| 摘要: | 摘 要 銀行在國家經濟體系裡扮演重要的角色，其放款政策往往帶動經濟成長，但是錯誤的放款也讓經濟向下沈淪。本國銀行近幾年飽受呆帳之苦，讓金融業者必須自我檢討，銀行是不是有清楚的目標，風險管理的制度是否健全。銀行以社會大眾存款為放款來源，對社會的責任不言可喻，風險管理必須更嚴謹。 銀行從徵信、審核、撥貸到不良放款的求償，都是風險管理重要的環節。償還率的研究在探討風險管理的最後一個環節，由分析影響償還率的因素及實證結果，回饋給制定授信政策、呆帳準備、擔保品鑑估、預估損失、授信訂價、計算風險值等攸關風險管理的要素參考，檢視是否合理。 本研究之目的主要在探討下列三個主題1.影響償還率的因素2.償還率影響因素交叉分析3.新舊銀行償還率的差異。並以個案及實證的方式探討。 在個案裡以某一電子公司，從授信的背景、造成違約的因素、及影響償還率的因素，到各銀行最後的償還率作詳實的論述。 實證研究方面，以A銀行授信資料，81年至91年違約企業146家，包含違約案件223筆為樣本，作償還率的實證研究。利用兩樣本平均數檢定與變異數分析檢視產業別、額度使用率、授信期間、總體經濟、企業之金融負債比率與企業信用情形對償還率之影響。另外並對新舊銀行的償還率予以比較。 本研究之最後實證結果為把影響償還率的因素分成三類(1)借戶自身的體質(2)外在經濟環境的影響(3)授信條件(徵提的擔保品或授信期間等)。影響最大的仍為擔保品因素，其中不動產的償還率最高48.24%，其次依序為中小信保基金36.88%、機器21.91%、應收票據7. 8%、無擔保8.9%。借戶自身的體質，以評等及金融負債比來檢定對償還率的影響，評分60分以上的償還率為26.6%，較60分以下的21.87%為高。金融負債比100%以下的償還率為27.3%，高於100%以上的21.02%。受外在經濟環境的影響，本項研究以86年金融風暴為分界，86年以前的償還率為30.53%，以後為16.26%。以當年度臺股加權指數漲跌區分，加權指數漲的年度償還率為24.29%，跌的年度償還率為19.82%。 在新舊銀行比較方面，舊銀行中工業銀行的償還率較高，最主要的因素在於有徵提擔保品，尤其廠房均設定於該銀行。取五家舊行庫，依不同的樣本其償還率為交銀(21件樣本)45% ，彰銀(40件樣本)47%，台銀(19件樣本)18%，一銀(48件樣本)37%。五家新銀行償還率分別為萬泰(樣本20件)22%，泛亞(樣本16件)10%，台新(樣本10件)11%，安泰(樣本9件)0%，中興(樣本25件)17%。 Abstract Bank plays an important role in the national economic system. Its policy drives the economic growth, yet ill-determined loans would damage the economy. Domestic banks in Taiwan have been suffering from dead loans over the past few years, thus, the financial corporations are forced to review their definition of goals, as well the completeness of the risk management system. Banks feed the public’s savings to supply loans, hence, their social responsibilities are self-evident and risk management policies required careful execution. Credit check, loan approval, appropriation, and claim for non-performing loans are all important risk management segments. The study on recovery rate discussed the last segment of the risk management. The factors affecting the recovery rate and empirical results were provided as guidelines on policy making, preparation for bad debt, collateral appraisal, forecast loss, loan pricing, calculation of risk value. The purpose of this study is to discuss the following three topics: 1) factors affecting recovery rate; 2) cross analysis on the abovementioned factors; 3) the difference between the recovery rate of new and old banks. Case study and empirical study were conducted. The case study analyzed the loan background of an electronics company that attributed to infringement of the contract, and the factors affecting the recovery rate. Lastly, detailed discussion on the recovery rate of various banks was provided. The empirical study focused on the recovery rate of Bank A, provided 146 companies and 223 cases of non-performing loans from 1992 to 2002. The average values and variant analysis were conducted to examine the effect of industry, credit usage ratio, loan period, overall economy, the liability ratio, and credit status of the company on recovery rate. The difference between the recovery rate of new and old banks was discussed. The results of the empirical study classified factors affecting the recovery rate into three groups: 1) the characteristics of the debtor; 2) the influence of the external environment; 3) loan conditions (collateral or loan period). The most influential factor was the collateral, of which the recovery rate for real estate was the highest at 48.24%, followed by medium to small trust fund at 36.88%, machinery at 21.91%, check receivable at 7.8%, and no collateral at 8.9%. The evaluation of the debtor’s characteristics, rating, and liability showed that the recovery rate of those rated 60 or above at 26.6%, followed by below 60 at 21.87%. The recovery rate of those with liability ratio of 100% or below was 27.3%, over 100% was 21.02%. Under the external economic influence, based on line of division at 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, the recovery rate before 1997 was 30.53%, and after 1997 was 16.26%. Based on the up and down trend of Taiwan Weighted, the recovery rate in upward trend was 24.29%, and in downward trend was 19.82%. In comparison of new and old banks, Industrial Taiwan of Taiwan had the highest recovery rate amongst old banks because of its requirement on collaterals, namely factory buildings. Based on different sample cases, the recovery rate for Chiao Tung Bank (21 cases) was 45%, Chang Hua Bank (40 cases) was 47%, Bank of Taiwan (19 cases) was 18%, First Bank (48 cases) was 37%. For the new banks, the recovery rate for Cosmos Bank (20 cases) was 22%, Pan Asian Bank (16 cases) was 10%, Tai Shin Bank (10 cases) was 11%, Entie Commercial Bank (9 cases) was 0%, and Chung Shing Bank (25 cases) was 17%. |
