臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

自2005年後本國銀行呆帳上升，緊接著全球金融風暴，政府查覺到銀行體系的不完整，參考國際性銀行針對貸款呆帳加強審核並修正相關法規，並在2011年後陸續調整，而在2019年台灣銀行增加103億的備抵呆帳，是否備抵呆帳政策尚未完上，其備抵呆帳金額依然不足夠。
本研究以TEJ資料庫所提供本國23家銀行為對象，研究期間為2009年第四季至2019年第三季的季資料為主，並使用González, Teräsvirta and van Dijk（2004, 2005）所發展的縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型(Panel smooth transition regression models, PSTR)，加入逾放比對銀行呆帳率的影響，藉以研究不同逾放比的銀行特性與稅前損益、逾放款、放款總額、資產報酬率、資產總額、備抵呆帳率及淨值成長率等變數影響銀行呆帳率之程度。實證結果顯示，逾放比高或低於門檻值0021時，稅前損益及放款總額對呆帳率的影響呈正反方向變；但逾放比無論高低對逾期放款總額與呆帳率呈正向關係。逾放比無論高低，其ROA對於呆帳率呈反向關係。再者，逾放比高於0.0021時，其資產總額與呆帳率呈反向關係；反之，逾放比低於0.0021時，其資產總額與呆帳率呈正向關係。但無逾放比高低，其備抵呆帳覆蓋率對於呆帳率呈反向關係。逾放比高於或低於0.0021時，其淨值成長率與呆帳率分別呈反向及正向的關係。大部分的解釋變數對被解釋變數有顯著的影響。

Since 2005, the domestic bank’s bad debts have risen, followed by the global financial turmoil. The government has detected the incompleteness of the banking system. With reference to the international banks’ strengthened review and amendment of relevant regulations on loan bad debts, they have adjusted them after 2011. In 2019, Bank of Taiwan added 10.3 billion of allowance for doubtful debts. Whether the allowance for doubtful debts policy has not been completed yet, the amount of allowance for doubtful debts is still insufficient.
This study is based on the 23 banks in the country provided by the TEJ database. The research period is mainly from the fourth quarter of 2009 to the third quarter of 2019. It is developed by González, Teräsvirta and van Dijk (2004, 2005). Panel smooth transfer model (PSTR), adding the effect of over-disbursement ratio on the bank’s bad debt ratio, in order to study the bank characteristics and pre-tax profit and loss, over-disbursement and total loans of different over-discharge ratios Variables such as the rate of return on assets, total assets, allowance for doubtful debts, and growth rate of net worth affect the extent to which the bank’s doubtful debts rate. Empirical results show that when the overdue ratio is higher or lower than the threshold value of 0021, the impact of pre-tax profit and loss and total loans on the bad debt rate changes in positive and negative directions; however, the overdue ratio no matter how high or low, the overdue loans and the bad debt rate are positive relationship. No matter how high or low the overdue ratio, ROA has an inverse relationship with the bad debt rate. Furthermore, when the over-disbursement ratio is higher than 0.0021, its total assets have a reverse relationship with the bad debt rate; conversely, when the over-disbursement ratio is less than 0.0021, its total assets and the bad debt rate have a positive relationship. But there is no over-discharge ratio, and its allowance for bad debt coverage is inversely related to the bad debt rate. When the over-disbursement ratio is higher or lower than 0.0021, its net worth growth rate and the bad debt rate are in a reverse and positive relationship, respectively. Most explanatory variables have a significant effect on the explained variables.

目錄 V
表目錄 VII
圖目錄 VIII
第一章 緒論 1
第一節 研究背景與動機 1
第二節 研究目的 3
第三節 研究架構與流程 4
第二章 理論與文獻探討 6
第一節 備抵呆帳相關法規及定義 6
第二節 盈餘管理對備抵呆帳的影響 9
第三節 景氣對備抵呆帳的影響 11
第四節 相關研究變數整理及變數設定 14
第三章 研究方法 19
第一節 資料來源及變數操作性定義 19
第二節 縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型 20
第三節 縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型轉換函數 22
第四節 縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型之設定 24
第四章 實證結果分析 29
第一節 研究樣本基本統計量分析 29
第二節 縱橫平滑移轉模型之實證結果 40
第五章 結論與建議 46
第一節 結論 46
第二節 建議 47
參考文獻 49

表目錄
表1不良授信規定 7
表2備抵呆帳相關法規 8
表3備抵呆帳相關主題論文 15
表4使用縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型論文整理 18
表5被解釋變數操作性定義 19
表6解釋變數操作性定義 20
表7本研究銀行列表 29
表8各家銀行逾放比基本統計分析(%) 30
表9各變數基本統計量 39
表10各變數基本統計量 40
表11逾放比率對呆帳率之同質性檢定 41
表12逾放比率對呆帳率之模型檢定 41
表13逾放比率對呆帳率之轉換區個數檢定 42
表14逾放比率對呆帳率之模型估計結果 43
表15逾放比率對呆帳率模型中控制變數之影響 45

