative to competitors. Therefore, this study analyzed thirty-seven companies listed on the ISO 500 2022 list in the Marmara Region and traded on BIST using seventeen evaluation criteria. Firstly, the financial data of the firms were collected. Due to the presence of negative values in the collected data, the Z-Score Standardization Method was used. Subsequently, the weights of the criteria were determined using the ENTROPY Method. Three different Fuzzy TOPSIS variations were utilized to evaluate the company alternatives. These variations were Triangular Fuzzy TOPSIS, Trapezoidal Fuzzy TOPSIS, and Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. The evaluation results obtained from each TOPSIS variation were integrated using the Borda Count Method to derive a single ranking. Among the evaluation criteria, the Inventory Turnover Ratio (C1) was the most important, with a weight of 0.36, followed by the Book Value Per Share Ratio (C15), with a weight of 0.12, and the Current Ratio (C1), with a weight of 0.09. Conversely, the Operating Cash Flow Ratio (C4), Return on Equity Ratio (C14), and Price-Earnings Ratio (C17) were the least critical criteria, each with a weight of 0.00. As a result, the best company alternatives were AYGAZ, FROTO, TOASO, BOBET, and BANVT, while the worst company alternatives were DGNMO, DEVA, VESTL, TATGD, and HEKTS. These findings provided valuable insights for stakeholders, enabling them to make more informed investment and strategic planning decisions.
Financial performance analysis is critical to users such as managers, business employees, the government, lenders, investors, and others. It is crucial for making forecasts for the future, evaluating a business's position within the industry, and determining its standing relative to competitors. Therefore, this study analyzed thirty-seven companies listed on the ISO 500 2022 list in the Marmara Region and traded on BIST using seventeen evaluation criteria. Firstly, the financial data of the firms were collected. Due to the presence of negative values in the collected data, the Z-Score Standardization Method was used. Subsequently, the weights of the criteria were determined using the ENTROPY Method. Three different Fuzzy TOPSIS variations were utilized to evaluate the company alternatives. These variations were Triangular Fuzzy TOPSIS, Trapezoidal Fuzzy TOPSIS, and Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods. The evaluation results obtained from each TOPSIS variation were integrated using the Borda Count Method to derive a single ranking. Among the evaluation criteria, the Inventory Turnover Ratio (C1) was the most important, with a weight of 0.36, followed by the Book Value Per Share Ratio (C15), with a weight of 0.12, and the Current Ratio (C1), with a weight of 0.09. Conversely, the Operating Cash Flow Ratio (C4), Return on Equity Ratio (C14), and Price-Earnings Ratio (C17) were the least critical criteria, each with a weight of 0.00. As a result, the best company alternatives were AYGAZ, FROTO, TOASO, BOBET, and BANVT, while the worst company alternatives were DGNMO, DEVA, VESTL, TATGD, and HEKTS. These findings provided valuable insights for stakeholders, enabling them to make more informed investment and strategic planning decisions.
Yorum yaz
Bu kitabı henüz kimse eleştirmemiş.
Kapat