| 摘要: | 中央銀行為因應2008年下半年起引發的金融海嘯，採取寬鬆的貨幣政策，欲刺激經濟市場景氣。受到這股資金行情影響，使得國內房地產市場大幅上漲，為了抑制房價不合理飆漲，政府自民國2010年下半年起實施一連串的房市管制措施，其目的是避免授信過度集中以穩定金融、打擊投資客炒作房地產並促使房價回歸合理行情及防止房價泡沫。央行為了防止房市出現泡沫，積極從需求和供給兩方面壓制成交量。再者，財政部奢侈稅的開徵，造成短線投資客退場觀望，建商推案適度調整，新屋及中古屋交易量縮減。而金管會為避免銀行放款過度集中在不動產，對各銀行設下「房貸佔放款比重限10%」、「土建融佔放款比重限30%」及「以不動產為擔保佔放款比重限70%」3大標準。各銀行因此只能減少新承作的不動產放款或增提損失準備金，進而衝擊獲利，因此各銀行面臨更多經營上之挑戰，其是否能透過經營方向之調整使資源使用更具效率，是值得予以探討的議題。本研究以國內33家銀行作為研究對象，並將33家銀行劃分為公股銀行、大型民營銀行及中小型民營銀行，就政府房市管控措施前後期間（2007年至2013年）共28季來進行各銀行之經營效率評估，並運用資料包絡分析法(data envelopment analysis，DEA)求算效率值，比較公股銀行、大型民營銀行及中小型民營銀行之經營效率，並使用麥氏生產力指數(malmquist productivity index，MPI)衡量各銀行生產力變動情形。實證結果顯示在運用DEA求算效率值中，在房市管控措施實施後，公股銀行及大型民營銀行都需降低規模以改善效率，而中小型民營銀行則需增加規模改善效率，由此可知房市管控措施之實施確實影響了銀行之經營效率。進一步使用Malmquist生產力指數衡量銀行生產力變動情形，結果顯示房市管控措施實施後中小型民營銀行生產力呈現成長，而公股銀行與大型民營銀行銀行則呈現衰退。;In order to stimulate the economy market boom, the central bank had taken eased monetary policy in response to the financial crisis from the second half of 2008. Influenced by the flood of funds, the domestic real estate market raised sharply. In order to inhibit unreasonable prices soaring, the government has implemented many measures to curb housing prices since the second half of 2009. The purpose for those policies are to avoid credit excessive concentration to stabilize financial, to combat investors real estate speculation, to procure housing prices return to reasonable prices and to prevent the housing bubble. The central bank in order to prevent the housing market bubble, actively suppress the volume from both the demand and supply. Furthermore, luxury tax imposed from Ministry of Finance, causes short-term investors sidelined, and builders push the case appropriately adjusted, and reduce transaction volume of new homes and existing housing. FSC sets the three conditions for each bank in order to avoid excessive concentration in Real Estate Loans. Therefore, banks can only reduce making new real estate loans or provide additional loss reserves. Banks face management challenges because the impact of profit. It is an important issue to investigate whether makes resource distribution more efficiently by management direction adjustment.
This research is taking 33 domestic banks for example. We divide 33 banks into state-owned banks, medium and small scale private banks, and large scale private banks. The purpose of this research is to estimate the efficiency values of 33 domestic banks during pre-and post-housing market control measures period (from 2007 to 2013) by adoptinng DEA models and use malmqusit productivity index (MPI) to evaluate the relative efficiency and productivity.
The empirical results show that when using DEA to calculate the efficiency values, in the post-housing market control measures period, the efficiency values of state-owned banks and large scale private banks , are required to reduce the scale to improve efficiency. medium and small scale private banks need to increase the scale to improve efficiency. It can be seen, the implementation of control measures for the housing market does affect the management efficiency of banks. Further by using the malmquist productivity index, the results show that medium and small scale private banks’ productivity growth are superior to state-owned banks and large scale private banks in the post-housing market control measures period. |
