Skip navigation

DSpace

機構典藏 DSpace 系統致力於保存各式數位資料(如:文字、圖片、PDF)並使其易於取用。

點此認識 DSpace
DSpace logo
English
中文
  • 瀏覽論文
    • 校院系所
    • 出版年
    • 作者
    • 標題
    • 關鍵字
    • 指導教授
  • 搜尋 TDR
  • 授權 Q&A
    • 我的頁面
    • 接受 E-mail 通知
    • 編輯個人資料
  1. NTU Theses and Dissertations Repository
  2. 社會科學院
  3. 經濟學系
請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件: http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/91286
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位值語言
dc.contributor.advisor謝德宗zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisorDer-Tzon Hsiehen
dc.contributor.author吳欣樺zh_TW
dc.contributor.authorHsin-Hua Wuen
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-20T16:19:13Z-
dc.date.available2023-12-21-
dc.date.copyright2023-12-20-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.date.submitted2023-09-05-
dc.identifier.citation(一)中文部分
1. 何喜將(2005)。公司治理機制與銀行風險承擔之實證研究[未出版之碩士論文]。銘傳大學會計學系研究所。
2. 吳怡芬(2007)。總體經濟變數對本國銀行逾放比率關係之研究[未出版之碩士論文]。世新大學財務金融學研究所。
3. 吳建良(2004)。資本適足率與逾期放款率對銀行財務績效之影響[未出版之碩士論文]。世新大學經濟學研究所。
4. 李沃牆、林惠娜、劉雅鳳(2013)。官股銀行放款集中度對經營績效及逾放之影響分析。朝陽商管評論,12(2),93-112。
5. 沈中華、王健安(2002)。是“粗心放款者”,還是“壞的借款者”使銀行經營績效低落?。台灣金融財務季刊,3(1),141-158。
6. 沈中華、張家華(2004)。違約機率與總體經濟相關性。信用資訊月刊,3。
7. 周群新(1997)。調整風險後之銀行成本結構與效率分析:以台灣銀行業為實證研究[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所。
8. 林左裕、賴郁媛(2005)。我國銀行業逾放比與總體經濟因素間關係之研究。商管科技季刊,6(1),165-179。
9. 林玉婷(2008)。銀行風險、逾期放款率與資本適足率之關係研究-我國銀行之實證分析[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺北商業技術學院財務金融研究所。
10. 吳維倫(2015)。台灣銀行業逾期放款比率影響要素之研究:民營與官股金控之比較[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所。
11. 柯一姍(2007)。銀行出售不良債權對其財務績效之影響[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺灣大學社會科學院經濟學系。
12. 倪衍森、鄭新民、黃寶玉(2009)。銀行營業特性與資本適足率會影響逾放比?。商管科技季刊,10(3),465-489。
13. 張振芳(2012)。國內銀行存放款成長率與資產品質之相關性研究[未出版之碩士論文]。國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程。
14. 張雅晴(2014)。市場競爭及監理制度下銀行多角化經營對風險之影響—以亞洲地區商業銀行為例[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺北大學經濟學系。
15. 符紹樺(2019)。銀行逾期放款影響因子之研究[未出版之碩士論文]。國防大學資源管理及決策研究所。
16. 陳姿穎(2010)。台灣銀行業逾放比率影響因素之探討[未出版之碩士論文]。國立政治大學行政管理碩士學程。
17. 陳昱光(2010)。銀行集中程與金融穩定之跨國性研究[未出版之碩士論文]。長庚大學工商管理學系。
18. 陳椿鶯(2008)。銀行業資產品質與經營績效關聯性之研究[未出版之碩士論文]。逢甲大學會計學系。
19. 彭美玲(2005)。本國銀行經營績效之實證研究。商管科技季刊,6(1),137-163。
20. 曾昭玲、陳世能、林俊宏(2005)。逾放比對銀行經營績效影響之多期性研究。台灣金融財務季刊,6(4),41-68。
21. 曾銘宗(2000)。逾期放款比率與經濟成長率及失業率間之研究。存款保險資訊季刊,14(1),140-149。
22. 黃健銘、簡郁蓉、鄭婉秀(2008)。台灣金融機構公司治理特性與違約風險之探討。會計與公司治理,5(1),33-53。
23. 楊雲光(2007)。我國銀行業逾期放款比率影響因素之研究[未出版之碩士論文]。國立政治大學行政管理研究所。
24. 楊蓁海(2006)。我國銀行授信行為與景氣循環的關係:兼論新版巴賽爾資本協定的順循環影響效果暨其因應之道。中央銀行季刊,28(1),43-72。
25. 蔡宗儒(2006)。銀行放款成長率、逾放比率與經營效率之關聯性分析[未出版之碩士論文]。國立宜蘭大學經營管理研究所。
26. 蔡美芳(2000)。逾期放款、高階主管持股比率與銀行績效間關係之研究[未出版之碩士論文]。國立高雄第一科技大學金融營運研究所。
27. 鄭伶如(2006)。不良債權與經營績效關係性之研究—以台灣銀行業為例。聖約翰學報,23,189-202。
28. 鄭嘉慶(1996)。擠兌風險與景氣波動關係之探討—信用合作社之實證分析[未出版之碩士論文]。國立臺灣大學經濟學研究所。
(二)英文部分
1. Asteriou, D., & Price, S. (2005). Uncertainty, investment and economic growth: evidence from a dynamic panel., Review of Development Economics, 9(2), 277-288.
