請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73604
標題: | 台灣社會的證券化失敗之路 Securitization in Taiwan: A Failed Experience |
作者: | Chung-Hsuan Huang 黃仲玄 |
指導教授: | 劉華真(Hwa-Jen Liu) |
關鍵字: | 證券化,金融化,住宅貸款抵押債券,房貸,消費貸款,政府補貼,場域, Securitization,Financialization,Mortgage-Backed Security (MBS),Mortgage,Consumer Loan,Subsidy,Field, |
出版年 : | 2019 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 在金融領域擴張的台灣社會,民眾債務的持續增長是否增加了金融機構或整體市場發生危機的系統性風險?本研究從證券化這一將信用關係商品化、銷售給投資者,以便將更多資金導入消費市場的金融商品操作切入,檢驗台灣證券化市場發展經驗對本土社會金融風險的影響。
與證券化市場起源的美國和鄰近的日韓社會相比,台灣的證券化市場在總體規模發展、商品類型和行動者組成三方面上呈現清楚差異,是一個異例:自首筆商品於2003年發行後,這一市場在台緩步擴張,於2007年達到發行高峰後卻迅速萎縮、停擺;其次,本土證券化商品所轉化的主要資產類型並非民眾消費債權,而是既有國內外債券或企業融資;最後,這一市場雖在部分工序有具領導優勢的廠商,但整體來說並不存在足以主導秩序的上位者。 本研究認為,台灣證券化市場的不穩定和脆弱性必須透過檢視這一場域的行動者互動經驗,和預期被證券化的主要資產——即房貸——來理解:回顧市場開放歷程,台灣政府並未設想證券化有活絡金融市場以外的目標,因此未積極介入其中或將此一市場與住宅等其他政策領域連結,導致理論中主流的房貸證券化無法成為常態,反而僅在特定、偶然的條件中,企業融資或債券之證券化才成為金融機構、政府間的共識,但隨著市場條件轉變、外部衝擊發生,這一脆弱的共識和市場本身也迅速瓦解;至於房貸這一商品本身,由於具有發展歷程早、未造成系統性危機以及政府習於直接透過公股行庫提供低利優惠商品等條件,成為台灣社會最熟悉的金融工具之一,和日、韓比較下不需要金融機構額外吸收資金也能支撐,因此缺乏將房貸證券化的動力,也成為證券化市場無法穩定運作、持續發行商品的另一主因。 綜上,本研究的發現指出:台灣證券化市場的萎縮無法直接以利率、法律地位或金融機構心態等傳統解釋回答,而是場域互動和資產本身特性限制下的結果;此外,證券化尚未對台灣造成信用關係複雜化、提升金融治理網絡難度或系統性風險等影響,因此與既有金融化研究就企業層次資料所作的判斷不同;不過在證券化或住宅金融市場,台灣政府的治理與美國相比更強調直接補貼等「現身」的介入方式,因而可能對國家帶來更大的財政壓力。 As its financial sector expands in recent decades, Taiwan has been widely viewed as a financialized society, which might be easily undermined by market booms or bursts. By investigating a sub-field of the Taiwanese financial sector, the securitization market, this study will examine the proposition above and evaluates how much systematic risk is Taiwan society bearing. Invented in the 1960s U.S. society, securitization is a financial technique that helps banks to collect and transforms their tremendous loans into a commodity that can be traded in the market, enhancing the liquidity of those assets. Compared with the U.S. and its neighbor countries, Japan and Korea, there are three unique aspects of the Taiwanese securitization market: first, the market had gradually developed since the initial product issued in 2003, but soon perished after the global crisis in 2008 while its counterparts survived; second, the bonds traded in the market were most backed by corporate loans or foreign bonds rather than mortgage, which is common in other societies; third, there was no clear incumbent that formulates the order or a shared culture in the market. The exceptional fragility and instability of the Taiwanese securitization market, according to this study, stemmed from both the interaction between the state and other actors in the field and the character of mortgages—the most common securitized asset in other markets—in Taiwanese political-economical context. During its development in the mid-2000s, neither did the Taiwanese government set any policy aim for the market, nor did the officials actively intervene in the field to coordinate the interest between actors, lowering financial institution’s willingness to keep issuing products. Only in few consequences did the state and the financial sector reach a consensus that brought about temporary prosperity to the market. Furthermore, the indifferent attitude of the state was caused by its housing finance policy tradition: since mortgage has been widespread for decades and there has not been any systematic real estate crisis, Taiwan government has been used to providing low-interest mortgage to subside homebuyers and promote homeownership with state-owned banks, restricting the profitability and necessity of mortgage securitization. Above all, this study argues that the traditional explanations of the decline of the Taiwanese securitization market—such as the products’ low-interest rate, the incomplete law system, or the conservative attitude of local banks—fail to perceive the institutional origin of the market. Besides, the local securitization experience suggests that the link between consumer loan and financial market has not been formed, lowering the financial risk of Taiwan and the difficulty of governance for the government. However, since the Taiwan housing finance policy highlights direct subsidies rather than indirect statecrafts, the legacy might intensify the government’s financial burden and limit its willingness to expand new welfare services. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73604 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU201904017 |
全文授權: | 有償授權 |
顯示於系所單位: | 社會學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.99 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。