臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文的目的是強調危機記憶與銀行放款行為兩者之間的關係，並著重 在大規模流行性疾病疫情時期如新冠肺炎所造成之關聯性。儘管銀行放款 的態度，即使在景氣循環的大環境之下，主要還是考量借款方的硬資訊基 準上。就事實而言，危機記憶仍可能是一個重要因素;而這個議題即是以 銀行的放貸方因之前產生的慘痛教訓深深烙印在機構的記憶裡。值得注意 的是，已經有一群的學術學者提出為數不少的已論證的假說充分地支持上 述。基於考量到這些放貸方的策略絕對亦受到之前為數可觀的呆帳之慘痛 教訓，本文藉由新冠肺炎期間的自然環境以近一步檢視。本文顯示造成的 “杯弓蛇影”的效應，自此衍殖出更加嚴苛及更加保守的放貸態度。

The aim of this essay is to highlight crisis memory adoption in connection with bank lending behaviour as much as emphasis on a pandemic of Covid-19. Despite the fact that the behaviour of bank lending is constantly associated with credit rating, as known as hard information, in the field of business cycle. As far as it is concerned that crisis memory problem may cause another issue that ought to be concerned since those lenders may yet learn a bitter lesson that is branded on those organisations’ memories. It is remarkable to notice that many academic scholars have been lodging a number of hypotheses with evidence. As regards those lenders’ strategies based on prior deeply grieved education given by large amount of outstanding bills, there will be even much stricter decisions leading to even more conservative loan extension.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................................................................I
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................II
摘要..............................................................................................................III
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................IV
LIST OF FIGURE............................................................................................VI
LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................VII
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND MOTIVE ................................................ 1
1.2 RESEARCH PURPOSE ...............................................................................2
1.3 RESEARCH FRAMEWORK......................................................................... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................. 5
2.1 INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY HYPOTHESIS.................................................. 5
2.2 RESPECT THEORY.................................................................................... 5
2.3 AVAILABILITY HEURISTIC......................................................................... 6
2.4 BUSINESS CYCLE......................................................................................6
2.5 CARELESS LENDERS VERSUS BAD BORROWERS....................................7
3. RESEARCH DESIGN.....................................................................................8
3.1 HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................8
3.2 RESEARCH MODEL AND VARIABLES........................................................9
4. RESEARCH RESULTS..................................................................................12
4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS.........................................................................12
4.2 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS..........................................................17
5. CONCLUSION.............................................................................................23
REFERENCES..................................................................................................25

Berger, A. N. and G. F. Udell. 2004. The institutional memory hypothesis and the procyclicality of bank lending behavior. Journal of Financial Intermediation 13: 458- 495.

Chen, C. P., C. W. Hsu, Y.H. Lai, and T. H. Lien. 2012. The procyclicality in bank lending behavior: An empirical test of institutional memory hypothesis. Management Review 31 (3): 1-20.

Desai H., S. Rajgopal, and J. J. Yu. 2016. Were information intermediaries sensitive to the financial statement-based leading indicators of bank distress prior to the financial crisis?. Contemporary Accounting Research 33 (2): 576- 606.

Kuo, M.H. 2008. Behavioral Finance. 1st edition. Taipei: Angle Publishing Co., Ltd.

Hsieh, M. F., C. H. Shen. 2009. Bank provisioning, business cycle and regulation: A study of 49 countries. NTU Management Review 20 (1):131-156.

Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263-292.

Liu, Y. C. and N. J. Chen.2012. Lending behaviors and psychological biases for Taiwan’s banks: An empirical study. Review of Securities and Futures Markets 24 (2): 87-123.

Li, C. A., J. C. Wang, and C. S. Lo. 2013. Greed, fear and investors risk adjustment behavior: The viewpoint of prospect theory. Review of Securities and Futures Markets25 (2): 1-54.

Mullainathan, S. 2002. A memory-based model of bounded rationality. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (3): 735-774.

The Bank of England, Patel, R., J. Meaning. 2022. Can’t We Just Print More Money? Economics in Ten Simple Questions. 1st edition. London: Cornerstone Press.

Shen, C. H. and C. A. Wang. 2002. Careless lenders or bad borrowers?. Taiwan Banking & Finance Quarterly, 3 (1): 141-158.

Ting, P. H. and M. Y. Liu. 2017. The Impact of countercyclical capital buffer on banks’ liquidity creation behavior. Journal of Management & Systems 24 (2): 167-213.