2. Belsley, D. A. (1991). Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression., New York: John Wiley and Sons.
3. Berger, A. N., & Bouwman, C. H. (2013), How does capital affect bank performance during financial crises?, Journal of Financial Economics, 109(1), 146-176.
4. Berger, A. N., & DeYoung, R. (1997). Problem loans and cost efficiency in commercial banks., Journal of Banking & Finance, 21(6), 849-870.
5. Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (2004). The institutional memory hypothesis and the procyclicality of bank lending behavior., Journal of Financial Intermediation, 13(4), 458-495.
6. Bernanke, B. S., Lown, C. S., & Friedman, B. M. (1991). The credit crunch.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1991(2), 205-247.
7. Boardman, A. E., & Vining, A. R. (1989). Ownership and performance in competitive environments: A comparison of the performance of private, mixed, and state-owned enterprises.”, The Journal of Law and Economics, 32(1), 1-33.
8. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics., The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239-253.
9. Brinkmann, E. J., & Horvitz, P. M. (1995). Risk-based capital standards and the credit crunch.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(3), 848-863.
10. Carlson, M., Shan, H., & Warusawitharana, M. (2013) Capital ratios and bank lending: A matched bank approach., Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(4), 663-687.
11. Cavallo, M., & Majnoni, G. (2002). Do Banks Provision for Bad Loans in Good Times?: Empirical Evidence and Policy Implications., Ratings, Rating Agencies and the Global Financial System, 319-342.
12. Cebenoyan, A. S., Cooperman, E. S., & Register, C. A. (1995). Deregulation, reregulation, equity ownership, and S&L risk-taking., Financial Management, 63-76.
13. Chan, Y., S. Greenbaum, and A. Thakor. (1986). Information reusability,competition and bank asset quality., Journal of Banking and Finance, 10, 243-253.
14. Dimitrios, A. (2006). Applied econometrics: a modern approach using EView and Microfit., Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
15. Foos, D., Norden, L., & Weber, M. (2010). Loan growth and riskiness of banks., Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(12), 2929-2940.
16. Furlong, F. T. (1992). Capital regulation and bank lending., Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, (3), 23.
17. Gambacorta, L., & Marques-Ibanez, D. (2011). The bank lending channel: lessons from the crisis., Economic Policy, 26(66), 135-182.
18. Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric Analysis, Pearson Education India.
19. Handorf, W. C., & Zhu, L. (2006). US Bank loan-loss provisions, economic conditions, and regulatory guidance., Journal of Applied Finance, 16(1).
20. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics., Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 1251-1271.
21. Hsiao, C. (1986). Analysis of Panel Data, Vol. 11 of Econometric Society Monographs., Cambridge University Press, New York.
22. Hughes, J. P., & Mester, L. J. (1993). A quality and risk-adjusted cost function for banks: Evidence on the “too-big-to-fail” doctrine., Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4(3), 293-315.
23. Keeton, W. R., & Morris, C. S. (1987). Why do banks’ loan losses differ., Economic Review, 72(5), 3-21.
24. Louzis, D. P., Vouldis, A. T., & Metaxas, V. L. (2012). Macroeconomic and bank-specific determinants of non-performing loans in Greece: A comparative study of mortgage, business and consumer loan portfolios., Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(4), 1012-1027.
25. Niu, J. (2016). Loan growth and bank valuations., The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 61, 185-191.
26. Peek, J., & Rosengren, E. (1995). Bank regulation and the credit crunch., Journal of Banking & Finance, 19(3-4), 679-692.
27. Qian, D., Dickey, E. C., Andrews, R., & Rantell, T. (2000). Load transfer and deformation mechanisms in carbon nanotube-polystyrene composites., Applied physics letters, 76(20), 2868-2870.
28. Schularick, M., & Taylor, A. M. (2012). Credit booms gone bust: monetary policy, leverage cycles, and financial crises, 1870–2008., American Economic Review, 102(2), 1029-1061.
29. Shen, C. H., & Chih, H. L. (2005). Investor protection, prospect theory, and earnings management: An international comparison of the banking industry., Journal of Banking & Finance, 29(10), 2675-2697.
30. Zarruk, E. R. (1989). Bank spread with uncertain deposit level and risk aversion., Journal of Banking & Finance, 13(6), 797-810.
-
dc.identifier.urihttp://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/91286-
dc.description.abstract1990年代以後,國營銀行民營化,開放外資進入臺灣金融市場,同時加強金融監理和風險管理。政府促使台灣原本以國營銀行為主的銀行業,慢慢走向以民營銀行為主的開放競爭產業,逐步由金融管制走向市場機制的發展。自此,臺灣金融業開始面臨高度劇烈競爭、利潤下滑和風險劇增等問題,各家銀行為了爭取客戶,將有傾向降低授信標準,進而推升逾期放款比率,金融監理及風險管理也成為現代金融業的重要議題。因此,本研究期望能從銀行眾多的指標中歸納出影響逾期放款比率的關鍵因素,以做為銀行業經營者以及政府擬訂金融政策參考,以維護金融體系穩定運行。
本研究蒐集了2008~2022年台灣八大官股銀行及七大的民營金控的共15家銀行為分析樣本,並分為八大官股銀行、七大民營金控及15家銀行三個模型。分析工具上則採用了縱橫資料模型(Panel data model),來探討影響逾期放款比率的關聯因素,以及官股銀行與民營金控兩者間經營績效的差異。
實證結果顯示,在銀行財務結構面,備抵呆帳占逾期放款比率與逾放比率呈現負相關。資本適足率呈現負相關。企業放款餘額占放款總額呈現正相關。消費者貸款餘額占放款總額比率呈現顯著正相關。總體經濟因素方面,經濟成長率呈現顯著性的負向關聯。失業率於官股銀行的模型上呈現顯著正相關,而民營的模型則呈現負相關。
zh_TW
dc.description.abstractAfter the 1990s, there was a wave of privatization of government banks, the opening of Taiwan's financial market to foreign capital, and simultaneously, an enhancement of financial supervision and risk management. The government propelled Taiwan's banking sector, which had been primarily dominated by public banks, toward becoming a competitive industry primarily led by private banks. This transition gradually shifted the focus from financial regulation to market mechanisms. Consequently, Taiwan's financial industry began to grapple with challenges such as intense competition, declining profits, and heightened risks. In order to attract customers, many banks tended to lower credit standards, resulting in an increase in the non-performing loan ratio. Financial supervision and risk management emerged as pivotal concerns in the modern financial landscape. As a result, this study aims to distill the key factors influencing the non-performing loan ratio from a multitude of bank indicators, serving as a reference for both bank operators and government policymakers to craft financial policies that sustain stable financial system operations.
