【第一篇論文中文摘要】 集中度風險於結構式商品的量化與分析：以房屋抵押貸款證券為例 "Martin and Wilde (2002)與Gordy (2003)" 針對巴塞爾協定(Basel Accords)中金融機構之投資組合所內藴之集中度風險提出了相對應的微粒化調整(Granularity Adjustment)風險量化準則，然而該模型僅止於單因子架構下探究單一信用標的集中度風險之量化。本文將其架構延用至結構式商品中，允許債權群組內之信用標的具不同區域別，我們採用Hull and White(2010)之跨池違約相關性描述，並結合Pykhtin (2004)中延拓單因子聯繫模型至多因子之方式，進而求取債權群組之單一資產集中度(Name Concentration)與區域類別集中度(Sector Concentration)風險的量化。本文以房屋抵押貸款證券(Mortgage Backed Securities, MBSs)為例，於集中度風險的考量下，藉由檢視不同風險情境下分券之損失起賠點，重新評估房屋抵押貸款證券AAA投資級分券信用評級之合理性。研究結果顯示，AAA評等之分券高度曝險於系統性風險，且於高風險情境下，標的房貸之區域集中現象擴大了違約相關性對債權群組損失分配的影響，致使AAA分券之損失起賠點得以超過其實際擔保額度(subordination)範圍。 【第二篇論文中文摘要】 美國銀行放款多角化對其報酬與風險之影響：相關性與傳染的觀點 本文目的在於分析銀行放款的多角化行為對其報酬與風險之影響。研究發現納入銀行放款投資組合相關性之考量，亦即標的資產之相關性結構以及資產間因契約關係所隱含跨投資組合之傳染途徑，將降低多角化之成效。文中透過因子模型(factor model)建構資產之報酬，同時決定其相關性結構，其中將資產間殘差項相關性作為傳染指標，進一步分析投資組合內標的資產間的平均相關係數、傳染與多角化程度間的關聯性。我們以美國銀行作為研究樣本，分別以赫芬達-赫希曼指數估算投資組合權重分配之集中度、使用組合內標的產業股票報酬資訊來計算投資組合內相關程度，接著利用標的產業與投資組合外產業間的殘差相關性來捕捉產業傳染效果，將此三項指標作為衡量多角化指標，分析其在1987年至2014年間聯貸投資組合多角化情形並試圖分析放款多角化對銀行績效之影響。透過契約關係的界定進而探討顧客傳染如何影響銀行績效。 研究發現於市場處於平穩期間(tranquil period)，所有多角化指標銀行放款均呈現放款多角化程度越高越有助於提高銀行的報酬並降低其風險。然而於危機期間(turmoil period)，銀行應將放款權重集中於部分產業、建構相關性較低之組合或選擇較低之傳染效果之產業作為放款的對象，用以提高銀行績效。隱含在危機期間銀行應該選擇適度之多角化策略，若僅以赫芬達-赫希曼指數作為多角化之衡量將顯示危機期間越集中越有助於銀行的表現，此舉將造成解釋上的偏誤。說明於投資組合多角化的衡量上，不該忽略由相關性結構所引發之集中度風險。 / 【Essay I】 Quantification and Analysis of Concentration Risk in Structured Products: the Case of Mortgage Backed Securities Granularity adjustments, introduced by Martin and While (2002) and Gordy (2003), allow one to quantify the concentration exposures of credit portfolios due to imperfect diversification. However, they focus solely on name concentrations under an Asymptotic Single Risk Factor (ASRF) framework. In this study, by adapting the multi-pool correlation structure of Hull and White (2010) under the multi-factor setting of Pykhtin (2004), we derive quantitative measures of name and sector concentration that facilitate subsequent analysis of the risk profiles embedded in Mortgage Backed Securities (MBSs). Under different stress scenarios, we examine the impacts of concentration exposures on the internal credit enhancements, in particular, the AAA tranche attachment points. We show that, under severe market conditions, the presence of sector concentrations in the underlying mortgage pools can further amplify the effects of default correlation on the portfolio loss distributions. As a direct consequence, the predetermined subordination level determined by the assignment of tranche attachment points can be exceeded. 【Essay II】 How Loan Portfolio Diversification Affects U.S. Banks’ Return and Risk: Correlation and Contagion Perspectives. In this paper we investigate how loan portfolio diversification affects the banks’ return and risk. We argue that, the dependence structure of bank loan portfolios, namely, the correlation structure among loan assets and the presence of contagion channels due to contractual relationships across the border of portfolio, contributes to the costs of diversification. Under the factor model framework, we derive a theoretical model to depict the asset returns and their dependence structure. Based on data of US bank loans collected from 1987-2014, our empirical study employs HHI, intra-portfolio correlation, and contagion as proxies for diversification to examine how loan portfolio diversification affects the banks’ profitability and riskiness. In addition, contractual relationships are identified and we investigate how customer contagion affects the bank’s performance. We find that all diversification measures exhibit a positive effect on the performance of U.S. banks during tranquil periods. However, for turmoil periods, banks with loan portfolios of more concentrated weight distributions, lower intra-portfolio correlation, or lower consumer contagion effects would have improved returns and reduced risk. In other words, during crisis, banks should choose an appropriate concentration strategy rather than focus on selected industries as determined solely by the HHI.

