| 摘要: | 根據金管會在2011年3月公布的本國銀行營運概況，2010年本國銀行全年稅數前盈餘1831億元，刷新2004年創下的最高獲利紀錄1553億元。本國銀行獲利排名第一的是花旗(台灣)銀行(以下簡稱花旗)，其稅前盈餘高達178億元。花旗併購原本經營虧損的華僑銀行，改為本國銀行，經過一、兩年的改造，便把其他本國銀行遠拋在後面。反觀擁有302家分行通路據點的合作金庫(以下簡稱合庫)，獲利僅有88億元，而僅有66家分行通路的花旗卻搶下獲利冠軍寶座。 花旗及合庫，都不是金控旗下的銀行，為何花旗這麼賺錢？換言之，究竟花旗的商業模式(Business Model)有何獨到之處？本研究以個案研究的方式探討合庫及花旗的商業模式有何異同，分析合庫在面對當前的經營環境如何提出價值創造策略，利用Porter的「五力分析」釐清個案公司所處的競爭環境，並有系統的辨識產業中的機會與威脅。其次，比較花旗與合庫的商業模式找出合庫的優勢與劣勢。最後，以SWOT分析提出合作金庫的經營策略並對策略進行價值分析。 本研究發現花旗以健全的商業模式為基礎，運用豐富的金融知識及專業人員，結合最新科技以及強大全球金融網路與當地金融合作，設計各類解決方案給予客戶最有效率及安全之跨國及當地的商業銀行服務。合庫的商業模式開創性不足，未能配合金融環境變化，適時提供符合顧客需求之新金融商品，新種金融業務之專業人才培訓不及，無法適時滿足市場需求。因此，合庫應改變舊有的商業模式，其中以下列策略措施：包括強化總行組織功能、分行整併及集中作業、提升ERP系統、拓展新業務版圖、制定不適任人員退場機制、及設計績效管理制度獎勵績優員工等策略對合庫的公司價值貢獻最大。 The Financial Supervisory Commission announced in March 2011 that the domestic banks have a pre-tax income of NT$183.1 billion for the year of 2010, surpassing the record of NT$155.3 billion of 2004 . The most profitable domestic bank is the Citigroup (Taiwan) (hereafter, Citigroup), with pre-tax profit of 17.8 billion. After the merger of OCBC Bank, a bank suffering losses, The the Citigroup (Taiwan) transformed into a profitable domestic bank far beyong all other domestic banks. In contast to Citigroup which owns only 66 local chanells, Taiwan Cooperative Bank (hereafter, Cooperative) owns 302 local chanells but only had are not financial holding banks. Taiwan Cooperative Bank has 302 locations, but it only has a pre-tax income of NT$ 8.8 billion. Both Citigroup and Cooperative are not financial holding banks. What made Citigroup so profitable? In other words, what is the unique feature of its business model? This question is worthy of our research effort. The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, it tries to explore the differences in business models of both banks. Second, it attemps to analyse the value creation strategies to be derived by Cooperative facing the operating environment. This study first uses the Porter’s five forces framework to identify the opportuities and threats to the Cooperative. Next, it use the business model proposed by Alexander Osterwalder and Yves Pigneur to compare the differences between Citigroup and Cooperative. Finally, it employs the SWOT framework to derive the value creation strategies and analyses the business value creation based on the strategic assumptions. The findings of this study are as follows. Based on its sound business model Citigroup used its superior financial knowledge base, well trained employees, advanced technology, and global financial network, collaborating with local banking institutions, to design financial solutions and banking services for its customers in an efficient way. On ther other hand, Cooperative was not able to repond to changes of banking environment and stick to its old business model. Cooperative has to reinvent its business model. Among the strategic intiatives, reorganizing the headquarter functional groups, reshuffling and integrating the operations of branch offices, upgrading the ERP system, designing new products and entering the new markets, setting up the exit scheme for incompetent employees, and designing an incentive system to keep the talented employess are the most urgent and effectiive approach to creating the enterprise value. |
