创新 MCDA 评估方法的建议:通过等级逆转、标准偏差以及与股票回报率的关系发现知识

IF 6.9 1区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE Financial Innovation Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x
Mahmut Baydaş, Orhan Emre Elma, Željko Stević
{"title":"创新 MCDA 评估方法的建议:通过等级逆转、标准偏差以及与股票回报率的关系发现知识","authors":"Mahmut Baydaş, Orhan Emre Elma, Željko Stević","doi":"10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Financial performance analysis is of vital importance those involved in a business (e.g., shareholders, creditors, partners, and company managers). An accurate and appropriate performance measurement is critical for decision-makers to achieve efficient results. Integrated performance measurement, by its nature, consists of multiple criteria with different levels of importance. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods have become increasingly popular for solving complex problems, especially over the last two decades. There are different evaluation methodologies in the literature for selecting the most appropriate one among over 200 MCDA methods. This study comprehensively analyzed 41 companies traded on the Borsa Istanbul Corporate Governance Index for 10 quarters using SWARA, CRITIC, and SD integrated with eight different MCDA method algorithms to determine the position of Turkey's most transparent companies in terms of financial performance. In this study, we propose \"stock returns\" as a benchmark in comparing and evaluating MCDA methods. Moreover, we calculate the \"rank reversal performance of MCDA methods\". Finally, we performed a \"standard deviation\" analysis to identify the objective and characteristic trends for each method. Interestingly, all these innovative comparison procedures suggest that PROMETHEE II (preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations II) and FUCA (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) are the most suitable MCDA methods. In other words, these methods produce a higher correlation with share price; they have fewer rank reversal problems, the distribution of scores they produce is wider, and the amount of information is higher. Thus, it can be said that these advantages make them preferable. The results show that this innovative methodological procedure based on 'knowledge discovery' is verifiable, robust and efficient when choosing the MCDA method.","PeriodicalId":37175,"journal":{"name":"Financial Innovation","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return\",\"authors\":\"Mahmut Baydaş, Orhan Emre Elma, Željko Stević\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Financial performance analysis is of vital importance those involved in a business (e.g., shareholders, creditors, partners, and company managers). An accurate and appropriate performance measurement is critical for decision-makers to achieve efficient results. Integrated performance measurement, by its nature, consists of multiple criteria with different levels of importance. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods have become increasingly popular for solving complex problems, especially over the last two decades. There are different evaluation methodologies in the literature for selecting the most appropriate one among over 200 MCDA methods. This study comprehensively analyzed 41 companies traded on the Borsa Istanbul Corporate Governance Index for 10 quarters using SWARA, CRITIC, and SD integrated with eight different MCDA method algorithms to determine the position of Turkey's most transparent companies in terms of financial performance. In this study, we propose \\\"stock returns\\\" as a benchmark in comparing and evaluating MCDA methods. Moreover, we calculate the \\\"rank reversal performance of MCDA methods\\\". Finally, we performed a \\\"standard deviation\\\" analysis to identify the objective and characteristic trends for each method. Interestingly, all these innovative comparison procedures suggest that PROMETHEE II (preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations II) and FUCA (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) are the most suitable MCDA methods. In other words, these methods produce a higher correlation with share price; they have fewer rank reversal problems, the distribution of scores they produce is wider, and the amount of information is higher. Thus, it can be said that these advantages make them preferable. The results show that this innovative methodological procedure based on 'knowledge discovery' is verifiable, robust and efficient when choosing the MCDA method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37175,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Financial Innovation\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Financial Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Financial Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

财务业绩分析对企业的相关人员(如股东、债权人、合作伙伴和公司经理)至关重要。准确、适当的绩效衡量对于决策者取得高效成果至关重要。综合绩效衡量就其本质而言,由多个重要程度不同的标准组成。多标准决策分析(MCDA)方法在解决复杂问题方面越来越受欢迎,尤其是在过去二十年里。在 200 多种 MCDA 方法中,有不同的评估方法可供选择。本研究使用 SWARA、CRITIC 和 SD,结合八种不同的 MCDA 方法算法,对伊斯坦布尔证券交易所公司治理指数(Borsa Istanbul Corporate Governance Index)上的 41 家公司进行了 10 个季度的综合分析,以确定土耳其最透明公司在财务业绩方面的地位。在本研究中,我们建议将 "股票回报率 "作为比较和评估 MCDA 方法的基准。此外,我们还计算了 "MCDA 方法的排名逆转性能"。最后,我们进行了 "标准偏差 "分析,以确定每种方法的客观和特征趋势。有趣的是,所有这些创新的比较程序都表明,PROMETHEE II(用于丰富评价的偏好排序组织方法 II)和 FUCA(Faire Un Choix Adéquat)是最合适的 MCDA 方法。换句话说,这些方法与股价的相关性更高;它们的排名颠倒问题更少,产生的分数分布更广,信息量更大。因此,可以说这些优势使它们更胜一筹。结果表明,在选择 MCDA 方法时,这种基于 "知识发现 "的创新方法程序是可验证的、稳健的和高效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return
Financial performance analysis is of vital importance those involved in a business (e.g., shareholders, creditors, partners, and company managers). An accurate and appropriate performance measurement is critical for decision-makers to achieve efficient results. Integrated performance measurement, by its nature, consists of multiple criteria with different levels of importance. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods have become increasingly popular for solving complex problems, especially over the last two decades. There are different evaluation methodologies in the literature for selecting the most appropriate one among over 200 MCDA methods. This study comprehensively analyzed 41 companies traded on the Borsa Istanbul Corporate Governance Index for 10 quarters using SWARA, CRITIC, and SD integrated with eight different MCDA method algorithms to determine the position of Turkey's most transparent companies in terms of financial performance. In this study, we propose "stock returns" as a benchmark in comparing and evaluating MCDA methods. Moreover, we calculate the "rank reversal performance of MCDA methods". Finally, we performed a "standard deviation" analysis to identify the objective and characteristic trends for each method. Interestingly, all these innovative comparison procedures suggest that PROMETHEE II (preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations II) and FUCA (Faire Un Choix Adéquat) are the most suitable MCDA methods. In other words, these methods produce a higher correlation with share price; they have fewer rank reversal problems, the distribution of scores they produce is wider, and the amount of information is higher. Thus, it can be said that these advantages make them preferable. The results show that this innovative methodological procedure based on 'knowledge discovery' is verifiable, robust and efficient when choosing the MCDA method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Financial Innovation
Financial Innovation Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
11.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Financial Innovation (FIN), a Springer OA journal sponsored by Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, serves as a global academic platform for sharing research findings in all aspects of financial innovation during the electronic business era. It facilitates interactions among researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, focusing on new financial instruments, technologies, markets, and institutions. Emphasizing emerging financial products enabled by disruptive technologies, FIN publishes high-quality academic and practical papers. The journal is peer-reviewed, indexed in SSCI, Scopus, Google Scholar, CNKI, CQVIP, and more.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning in business and finance: a literature review and research opportunities Predictive crypto-asset automated market maker architecture for decentralized finance using deep reinforcement learning Cryptocurrencies under climate shocks: a dynamic network analysis of extreme risk spillovers Exploring the coherency and predictability between the stocks of artificial intelligence and energy corporations From CFOs to crypto: exploratory study unraveling factors in corporate adoption
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1