圖目錄
圖1研究流程圖 5
圖2各家銀行逾放比(季)歷史趨勢圖 31
圖3各家銀行稅前損益(季)歷史趨勢圖 32
圖4各家銀行放款總額(季)歷史趨勢圖 33
圖5各家銀行逾放款(季)歷史趨勢圖 34
圖6各家銀行資產報酬率(季)歷史趨勢圖 35
圖7各家銀行資產總額(季)歷史趨勢圖 36
圖8各家銀行備抵呆帳率(季)歷史趨勢圖 37
圖9各家銀行淨值成長率(季)歷史趨勢圖 38
圖10逾放比率對呆帳率之轉換函數圖形 43

中文文獻
王富源(2010)，我國銀行業盈餘管理動機、內部關聯性與監督機制對盈餘管理影響之研究，淡江大學會計學系碩士論文。
王嘉緯(2015)，「我國銀行業備抵呆帳費用認列比率之探討」，財稅研究，第44 卷，第4 期，頁133-154。
古芸台(2013)，高階主管聲譽與盈餘管理：台灣銀行業之實證，國立高雄第一科技大學金融系碩士論文。
沈中華、陳庭萱(2008)，「台灣商業銀行修正呆帳提列後的成本效率實證研究」，經濟論文，第36卷，第2期，頁221-247。
沈中華、謝孟芬(2006)，「金融業提列備抵呆帳與景氣循環、法規之關聯性分析－以49個國家為例」，財金論文叢刊，第4期，頁1-23。
沈中華、謝孟芬 (2009) ，「金融業提列備抵壞帳與景氣循環、法規之關聯性分析:以49 個國家爲例」，臺大管理論叢，第20卷，第1期，頁131-155。
李宗政、林秀柑、呂建和、夏慧娟、林惠雪(2006)，「自盈餘管理觀點探討財務預測落差現象對於商業銀行可裁決性呆帳提列行為之影響」，風險管理學報，第8卷，第二期，頁137-156。
李沃牆、李喬銘、林瀼縈(2015)，「銀行流動性風險與經營績效之非線性關聯分析－縱橫平滑移轉迴歸模型之應用」，中原企管評論，第13卷，第1期，頁71-96
李翊如(2018)，銀行風險管理在不同逾放比下對財務績效之影響探討-金控與非金控銀行之比較，淡江大學財務金融學系碩士論文
吳劭昀(2008)，台灣銀行業盈餘管理相關研究―考量不同環境因素，銘傳大學經濟學系研究所碩士論文。
林玉釵(2019)，總體經濟變數對銀行放款的影響，淡江大學財務金融學系碩
士論文。
林修葳、陳育成（1997），「國內商業銀行壞帳及票券買賣損益策略性重組問題之實證研究」，台大管理論叢，第8卷，第2期，頁33-66。
周燦煌(2013)，我國銀行特性與總體經濟對銀行逾放比之影響，淡江大學財務金融學系碩士論文。
武建廷(2017)，主管機關備抵呆帳政策對銀行行為影響之研究－以台灣地區為例，國立臺北大學統計學系碩士論文。
張正杰（2005），商業銀行提列可裁決性呆帳以平穩盈餘之實證研究，朝陽科技大學企業管理系碩士論文。
張婷雁(2007)，資本適足率與銀行風險及財務績效之關聯-縱橫平滑移轉模型之應用，淡江大學財務金融學系碩士論文。
陳育成（2002），「台灣金融業的壞帳管理及相關研究」，管理評論，第21卷，第4期，頁1-17。
陳椿鶯、李春安(2018)，「台灣銀行業經濟成本管理與實質盈餘管理替代性之研究」，中山管理評論，第26 卷，第 3 期，頁511-558。
戚務君、王貞靜、黃隆建(2010)，實質盈餘管理行為之研究，2010會計理論與實務研討會論文集，頁1135-1160。
曾子瑋(2018)，本國利率對銀行風險影響之探討，國立高雄第一科技大學財務金融碩士論文。
楊蓁海(2006)，「我國銀行授信行為與景氣循環的關係：兼論新版巴塞爾資本協定的順循環影響效果暨其因應之道」，中央銀行季刊，第28卷，第1期，頁43-72。
薛惠婷(2014)，我國銀行不良債權比率對財務績效之非線性影響關係探討，淡江大學財務金融學系碩士論文。
英文文獻
Ahmed, A. S., C. Takeda., and S. Thomas. (1999). “Bank Loan Loss Provisions: A Reexamination of Capital Management, Earnings Management and Signaling Effects. Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 28, No.1, pp.1–25.
Balla, E., M. J. Rose and J.S. Romero. (2012). “Loan Loss Reserve Accounting and Bank Behavior. Richmond Fed Economic Brief, (Mar).
Beatty, A. and L, Scott (2011), “Do Delays in Expected Loss Recognition Affect Banks'' Willingness to Lend?” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 52, No.1, pp. 1-20.
Bernadette, M., J. P. Taillard and R. Williamson. (2014). “Financial Expertise of the Board, Risk Taking, and Performance: Evidence from Bank Holding Companies,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp.351-380.
Bhat, G., R., S. G., and D.Vyas. (2013), “The Implications of Credit Risk Modeling for Banks'' Loan Loss Provision Timeliness and Loan Origination Procyclicality”, Management Science, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp.1-65
Bikker, J. A. and H. Hu. (2002), “Cyclical Patterns in Profits, Provisioning and Lending of Banks and Procyclicalilty of the New Basel Capital Requirements,” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, Vol. 55, No. 221, pp.143-175.
Bikker, J.A., P.A.J. Metzemakers (2005). “Bank Provisioning Behaviour and Procyclicality”, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money. No.15, pp.141-157.
Burgstahler, D. and I. Dichev. (1997), “Earnings Management to Avoid Earnings Decreases and Losses,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.99-126.
Burgstahler, D. and M. Eames. (2006), “Management of Earnings and Analysts’ Forecasts to Achieve Zero and Small Positive Earnings Surprises,” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, Vol. 33, No. 5-6, pp.633-652.
Bushman, B. J. (2002). “Does Venting Anger Feed or Extinguish the Flame Catharsis, Rumination, Distraction, Anger and Aggressive Responding”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, pp. 724–731.
