下载文档原格式
金融体制、融资约束与投资——来自OECD的实证分析R．SemenovDepartment of Economics，University of Nijmegen，Nijmegen（荷兰内梅亨大学，经济学院）这篇论文考查了OECD的11个国家中现金流量对企业投资的影响.我们发现不同国家之间投资对企业内部可获取资金的敏感性具有显著差异,并且银企之间具有明显的紧密关系的国家的敏感性比银企之间具有公平关系的国家的低.同时，我们发现融资约束与整体金融发展指标不存在关系.我们的结论与资本市场信息和激励问题对企业投资具有重要作用这种观点一致，并且紧密的银企关系会减少这些问题从而增加企业获取外部融资的渠道。
一、引言各个国家的企业在显著不同的金融体制下运行。
金融发展水平的差别(例如，相对GDP的信用额度和相对GDP的相应股票市场的资本化程度），在所有者和管理者关系、企业和债权人的模式中，企业控制的市场活动水平可以很好地被记录.在完美资本市场,对于具有正的净现值投资机会的企业将一直获得资金。
然而，经济理论表明市场摩擦，诸如信息不对称和激励问题会使获得外部资本更加昂贵，并且具有盈利投资机会的企业不一定能够获取所需资本.这表明融资要素，例如内部产生资金数量、新债务和权益的可得性，共同决定了企业的投资决策.现今已经有大量考查外部资金可得性对投资决策的影响的实证资料（可参考，例如Fazzari（1998）、 Hoshi(1991)、 Chapman（1996）、Samuel(1998））.大多数研究结果表明金融变量例如现金流量有助于解释企业的投资水平。
这项研究结果解释表明企业投资受限于外部资金的可得性。
很多模型强调运行正常的金融中介和金融市场有助于改善信息不对称和交易成本，减缓不对称问题,从而促使储蓄资金投着长期和高回报的项目,并且提高资源的有效配置（参看Levine（1997)的评论文章）。
因而我们预期用于更加发达的金融体制的国家的企业将更容易获得外部融资.几位学者已经指出建立企业和金融中介机构可进一步缓解金融市场摩擦。
国外书籍关于盈利能力的研究在当今经济全球化的背景下，盈利能力成为企业、投资者以及学者们关注的焦点。
国外有许多优秀的书籍对此进行了深入研究，为我们提供了丰富的理论资源。
本文将介绍几本关于盈利能力研究的国外书籍，帮助读者更好地理解这一领域。
一、《盈利能力分析：企业价值最大化的艺术》作者：肯尼斯·普瑞斯（Kenneth C.Prince）本书详细介绍了盈利能力分析的方法和技巧，旨在帮助企业实现价值最大化。
书中通过大量的实际案例，阐述了盈利能力对企业发展的重要性，并提供了实用的盈利能力评估工具。
此外，书中还讨论了如何通过提高盈利能力来优化企业战略和决策。
二、《企业盈利能力：理论、实践与案例》作者：詹姆斯·C.范霍恩（James C.Van Horne）本书深入探讨了企业盈利能力的理论基础和实践方法，通过丰富的案例，分析了影响企业盈利能力的内外部因素。
书中还介绍了盈利能力预测和评估的模型，为企业制定盈利策略提供了有力的理论支持。
三、《盈利能力与公司治理：国际视角》作者：马克·J.罗斯（Marc J.Roos）本书从国际视角分析了盈利能力与公司治理之间的关系。
作者通过对多个国家和地区的实证研究，揭示了公司治理结构对盈利能力的影响。
书中还提出了改善公司治理、提高盈利能力的策略和建议。
四、《盈利能力、投资与经济增长》作者：阿夫纳·伯恩斯坦（Avner Barnea）和罗恩·D.费尔德曼（Ron D.Feldman）本书研究了盈利能力、投资与经济增长之间的关系。
作者认为，提高盈利能力是促进企业投资和经济增长的关键因素。
书中还讨论了如何通过政策调整和改革来优化资源配置，进而提高盈利能力和经济增长。
五、《盈利能力、竞争与市场结构》作者：迈克尔·E.波特（Michael E.Porter）本书从竞争战略的角度分析了盈利能力与市场结构的关系。
作者提出了著名的“五力模型”，并在此基础上探讨了如何通过市场竞争来提高企业的盈利能力。
股权结构与盈利能力关系研究国内外文献综述目录股权结构与盈利能力关系研究国内外文献综述 (1)（一）国外文献综述 (1)1.资本结构与盈利能力的关系。
(1)2.股权结构和盈利能力的关系 (1)（二）国内文献综述 (2)（三）文献述评 (3)参考文献 (4)（一）国外文献综述1.资本结构与盈利能力的关系。
Titman(2009)根据400多家制造业上市公司的相关数据，分析企业在不同负债阶段下的盈利能力，得出如果公司负债过高，将影响公司的盈利能力[1]。
S. Ouchene等(2013)主要分析了美国银行优化资本结构的途径是提高二级资本，并提高了盈利能力2]。
Lepetit L等(2014)在研究影响银行盈利能力的因素时，深入分析了股东控制和美国次贷危机的影响。
研究发现，当股东控制相对集中时，银行的利润最大。
风险也较高，在一定程度上会影响公司的盈利能力[3]。
Daskalakis N等(2017)重点研究了外部环境、内部流动性和中小企业长期债务负债率的变化。
短期负债随外部环境的变化变化更为明显，而本案例中短期负债变化不大[4]。
Vecchiato M等(2018)以美国金融业为研究对象。
基于美国金融业的相关金融数据，将研究对象限定在金融业。
了解行业不同变化下的资本结构将影响其盈利能力，最终发现在美国金融行业资产收益率越低，公司经营业绩越好的研究结论[5]。
2.股权结构和盈利能力的关系Welch(2003)为了研究股权结构与盈利能力的关系，选取澳大利亚上市公司作为研究样本，同时选取了股权结构作为内生变量，实证结果表明，公司股权结构与盈利能力相关，且内部人持股与盈利能力有着非线性相关的关系[6]。
Andersson等(2004)选取了瑞典87家上市公司，以1999-2003年的数据为样本，以资产收益率和产权净利率为盈利能力指标，对公司的股权结构与盈利能力之间的关系进行实证研究。
研究结果表明，当内部股东表决权为5%、10%和20%时，表决权对盈利能力的影响也各不相同[7]。
中国商业银行盈利能力影响因素研究Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Profitabilityof Commercial Banks in China朱子文统计与应用数学学院统计学专业2009（1）班 2009710053指导教师：李小胜副教授内容摘要：作为以营利为目的的金融机构，盈利能力是商业银行生存和发展的重要基础。
但是由于我国现代经济发展起步较晚的原因，我国商业银行业在过去很长一段时间往往只把扩充银行资本量、扩大银行规模作为首要任务而忽略了对盈利能力的发展与提高。
针对“我国商业银行盈利能力影响因素”这个问题，许多专家学者都进行了深入的研究，并得出了很多极具价值的研究成果。
本文以资产收益率（ROA）作为衡量银行盈利能力的指标，选取了国内10家具有代表性的商业银行2004年～2009年间的相关数据作为分析样本，对影响我国商业银行盈利能力的主要因素进行了分析。
得到结论为：商业银行盈利能力与其权益资产率及国内经济状况呈正相关关系，与银行规模、银行信贷率及资产费用率呈负相关关系。
最后根据分析结果对如何提高我国商业银行盈利能力提出相应的建议。
关键词：商业银行；盈利能力；面板数据Abstract: As to the financial institutions for the purpose of profit, profit ability is an important foundation for the survival and development of commercial banks. But due to a late start of modern economic development in China, China's commercial banks for a long time in the past often only to overcharge bank capital, expand the scale of banks as the primary task and ignore the development and improvement of profitability. According to the "factors" the profitability of China's commercial banks influence the problem, many experts and scholars have conducted in-depth research, and obtained many valuable research results.In this paper, return on assets (ROA) as a measure of bank profitability index, the paper selects 10 representative commercial banks in 2004 to 2009 years relevant data as sample for analysis on the main factors affecting the profitability of commercial banks in China are analyzed. The conclusion is: the correlation between the profitability of commercial banks and equity ratio and the domestic economic situation positively, negatively correlates with the size of the bank, the bank credit rate and asset cost rate. Finally, according to results of the analysis of how to improve the profitability of commercial banks in China and put forward the corresponding suggestion.Keywords: Commercial Bank;Profitability;Panel data目录1.引言 (1)1.1研究意义 (1)1.2我国商业银行现状 (1)2. 文献综述 (2)2.1我国学者对商业银行盈利能力的研究 (2)2.2本文的研究特点 (2)3. 指标的选取 (3)3.1指标的选取原则 (3)3.2指标的选取 (3)4. 数据来源及研究方法介绍 (4)4.1数据来源 (4)4.2研究方法介绍 (4)5. 面板模型介绍 (5)5.1面板数据模型解析 (5)5.2面板模型的分类 (5)6.实证分析 (5)6.1实证分析步骤 (5)6.2实证分析结果 (8)7.实证结论分析 (8)7.1银行规模对商业银行盈利能力的影响 (8)7.2银行信贷率对对商业银行盈利能力的影响 (9)7.3权益资产率对商业银行盈利能力的影响 (9)7.4资产费用率对商业银行盈利能力的影响 (9)7.5国内经济状况对商业银行盈利能力的影响 (9)8.建议 (10)9.附言 (10)参考文献 (11)1.引言商业银行作以营利为目的的金融机构，盈利能力是其在经营过程中应当考虑的首要指标，对其生存和发展起到了至关重要的作用。
盈利能力的国外文献综述
随着全球化和国际化的发展，越来越多的企业开始关注盈利能力。
本文综述了国外关于盈利能力的研究，包括其定义、测量方法、影响因素和管理策略等方面。
首先，盈利能力被定义为企业在特定时期内所获得的净利润或利润率。
这一概念通常被用来衡量企业获得经济利益的能力。
其次，盈利能力的测量方法包括利润率、ROE、ROI等指标。
利
润率是企业的净利润与总收入之比，ROE是企业净利润与股东权益之比，ROI是企业净利润与总资产之比。
这些指标可以帮助企业了解其盈利能力的状况，并作出相应的调整。
影响盈利能力的因素包括市场竞争、成本控制、营销策略、资本结构等。
企业需要通过不断优化这些因素来提高其盈利能力。
最后，管理策略是提高盈利能力的关键。
这包括制定合理的财务计划、设定有挑战性但可实现的利润目标、优化营销策略、控制成本等。
同时，企业还需要注重员工培训和创新，以提高企业的竞争力和市场占有率。
总之，盈利能力是企业发展的重要指标之一。
通过合理的测量和管理，在竞争激烈的市场环境中提高盈利能力是企业取得成功的关键。
- 1 -。
公共管理外文文献翻译(节选)1900单词，1.1万英文字符，中文3030字文献出处：Frederickson H G. Whatever happened to public administration? Governance, governance everywhere[J]. The Oxford handbook of public management, 2021: 281-304./news/0706AF57C1E1A817.html原文WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION? GOVERNANCE,GOVERNANCE EVERYWHEREH. George FredericksonFor at least the last 15 years governance has been a prominent subject in public administration. Governance, defined by Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill as the “regimes, laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly supported goals and services,” holds strong interest for public administration scholars (2001,p.7). This chapter reviews and evaluates the evolution and development of the concept of governance in public administration; then, using regime theory from the study of international relations, the concept of governance as applied in public administration is analyzed, parsed, and framed.The present scholarly and conceptual use of the concept of governance inthe field tends to take one or more of the following forms: (1) It is substantively the same as already established perspectives in public administration, although in a different language, (2) It is essentially the study of the contextual influences that shape the practices of public administration, rather than the study of public administration, (3) It is the study of interjurisdictional relations and third party policy implementationin public administration, (4) It is the study of the influence or power of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives. Of these approaches topublic administration as governance, it is the third and fourth--governance as the public administration of interjurisdiction relations and third partypolicy implementation, and the governance of nonstate and nonjurisdictional public collectives -- that form the basis of a usable theory of governance for public administration.It was Harlan Cleveland who first used the word “governance” as an alternative to the phrase public administration. In the mid-1970s, one of the themes in Cleveland's particularly thoughtful and provocative speeches, papers, and books went something likethis: “What the people want is less government and more governance” (1972). What he meant by governance was the following cluster of concepts.In all, Rhodes (2000, pp. 55-60) found seven applications of governance in the field of public administration: the new public management or managerialism; good governance, as in efficiency, transparency, meritocracy, and equity; international and interjurisdictional interdependence; non-government driven forms of socio-cybernetic systems of governance; the new political economy, including shifting from state service provision to the state as regulator; and networks. There are many more applications of governance to the subject once known as public administration, but these few illustrate the capacious rangeof concepts, ideas, and theories associated with it.There are as many definitions of the concept of governance as a synonymfor public administration as there are applications. Kettl claims an emerging gap between government and governance. \institutions. Governance is the way government gets its job done.如何翻译外文文献Traditionally, government itself managed most service delivery. Toward the end of the twentieth century, however, government relied increasingly on non-governmental partners to do its work, through processesthat relied less on authority for control\xi). To Kettl, governance, as an approach to public administration, has primarily to do with contracting-outand grants to sub-governments.As was noted at the outset, Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2001 p. 15) use a much bigger approach to governance as an analytic framework. Their model, intended to be a starting point for research, is: O = f [E, C, T, S, M] Where:O = Outputs/outcomes. The end product of a governance regime. E = Environmental factors. These can include political structures, levels ofauthority, economic performance, the presence or absence of competition among suppliers, resource levels and dependencies, legal framework, and the characteristics of a target population.C = Client characteristics. The attributes, characteristics, and behaviorof clients. T = Treatments. These are the primary work or core processes ofthe organizations within thegovernance regime. They include organizational missions and objectives, recruitment and eligibility criteria, methods fro determining eligibility, and program treatments or technologies.S = Structures. These include organizational type, level of coordination and integration among the organizations in the governance regime, relative degree of centralized control, functional differentiation, administrativerules or incentives, budgetary allocations, contractual arrangements or relationships, and institutional culture and values.M = Managerial roles and actions. This includes leadership characteristics, staff- management relations, communications, methods of decision-making, professional/career concerns, and mechanisms of monitoring, control, and accountability.The problem is that it is difficult, following Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill,to conceive of anything involving government, politics, or administration that is not governance. That being the case, there appears to be little difference between studying the whole of government and politics and studying public administration. Put another way, public administration is ordinarily thoughtto have to do with “treatments,” “structures,” and “management” in the Lynn, et al. governance formula. They tuck the centerpieces of public administration into the broader context of governance. This chapter will later return to these distinctions and to a large-scale synthesis of governance research by Lynn, Heinrich and Hill.Concepts of governance as public administration reflect a long-standing theoretical debate in the field, the matter of distinctions between politics, and policy on one hand and policy implementation or administration on the other. Easy dismissal of the politics-administration dichotomy serves to focus the study of public administration, particularly by some governance theorist, on the constitutional and political context of the organization and management of the territorial state or jurisdiction. From this perspective governance becomes steering and public administration becomes rowing, a lesser phenomenon in the scholarly pecking order, not to mention a lesser subject in governance. Public administration, thus understood, is the work that governments contract-out, leaving governance as the subject of our study. Although the linesbetween politics, policy, and administration are often fuzzy and changing, and although we know, strictly speaking, there is not a politics- administration dichotomy, is nevertheless important to understand the empirical distinctions between political and administrative phenomena. Concepts of governance that advance our understanding of public-sector administrationand organization are helpful. Concepts of governance that simply change the subject of public administration to politics and policy making are not. In democratic government it is, after all, elected officials who govern. Bureaucrats have roles and responsibilities for governing or governance, butin democratic polities these roles and responsibilities are different than the roles and responsibilities of elected officials. Janet Newman says it well: “Neither”good governance“nor” well-managed government could resolve the contradictions around the popular role of government and the appropriate boundaries of governance” (2001 p. 170). In the name of stamping out bureaucracy and replacing it with what they describe as good governance, Osborne and Gaebler advocate a range of managerial prerogatives that would significantly intrude on the political and policy-making prerogatives generally assumed to