Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Aim of the work is to assess the relationship between risk, efficiency and the level of capitalization in a sample of Turkish securities. Some suggestions are provided in order to improve the work:

Abstract

Add a brief contextualization of the research aims

Introduction

The analysis of the relationship between securities firms’ capital base, efficiency and risk pass through the clear description of each of the three concept. Please, provide a cleared and more structured description of them, also considering some useful references where the concepts are addressed: Locurcio, M., Tajani, F., Morano, P., & Anelli, D. (2021). A multi-criteria decision analysis for the assessment of the real estate credit risks. In Appraisal and Valuation (pp. 327-337). Springer, Cham and Zopounidis, C., Galariotis, E., Doumpos, M., Sarri, S., & AndriosopouloS, K. (2015). Multiple criteria decision aiding for finance: An updated bibliographic survey. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(2), 339-348.

Turkish Securities Industry

this section can be included in the introduction by synthetizing it

3.2 Relevant Literature of Banks’ Risk, Efficiency and Capital

check the errors (e.g. line 205)

all the relevant literature presented in the section 3 is principally before the 2018, please try to add or replace some references with something more recent

4.1. Data Description

the equations 1 to 9 need to be inserted into adequate tables

the overall R2 of the models isn't so statistically performing, can the authors provide much details and reasons for this result?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with the assessment of risk-oriented efficiency depending on the level of capitalization for financial institutions (evidence from Turkish securities firms). The authors clearly present the content in the abstract. As for the Introduction, I would suggest better ordering  the content. I would suggest starting with the significance of the problem (in general) with reference to previous studies (in general). Then I would suggest referring to Turkey to identify the research gap and purpose. I believe this will strengthen the motivation of the paper. I would also suggest including some  content from section "2. Turkish Securities Industry" to Introduction to strengthen the research gap (in my opinion, the authors should consider cancelling Section 2 as it stands). Regarding the literature review: subsection 3.1. "Relevant Literature of Securities Firms' Efficiency," I would suggest starting the analysis with a general description of the problem and then referring to Turkey (as in subsection 3.2. "Relevant Literature of Banks' Risk, Efficiency and Capital"). The authors present the data and methodology in an appropriate way, with sufficient details. Regarding the results and discussion section: I would suggest strengthening the content of  subsection 5.2. "Results" by comparing the results with those of other authors.  In the conclusions, I would suggest strengthening the neat summary of the main findings. I would also recommend developing implementations for practice and suggestions for future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors and editors for the opportunity to read the interesting study. Its subject concerns the relationship between risk and eficiency of firms. It is based on Turkish example.

And my first comment is related to the scope of the study. The authors have not explained why study based on 115 Turkish firms may be important from the scientific point of view. At the same time, there is a lack of references to the prior research in the discussion of the results and in the conclusion as well. So, there is very difficult to assess importance of the results for existing knowledge.

Secondly, the literature review includes pile of empirical studies (I assess it positively) but there is no precisely indicated theoretical background and how the study undertaken can improve current theories. Consequently, the claim presented in conlusions that risk is positively related to efficiency (and the other way round) sounds pretty banal.

I also cannot find any practical implications, so I don't know if the results are important for managers, policymakers or other parties of the market.

Empirical study is methodologicaly prepared very carefully but in very sophisticated way. I suggest the authors to reduce scope of the study (in dependent variables especially) and more clearly explain the use of control variables (there is no any word why such list of these variables is applied).

Summing up, the paper contains a carefully prepared empirical study, but I am not convinced by its scientific value. It should be improved.

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I see that all the suggestions revisions have been applied, except for the provided references. I suggest to add it in the introduction and take them to efficiently briefly describe securities firms’ capital base, efficiency and risk. 

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I spot significant improvement of the paper. I have only one suggestion for the authors. The results of the study will be better prerceived if the local case is precisely and clearly expressed in Intorduction iand Conclusion.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx