銀行產業之特性使得其容易遭受流動性風險之影響，且現行的新巴塞爾資本協定(BASEL II)未具備統一的流動性管理制度，導致銀行在金融危機時期，因為流動性短缺招致經營困境，造成金融體系的崩潰。為此巴塞爾銀行監理委員會(BASEL Committee on Banking Supervision, BCBS)在2010年提出巴塞爾資本協定三(BASEL III)，除了對於資本要求提出較嚴格定義外，更首度對流動性風險提出量化指標，包含流動性覆蓋比率(Liquidity Coverage Ratio, LCR)以及淨穩定資金比率(Net Stable Funding Ratio, NSFR)。本文將採用個案研究與實證分析，分別探討兩項規範指標實施後將對銀行之資產負債表內外結構產生何種影響。研究結果指出，若銀行選擇增加第二層高品質流動性資產以提升高品質流動性資產總額，將使利息收入高於投資在第一層高品質流動性資產，銀行可同時兼顧監理機關最低監理要求和公司獲利。淨穩定資金比率方面，外商銀行的表現明顯優於公股及民營銀行。而實證結果亦顯示若淨穩定資金比率於研究期間開始執行，將使銀行更加謹慎審視其所面臨之風險，進而減少自身所承擔之風險，以提升資本穩定度。 / After financial crisis, the turmoil in global financial markets raises issues with macroeconomic policies, financial stabilities and regulations. Hence BASEL III has been introduced. BASEL III is a comprehensive set of reform measures, proposed by the BASEL Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS). It builds on the BASEL I and BASEL II documents, and seeks to enhance the banking sector's ability, improve risk management and banks' transparency. Besides, it introduced two required liquidity ratios, i.e. the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) and the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR). This paper investigates the impact of new liquidity regulations on banks’ balance sheet structure by two methodologies. First, we study the case of bank in Taiwan to find out how LCR affects bank’s operation. Secondly, we select 18 commercial banks in Taiwan and classify them into three categories based on the type of ultimate controller to tell differences among three samples concerning the components of NSFR. Finally, we applied NEWEY-WEST HAC method with samples of 18 commercial banks in Taiwan to figure out the factors that may affects bank’s risk-taking, we utilize and analysis each bank’s financials during the period from 2010 to 2013. Our results show that the object of the study can reach the minimum requirement of LCR. Besides, BASEL III capital stability requirement, if implemented in the sample period, probably would diminish risk-taking by banks. This research can also provide banks with the information about how the liquidity regulations affect banks’ balance sheet structure.

巴塞爾銀行監督委員會(Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, BCBS) 於2010年發布巴塞爾資本協定三。為強化銀行流動性風險管理，新增兩項流動性風險量化衡量指標：流動性覆蓋比率(Liquidity Coverage Ratio, LCR)以及淨穩定資金比率(Net Stable Funding Ratio, NSFR)。我國於2015年開始將流動性覆蓋比率納入監管要求，亦將於2018年開始導入淨穩定資金比率。然而在提高銀行風險控管及標準的同時，銀行需考量其股東權益報酬。新規範的實施使銀行需要進行調整以符合法規，過往鮮少有研究針對本國銀行探討其資產配置調整與結構調整。本研究除探討個案銀行如何在巴塞爾資本協定三框架下調整其資產負債配置與結構，更進一步探討其各項調整對銀行之獲利能力以及各項法定比率之影響，希望能幫助銀行在未來調整結構之前能更了解其決策所帶來之影響。 本研究發現，在不提高資產負債表規模的情況下，可以透過銀行結構調整達到巴塞爾資本協定三於2019年之標準，同時提高銀行獲利能力；在適度提高資產負債表規模的情況之下，其獲利能力高於不提高資產負債表規模之情況。此外，本研究針對不同情境探討銀行應如何調整資產負債配置與銀行結構。風險趨避情境相較於風險偏好下，應在存放款方面，吸收更多長天期之存款、降低長期放款占比；資產配置方面則應增加政府公債占比。由於巴塞爾資本協定三採階段性實施，本研究針對個案銀行2015到2019 年之資產負債配置與銀行結構做研究，發現個案銀行隨著法規越趨嚴格，應提高公司債占比並同時降低權益類等相對風險較高之資產占比；另一方面為達到淨穩定資金比率要求，銀行應提高其長期存款占比。最後，本研究針對各項結構與資產負債配置調整做更深入的分析，探討其對於各項指標之敏感度，以實際的量化數字表示每項變動的影響，以利銀行在做決策時更了解其決策之利與弊。 / Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) released Basel III in 2010. In order to ensure the maintenance and stability of funding and liquidity profiles of banks’ balance sheets, two liquidity standards, Liquidity Coverage Ratio(LCR) and Net Stable Funding Ratio(NSFR), were introduced in Basel III. To in line with international norm, Taiwan government plans to implement LCR and NSFR in 2015 and 2018 respectively. However, there is a trade-off between return and risk. With the implement of new law, how to adjust banks’ asset allocation becomes a critical issue. In this study, we focus on business structure and ways to adjust A bank’s asset allocation. We found that A bank can meet government’s requirements and increase it’s return on equity without increasing balance sheet size by adjusting business structure; In the situation where balance sheet size is increased, A bank can meet the requirements with higher return on equity than where the balance sheet size isn’t increased. In three different scenarios: risk seeking, risk neutral and risk aversion, we found that A bank should increase more long-term deposits and decrease long-term loans in risk aversion scenario than in risk seeking scenario. In risk aversion scenario, A bank should also hold more government bonds than in risk seeking scenario. From 2015 to 2019, the requirements become stricter and stricter, A bank should hold more corporate bonds and less securities. At the same time, A bank should increase more long-term deposits to meet the NSFR requirement. The research also shows how business structure and asset allocation changes can affect A bank’s related required ratio and return on equity. Our findings can help A bank makes more precise decision by knowing actual quantitative influence before they implement the new policies.