belong to elected officials, and particularly elected legislators, in a democratic polity (1992).The second implication of the critique is that governance theoristspersist in looking for an all-pervasive pattern of organizational and administrative behavior, a \theory\that will provide an explanation for the past and a means to predict the future. Despite the accumulated evidence based on decades of work on theory and the empirical testing of theory in public administration, no such pattern has been found (Frederickson and Smith 2021). Does the governance concept beguile a generation of scholars to set off in the vain search for a metatheoretical El Dorado (Olsen 2021)?Constructing a Viable Concept of Governance for Public Administration Although the critique of governance is a serious challenge, does it render the concept useless? The answer is no. There are powerful forces at work in the world, forces that the traditional study of politics, government, and public administration do not explain. The state and its sub-jurisdictions are losing important elements of their sovereignty; borders have less and less meaning. Social and economic problems and challenges are seldom contained within jurisdictional boundaries, and systems of communication pay little attention to them. Business is increasingly regional or global. Business elites have multiple residences and operate extended networks that are highly multi-jurisdictional. States and jurisdictions are hollowing-out their organization and administrative capacities, exporting to contractors much of the work of public administration. Governance, even with its weakness, is the most useful available concept for describing and explaining these forces. But for governance to become anything more than passing fashion or a dismissive un-public administration, it must respond to the critique of governance. To dothis, governance scholars must settle on an agreed- upon definition, a definition broad enough to comprehend the forces it presumes to explain but not so broad as to claim to explain everything. Governance theorists must be ready to explain not only what governance is, but also what it is not. Governance theorist must be up-front about the biases in the concept and the implications of those biases.The lessons learned in the evolution of regime theory in international relations are relevant here because regime theory predates governance theory and because the two are very nearly the same thing. Summing-UpFrom its prominence in the 1980s, regime theory would now be described as one of many important theories of international relations. International relations is, of course, the study of relations between nation-states whereas public administration is the study of the management of the state and its subgovernments. It could be said that regime theory accounts for the role of non-state actors and policy entrepreneurs in the context of the modern transformation of the nation-state. In public administration it could be said that the modern transformation of states and their subgovernments explains the contemporary salience of theories of governance. Both regime theory and governance theory are scholarly responses to the transformation of states.Government in the postmodern state involves multiple levels of interlocked and overlapping arenas of collective policy