This study collected 2008 to 2022 of Taiwan's eight major public banks and seven major private banks as study sample. Also, the model used for analysis is panel data model. To explore the factors influencing the non-performing loan ratio and to examine the differences in operational performance between public banks and private banks.
Empirical results indicate that in the bank's financial structure, the non-performing loan ratio are negative correlated with NPL coverage ratio, capital adequacy ratio is negatively correlated with non-performing loans ratio. The ratio of corporate loans to the total loans is positive correlation, the ratios of consumer loans to the total loans is significant positive correlation. Finally, as for Macroeconomic Indicators, GDP growth rate is significant negative correlation. The unemployment rate is significant positive correlation in the model of public banks , whereas in the model of private banks is negative correlation.
en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by admin ntu (admin@lib.ntu.edu.tw) on 2023-12-20T16:19:13Z
No. of bitstreams: 0
en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2023-12-20T16:19:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0en
dc.description.tableofcontents誌謝 i
中文摘要 ii
ABSTRACT iii
目錄 iv
圖目錄 v
表目錄 vi
第一章 緒論 1
1.1 研究背景與動機 1
1.2 研究目的 7
1.3 研究架構 8
第二章 文獻回顧 9
2.1 銀行業授信風險 9
2.2 逾放比率 10
2.3 銀行財務結構 11
2.4 總體因素 14
第三章 實證模型與研究方法 17
3.1實證模型的建立與變數說明 17
3.2 研究方法 20
第四章 實證結果 25
4.1 敘述統計量分析 25
4.2 實證結果分析 29
4.3 迴歸分析實證結果 35
第五章 結論與建議 39
5.1 研究結論 39
5.2 研究限制與建議 40
參考文獻 42
-
dc.language.isozh_TW-
dc.subject民營金控zh_TW
dc.subject逾期放款比率zh_TW
dc.subject縱橫資料模型zh_TW
dc.subject官股銀行zh_TW
dc.subject逾期放款比率zh_TW
dc.subject縱橫資料模型zh_TW
dc.subject官股銀行zh_TW
dc.subject民營金控zh_TW
dc.subjectPublic Banksen
dc.subjectPrivate Banksen
dc.subjectPanel data modelen
dc.subjectNon-Performing loan ratioen
dc.subjectPrivate Banksen
dc.subjectPublic Banksen
dc.subjectPanel data modelen
dc.subjectNon-Performing loan ratioen
dc.title官股及非官股銀行逾放比率影響因素之比較zh_TW
dc.titleA comparison of the determinants of the non-performing loan ratio between public and private banksen
dc.typeThesis-
dc.date.schoolyear112-1-
dc.description.degree碩士-
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee林惠玲;李顯峰;楊志海zh_TW
dc.contributor.oralexamcommitteeHui-Lin Lin;Hsien-Feng Lee;Chih-Hai Yangen
dc.subject.keyword逾期放款比率,縱橫資料模型,官股銀行,民營金控,zh_TW
dc.subject.keywordNon-Performing loan ratio,Panel data model,Public Banks,Private Banks,en
dc.relation.page46-
dc.identifier.doi10.6342/NTU202304215-
dc.rights.note同意授權(限校園內公開)-
dc.date.accepted2023-09-07-
dc.contributor.author-college社會科學院-
dc.contributor.author-dept經濟學系-
顯示於系所單位:經濟學系

文件中的檔案:
檔案 大小格式 
ntu-112-1.pdf
授權僅限NTU校內IP使用(校園外請利用VPN校外連線服務)
2.99 MBAdobe PDF
顯示文件簡單紀錄


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。

社群連結
聯絡資訊
10617臺北市大安區羅斯福路四段1號
No.1 Sec.4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C. 106
Tel: (02)33662353
Email: ntuetds@ntu.edu.tw
意見箱
相關連結
館藏目錄
國內圖書館整合查詢 MetaCat
臺大學術典藏 NTU Scholars
臺大圖書館數位典藏館
本站聲明
© NTU Library All Rights Reserved