臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

以往銀行主要的收入來源，來自存放款利差收入。惟近年來，存放款利差大幅縮減，以手續費為主的財富管理業務，成為銀行的新寵。銀行為追求短期績效，以短期手續費收入為理財專員考核指標，輔以高額獎金，衝刺財富管理業務。理財專員以創造手續費收入為工作目標，而不是以顧客利益極大化，客戶與理財專員間產生代理問題。隨著全球股市的回檔，連動債糾紛重創銀行財富管理業務，不當銷售衍生的交易糾紛層出不窮，財富管理業務跌入谷底。為重建民眾對財富管理業務之信心，主管機關增訂各項財富管理業務規範，銀行主管也開始思考著，該如何永續發展銀行財富管理業務。
本研究由績效評估切入，以平衡計分卡模式為理論基礎，探討個案銀行理財專員績效評估制度。考量此次研究問題可提供資訊少、不確定性高，僅可藉由收集專家主觀判斷為分析資料，故透過專家深度訪談方式，邀集六位個案銀行財富管理專家進行訪談，形成績效衡量指標之初步建議。然後採取德菲法的研究方法，嚴選十三位個案銀行理專，經過反覆回饋循環式問答，以有效受訪者八成以上同意，為指標選取依據；五成以上之反對，為指標刪除依據，經三回合調查達收斂標準，彙整出針對理財專員在平衡計分卡四大構面之各項評估指標，分別為財務構面：理財專員經管資產報酬率、理財產品手續費收入成長率、理財專員平均產值、新開發客戶貢獻度。顧客構面：理財AUM成長率、客訴數比例、往來產品數、顧客延續率、顧客滿意度。內部流程構面：稽核查核及自行查核缺失、瑕疵後補率、KYC是否落實執行、錯帳交易比例、售後服務執行率。學習成長構面：理財證照齊全度、新的知識學習、員工對組織之配合度、績效成長、教育訓練次數與滿意度。藉由績效考核指標之調整，透過內部團隊的學習與改變，以及高階主管的深度認同與參與，期能改變理財專員銷售模式，杜絕不當銷售，滿足客戶理財需求，以確保銀行財富管理業務之永續發展。

In the past, banks relied on the spread between borrowing/lending interest rates as the main source of income. However in recent years interest rate spreads have reduced substantially, and this was when banks started to favor wealth management, a commission based business. In pursuit of short term revenue targets, banks tend to evaluate their financial advisors based on commission incomes earned within relatively short timeframes, and reward them with high bonuses to maximize the growth of wealth management. Instead of maximizing customers’ interests, generating commission income becomes the goal of financial advisors and agency conflicts arise between customers and their financial advisors. As stock markets plunged throughout the world, controversies arising from linkage bond sales devastated banks’ wealth management businesses. Incidences of mis-selling resulted in trade disputes and were brought to the public’s attention day after day; the reputation of wealth management fell to its lowest level of all time. To restore the public’s trust in wealth management, the local authority has regulated business conduct within the wealth management segment to a more stringent level while bank supervisors began adopting wealth management models that facilitate perpetual business.
In this research we approached the problem through performance evaluation. Based on the theory of the balanced scorecard model, we discussed the different methods of performance evaluation on financial advisors adopted by individual banks. Considering that the main drawbacks of this research were the lack of available information, high uncertainty, and sole reliance on subjective judgments of experts for data analysis, we conducted in-depth interviews with wealth management experts from six banks and obtained preliminary advice for developing our performance evaluation indicator. Through the Delphi Method and repeated feedback questions, we interviewed 13 financial advisors from various banks; the basis of accepting an indicator is 80% agreement rate or higher from all valid interviewees, and the basis of rejecting an indicator is 50% disagreement rate or higher. The results reached convergence criterion after three rounds of surveys. We have categorized the financial advisor performance indicators of our balanced scorecard into four aspects. Financial aspects: return on asset per financial advisor, growth of commission income from wealth management products, average output per financial advisor, and contribution of newly acquired customers. Customer aspect: financial AUM growth, customer complaint ratio, active product scope, customer renewal rate, and customer satisfaction. Internal procedure aspect: internal and self audit issues, procedure flaw rate, completion of KYC, transaction error rate, and after-sales service rate. Learning and development aspect: degree of certification, learning, compliance with corporate policies, performance growth, and satisfactory completion of required trainings. Through adjustments of performance evaluation indicators, learning and development, and acknowledgement and participation from top executives, we intend to change the sales behaviors of financial advisors, stop mis-selling while satisfying customers’ financial needs, and ensure the perpetual growth of banks’ wealth management businesses.

目 錄
頁次
目錄………………………………………………………………………….Ⅰ
圖目錄…………………………………………………………………….....Ⅳ
表目錄……………………………………………………………………….Ⅴ

第一章　緒論………………………………………………………………...1
1.1 研究背景….………………………………………………………...1
1.2 研究動機 …………………………………………………………..1
1.3 研究問題…………………………………….……………………...2
1.4 研究目的……………………………………………………………3
1.5 研究流程……………………………………………………………3
第二章　文獻探討………………………………………….……..…………4
2.1 國內財富管理發展現況與分析……………………………………4
2.1.1 財富管理成為銀行重點深耕之市場………………………….4
2.1.2 客戶對銀行缺乏信任感.………………..........…......................5
2.1.3 連動債糾紛重創銀行財富管理業務…………………….........7
2.1.4 重新建立投資人對銀行之信任…………………………….....9
2.1.5 小結…………………………………………….……………..10
2.2 個案銀行財富管理業務發展現況簡介…………………………...10
2.2.1 個案銀行簡介………………………………………………...10
2.2.2 個案銀行財富管理業務組織架構…………………………...11
2.2.3 個案銀行財富管理業務營運模式…………………………...12
2.2.4 個案銀行財富管理業務發展現況…………………………...14
2.2.5 個案銀行客訴處理及財富管理業務之自省………………...15
2.2.6 小結…………………………………………...………………16
2.3 績效評估…………………………………………………………..16
2.3.1 績效評估的目的……………………………………………...17
2.3.2 績效評估必須具備的條件…………………………………...18
2.3.3 員工績效管理的七種方法…………………………………...19
2.3.4 結合企業策略目標的績效評估新趨勢……………………...21
2.3.4.1 策略性人力資源管理的內外一致性……………………..21
2.3.4.2 策略性人力資源管理與平衡計分卡……………………..22
2.3.4.3 策略性人力資源管理下績效衡量的轉變………………..23
2.4 平衡計分卡的理論架構…………………………………………..24
2.4.1 平衡計分卡之緣起…………………………………………...24
2.4.2 平衡計分卡的四個構面……………………………………...24
2.4.3 平衡計分卡之特性－構面指標與策略連結………………...34
2.4.4 建立平衡計分卡……………………………………………...36
2.4.5 小結…………………………………………………………...38
2.5 本章小結…………………………………………………………..40
第三章　研究方法………………………………………………………….41
3.1 深度訪談法………………………………………………………..41
3.1.1 訪談對象……………………………………………………...41
3.1.2 訪談過程……………………………………………………...43
3.1.3 訪談大綱……………………………………………………...43
3.1.4 深度訪談法在本研究之應用………………………………...43
3.2 德菲法……………………………………………………………..43
3.2.1 德菲法的假設與意涵………………………………………...43
3.2.2 德菲法的優點與缺點………………………………………...44
3.2.3 德菲法步驟…………………………………………………...45
3.2.4 德菲法在本研究之應用……………………………………...46
第四章 研究發現…………………………………………………………...47
4.1 深度訪談內容……………………………………………………..47
4.2 訪談結果分析……………………………………………………. .53
4.3 德菲法專家問卷…………………………………………………..56
4.4 小結………………………………………………………………..64
第五章 結論與建議………………………………………………………...66
5.1 研究結論…………………………………………………...……...66
5.2 研究建議…………………………………………………………..69
5.2.1 對業者之建議………………………………………………...69
5.2.2 對未來研究之建議…………………………………………...70
5.3 研究限制………………………………………………………......70
參考文獻……………………………………………………………….……71
附錄一 銀行辦理財富管理業務應注意事項……………………………...74
附錄二 銀行辦理財富管理業務作業準則………………………………...77
附錄三 個案銀行辦理財富管理及金融商品銷售業務自律規範………...83
附錄四 投資理財產品抱怨準備金管理辦法……………………………...88
附錄五 深度訪談問卷……………………………………………………...92
附錄六 訪談紀綠………….………………………………………………..97
附錄七 逐字稿…………………………………………………………….105
附錄八 第一回合問卷…..……...................................................................122
附錄九 第二回合問卷…………………………………………………….125
附錄十 第三回合問卷…………………………………………………….131
附錄十一 各構面指標篩選及結果分析………………………………….133