Cohen, L. J., M. M..Cornett , A. J. Marcus and H. Tehranian (2014), “Bank Earnings Management and Tail Risk during the Financial Crisis,” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 46, No. 1, 171-197.
Davies, R. B., (1987), “Hypothesis Testing When A Nuisance Parameter Is Present Only Under The Alternative,” Biometrika, Vol.74, No.1, pp. 33-43.
DeFond, M. L. and C. W. Park. (1997), “Smoothing Income in Anticipation of Future Earnings,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 115-139.
Ertan, A., (2013), “Real Earnings Management in the Financial Industry”, Ph. D. Dissertation, Yale University.
Ewert, R. and A. Wagenhofer. (2005), “Economic Effects of Tightening Accounting Standards to Restrict Earnings Management,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp.1101-1124.
Fonseca, A.R. and F. Gonzalez, (2008), “Cross-Country Determinants of Bank Income Smoothing By Managing Loan-Loss Provisions”, Journal of Banking and Finance, No. 32, pp. 217-228.
Gonza''lez, A., T. Terasvirta, and D. V. Dijk, (2004), “Panel Smooth Transition Regression Model and an Application to Investment under Credit Constraints,” working papers.
Gonza''lez, A., T. Terasvirta, and D. V. Dijk, (2005), “Panel Smooth Transition Regression Models,” working papers.
Granger, C. W., and Terasvirta, T. (1993), “Modelling Non-Linear Economic Relationships.” Oxford University Press.
Handorf, William C and Zhu, Lili (2006), “Us Bank Loan-Loss Provisions, Economic Conditions, and Regulatory Guidance”. Journal of Applied Finance, Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring/Summer.
Hansen, B. E., (1996), “Inference When A Nuisance Parameter Is Not Identified Under The Null Hypothesis,” Econometrica, Vol.64, No.2, pp.413-430.
Hansen, B. E., (1999), “Threshold Effects in Non-Dynamic Panels: Estimation, Testing, and Inference,” Journal of Econoetrics, Vol.93, pp.345-368.
Healy, P.M. and Wahlen, J.M. (1999), “A Review of the Earnings Management Literature and Its Implications for Standard Setting.” Accounting Horizons, Vol.13, pp. 365-383.
Lin, Chien-Fu and Timo Terasvirta (1994), “Testing the Constancy of Regression Parameters Against Continuous Structural Change”, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 62, No.2, pp. 211-228.
Liu, C. C. and S.G. Ryan. (2006), “Income Smoothing Over the Business Cycle: Changes in Banks Coordinated Management of Provisions for Loan Losses and Loan .Charge-offs from the Pre-1990 Bust to the 1990s Boom,” The Accounting Review, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp.421-441.
Luukkonen, R., P. Saikkonen, and T. Terasvirta, (1988), “Testing Linearity Against Smooth Transition Autoregressive Models,” Biometrika, Vol.75, No.3, pp.491-499.
Jansen, E. S. and T.Teräsvirta. (1996). “Testing Parameter Constancy and Super Exogeneity in Econometric Equations”, Oxford Bulletin in Economics and Statistics, Vol.58, pp. 735-763.
Robb, S. W. G. (1998), “The effect of Analysts’ Forecasts on Earnings Management in Financial Institutions”, Journal of Financial Research. Vol. 21, pp. 315-331.
Shen, C. H. and H. L. Chih. (2005), “Investor Protection, Prospect Theory, and Earnings Management: An International Comparison of the Banking Industry,” Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 29, No. 10, pp.2675-2697.
Schipper, K. (1989). “Commentary on Earnings Management.” Accounting Horizons, Vol.3, pp. 91-102.
Kanagaretnam, K., G.Lobo, and J., Mathieu (2003). “Managerialincentives for Income Smoothing through bank Loan Lossprovisions,” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.63–80.