The greater competition and concentration in South Africa's financial sector has put South African banks under more constraints and led to questioning of their present performance. With a greater demand for financial services and more complains about the low quality of financial services and charges being too high, there has been increasing debate about how efficient South African banks really are. This study discusses performance evaluation, the traditional financial and non-financial measures used, and their limitations. The concept of bank efficiency is also briefly discussed, including scale efficiency, scope efficiency, X-efficiency, cost efficiency, standard profit efficiency, alternative profit efficiency and the risk component of bank efficiency. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was chosen as the most appropriate method to estimate the scale efficiency and technical efficiency of 37 districts (and 10 provinces) of one of the largest banks in South Africa. 'DEA involves solving linear programming problems that generate a non-parametric, piecewise linear convex frontier that envelops the input and output data relative to which cost is minimized' (Fare et al., 1985b:193). The intermediation approach was used incorporating both the input- and output-orientated approach under variable returns to scale. The analyses indicated that 19 districts out of the 37 districts were not at least once fully technically efficient during the 22 months (input- and output-orientated). The same results were found with regard to scale efficiency: 17 districts out of the 37 districts were not at least once fully scale efficient (input-orientated) and 19 districts out of the 37 districts were not at least once fully scale efficient (output-orientated), during the 22 months. Synergy was found in 6 provinces out of the 10 provinces (input- and output-orientated). / Thesis (M.Com. (Risk Management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

The greater competition and concentration in South Africa's financial sector has put South African banks under more constraints and led to questioning of their present performance. With a greater demand for financial services and more complains about the low quality of financial services and charges being too high, there has been increasing debate about how efficient South African banks really are. This study discusses performance evaluation, the traditional financial and non-financial measures used, and their limitations. The concept of bank efficiency is also briefly discussed, including scale efficiency, scope efficiency, X-efficiency, cost efficiency, standard profit efficiency, alternative profit efficiency and the risk component of bank efficiency. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was chosen as the most appropriate method to estimate the scale efficiency and technical efficiency of 37 districts (and 10 provinces) of one of the largest banks in South Africa. 'DEA involves solving linear programming problems that generate a non-parametric, piecewise linear convex frontier that envelops the input and output data relative to which cost is minimized' (Fare et al., 1985b:193). The intermediation approach was used incorporating both the input- and output-orientated approach under variable returns to scale. The analyses indicated that 19 districts out of the 37 districts were not at least once fully technically efficient during the 22 months (input- and output-orientated). The same results were found with regard to scale efficiency: 17 districts out of the 37 districts were not at least once fully scale efficient (input-orientated) and 19 districts out of the 37 districts were not at least once fully scale efficient (output-orientated), during the 22 months. Synergy was found in 6 provinces out of the 10 provinces (input- and output-orientated). / Thesis (M.Com. (Risk Management))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Les stratégies d’internationalisation des banques européennes sont-elles efficaces ? Cette thèse analyse le lien entre l’internationalisation des banques et leur performance. L’objectif étant de vérifier s’il existe des modalités d’implantation qui expliquent les écarts de bénéfices entre les établissements bancaires européens. Nous nous focalisons sur trois types de stratégies d’implantation : l’installation de filiales, les alliances ou partenariats avec des entreprises étrangères et les fusions et acquisitions transfrontalières. Parmi les filiales étrangères nous distinguons les filiales qui portent l’enseigne du groupe de celles qui portent un autre nom. Cette distinction nous permet d’analyser l’impact sur la performance du choix de garder ou non l’enseigne du groupe lors du déploiement international. Nos résultats montrent qu’il existe bien des modalités expliquant des différences de rentabilité entre les établissements. En effet, il semble qu’une implantation via des filiales portant le nom du groupe bancaire ait un impact négatif sur la performance. Par ailleurs, nous avons aussi relevé que la réalisation de partenariats transfrontaliers dans plus de dix secteurs différents n’est pas bénéfique pour la banque. / Are European banks’ cross-border strategies effective? This thesis analyzes the relationship between European banks’internationalization strategies and their performance. We investigate whether there are internationalization strategies that explain differences between European banks’ profits. We focus on three types of implementation strategies: at first, the installation of subsidiaries, then, alliances or partnerships with foreign companies and last but not least, cross-border mergers and acquisitions. Among foreign subsidiaries we distinguish those which carry the the group’s brand from those which carry a different name. This distinction allows us to analyze the results a bank can expect by keeping its company name while expanding overseas. Our results show that there are strategies that explain differences in profitability between institutions. Indeed, it appears that internationalization through subsidiaries with a brand perspective has a negative impact on performance. In addition, we also note that the implementation of cross-border partnerships in more than ten different sectors is not beneficial for the bank.