參考文獻
一、英文部分
1.Barnea, A., Haugen, R. A., and Senbet, L. W. (1987). Market Imperfections, Agency Problem and Capital Structure: A Review. Financial Management, 10(3), 7-22.
2.Barney, J. B. (1997). Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
3.Bergen, M., Dutta, S. and Walker, O. C., Jr. (1992). Agency Relationships in Marketing：A Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 1-24.
4.Carrillo, J. D. (1998). Coordination and Externalities. Journal of Economic Theory, 78(1), 103-129.
5.Diamond, D. W. (1991). Debt Maturity Structure and Liquidity Risk. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(3), 43-448.
6.Engel, J. F., Blockwell, R. D. and Miniard, P. W. (1990). Consumer Behavior. Orlando: Dryden Press.
7.Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and Economic Approach, Management Science, 31(2), 134-149.
8.Guesneric, R., Picerre, P. and Patrik, R. (1989). Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard with Risk Neutral Agents. European Economic Review, 33(4), 807-823.
9.Heskett, J. L., et al. (1994). Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work. Harvard Business Review, 72(3), 164-174.
10.Jensen, M. C. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economies, 3(4), 305-360.
11.Kane, E. J. (1985). The Gathering Crisis in Federal Deposit Insurance, Cambridge: MIT Press.
12.Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard-Measures That Drive Performance. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 71-79
13.Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 75-85.
14.Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard：Translating Strategy into Action, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
15.Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (2001). Transforming the Balanced Scorecard from Performance Measurement to Strategic Management: Part I. Accounting-Horizons, 15(1), 87-104.
16.Lidton, H. A. and Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi Method：Techniques and Applications, MA: Addison-Wesley.
17.Monahan, G. E. and Vijay (1996). Monotone Second-best Optimal Contracts. European Journal of Operational Reserch, 90(1), 625-637.
18.Morris, J. R. (1976). A Model for Corporate Debt Maturity Decision. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 11(3), 339-358.
19.Murry, J. W. and Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A Versatile Methodology for Conducting Qualitative Research. The Review of Higher Education, 18(4), 423-436.
20.Rasmusen, E. (1989). Games and Information, New York: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
21.Sridhar, S. S. and Balachandran, B. V. (1997). Incomplete Information Tasty Assignment, and Managerial Control Systems. Management Science, 43(2), 764-778.

二、中文部分
二、中文部分
1.于泳泓譯(2002)。平衡計分卡最佳實務—按部就班，成功導入，台北：商周出版社。
2.甘錦添(2004，6月)。平衡計分卡為策略管理工具之研究－以某印前系統供應商為例，大同大學事業經營研究所碩士論文。
3.朱道凱譯(1999)。平衡計分卡：資訊時代的策略管理工具，台北：臉譜出版社，。
4.吳奕慧、聞玲玲、甄立豪譯(2007)。全球EMBA名師開講《人力資源管理篇》，台北：培生教育出版集團。
5.吳安妮(1996)。績效評估新趨勢，會計研究月刊，第133期，11-16。
6.宋肖瑾(2003，6月)。我國專營期貨商績效評估指標之建構—以平衡計分卡觀點，銘傳大學管理學院高階經理碩士學程論文。
7.林孟彥譯(2006)。管理學八版，台北：華泰文化事業有限公司。
8.金管會(2005)。銀行辦理財富管理業務應注意事項，2005年2月5日，取自行政院金融監督管理委員會全球資訊網：http://www.fsc.gov.tw/news_detail2.aspx?icuit-em=155424
9.徐文遠(2005，6月)。老人運輸問題之研究，國立成功大學交通管理（科學）研究所碩士論文。
10.高國輝(1996，6月)。以代理問題觀點檢視存款保險停業政策，銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文。
11.陳添俊(2004，6月)。實施平衡計分卡制度後高階經理人獎酬對盈餘管理、績效衡量之影響，逢甲大學會計研究所碩士論文。
12.張智寧(1999，6月)。不同策略群組特性下員工績效評估與組織績效之關連性研究，靜宜大學企業管理學系碩士論文。
13.黃英忠、曹國雄、黃同圳、張火燦、王秉鈞(2003)。人力資源管理，台北：華泰文化出版社。
14.趙琪、洪翊崧(2001)。以代理理論與服務品質觀點探討基金投資行為，臺大管理論叢，第十一卷第二期，177-179。
15.蕭峰凱(2005，6月)。運用DEA衡量本國銀行經營效率之研究，高雄應用科技大學人力資源發展研究所碩士論文。
16.鍾梁權(2001，6月)。組織文化與績效評估制度之關聯性研究-以台灣地區資訊服務業為例，國立台灣科技大學管理研究所碩士論文。