implementation. Governments now operate in the context of supranational, international, transgovernmental and transnational relations in elaborate patterns of federated power sharing and interdependence. Therefore, it is now understood that public administration as governance is the best description of the management of the transformed or postmodern state (Sorensen 2021) Nationhood and community are transformed as collective loyalties are increasingly projected away from the state. Major portions of economic activity are now embedded in cross-border networks and national and local economies are less self-sustaining that they once were (Sorensen 2021, p. 162)Harlan Cleveland understood very early how governments, economies and communities were changing and how rapidly they were changing. His initial description of public administration as governance was designed to square the theory and practices of the field with the realities of a changing world. His governance model still serves as a感谢您的阅读，祝您生活愉快。
第1篇一、引言欧盟（European Union，简称EU）是世界上最大的经济体之一，由28个成员国组成，其经济总量和影响力在全球范围内具有重要地位。
随着全球经济的不断发展，欧盟的财务状况备受关注。
本报告将对欧盟的财务状况进行详细分析，包括财政收入、支出、债务等方面，以期为我国相关决策提供参考。
二、欧盟财政收支概况1. 财政收入欧盟的财政收入主要来源于以下几个方面：（1）成员国缴纳的会费：欧盟会费是欧盟财政的主要收入来源，占欧盟财政收入的约80%。
会费缴纳标准根据各成员国的国内生产总值（GDP）和人口等因素确定。
（2）关税和进口税：欧盟对进口商品征收关税和进口税，这部分收入占欧盟财政收入的约10%。
（3）增值税：欧盟内部增值税是欧盟财政的重要收入来源，占欧盟财政收入的约10%。
（4）其他收入：包括罚款、利息收入等，占欧盟财政收入的约10%。
2. 财政支出欧盟的财政支出主要包括以下几个方面：（1）农业补贴：农业补贴是欧盟财政支出的重要组成部分，主要用于支持欧盟农业发展和农民利益。
（2）区域发展基金：区域发展基金用于支持欧盟内部欠发达地区的经济发展，缩小地区发展差距。
（3）社会保障：社会保障支出包括养老保险、失业保险、医疗保险等，占欧盟财政支出的约30%。
（4）其他支出：包括教育、科研、环境保护、外交、安全等领域支出。
三、欧盟债务状况1. 债务规模截至2020年底，欧盟债务总额达到约7.5万亿美元，占欧盟GDP的约80%。
其中，欧元区债务总额约为6.6万亿美元，占欧元区GDP的约88%。
2. 债务结构欧盟债务主要分为以下几类：（1）公共债务：包括政府债务和地方政府债务，占欧盟债务总额的约70%。
（2）私营部门债务：包括银行、企业等私营部门债务，占欧盟债务总额的约30%。
（3）家庭债务：家庭债务占欧盟债务总额的约10%。
3. 债务风险欧盟债务风险主要体现在以下几个方面：（1）债务水平较高：欧盟债务水平较高，容易引发债务危机。
1外文资料翻译译文欧盟国内外银行盈利能力影响因素分析摘要：本文使用银行级数据，通过1995 - 2001年期间国内和外国银行在15个欧盟国家的商业运营情况来了解银行的具体特点和整体银行业环境对影响盈利能力。
结果表明, 国内和外国银行的盈利能力不仅受银行具体特点的影响，也受金融市场结构和宏观经济条件的影响。
除了在集中情况下国内银行利润, 所有的变量都是有重大意义的，尽管它们的影响和关系对国内和国外银行并不总是相同。
1 介绍在过去的几年许多的因素造成了欧盟银行业竞争日益激烈。
最重要的因素之一是针对服务、建立、运行和监督信贷机构的第二个欧洲指令出台，在银行和金融领域放松管制。
这个指令为所有欧洲银行机构在单一欧洲金融市场和提供了平等的竞争条件，因此银行正在先前无法预料的国内外竞争之中。
另外, 最近一些的技术进步对规模经济和范围提供了更多的机会，而采用欧元也加速了行业的变化。
此外,宏观经济政策后大多数国家通货膨胀率和利率逐步降低。
最后,在越来越多的欧洲国家非金融公司被允许提供传统的银行服务,并且在竞争中进一步提高，银行被迫产生新的产品和寻找新客户。
许多银行为了参加欧洲市场和银行业扩大被迫增加规模，通过合并和收购的方式进行了前所未有的整合。
在环境快速变化的情况下，这些变化给在欧盟的银行带来很大的挑战，因此影响了他们的效能。
格林指出，充足的收益是必要的条件让银行保持偿付能力,在一个合适的环境生存、发展和繁荣。
考虑到银行业的健康发展和经济知识增长，影响银行的盈利能力的潜在因素不仅和管理者有关，而且和众多利益相关者如中央银行,银行家协会、政府以及其他金融当局有关。
2 文献综述参考文献与本文可分为三大类。
第一部分是研究集中于银行的盈利能力的决定因素。
第二部分包括研究欧洲银行的利润和成本效率。
第三由研究比较国内外银行。
在下面几个部分中,我们讨论这些类别中的每一个。
3 决定因素和变量选择3．1 因变量本研究使用平均资产回报率(ROAA)来评估银行的性能。
《城市商业银行盈利能力影响因素实证研究》篇一一、引言随着中国金融市场的日益开放和竞争加剧，城市商业银行作为我国金融体系的重要组成部分，其盈利能力的研究显得尤为重要。
本文旨在通过实证研究，深入探讨影响城市商业银行盈利能力的关键因素，以期为提升其经营效率和竞争力提供理论支持。
二、研究背景及意义近年来，城市商业银行在服务地方经济、支持中小企业发展等方面发挥着重要作用。
然而，随着金融市场的开放和外资银行的进入，城市商业银行面临着巨大的竞争压力。
因此，研究其盈利能力的影响因素，对于提高其经营效率、增强竞争力具有重要意义。
三、文献综述前人关于商业银行盈利能力的研究主要集中在资本充足率、资产质量、风险控制、服务质量等方面。
研究表明，这些因素对商业银行的盈利能力具有显著影响。
然而，由于各地区、各银行之间的差异，这些影响因素的具体作用机制和程度可能存在差异。
因此，本文以城市商业银行为研究对象，进一步探讨其盈利能力的影响因素。
四、研究方法与数据来源本文采用实证研究方法，以我国城市商业银行为研究对象，收集相关数据，运用统计软件进行分析。
数据来源主要包括各银行年报、银监会公布的数据以及相关研究报告。
五、实证研究1. 变量选择与模型构建本文选取资本充足率、资产质量、风险控制、服务质量、宏观经济因素等作为影响因素，以城市商业银行的净资产收益率（ROE）为被解释变量，构建多元线性回归模型。
2. 描述性统计分析通过对各变量进行描述性统计分析，发现城市商业银行的资本充足率、资产质量等指标存在较大差异，这可能与其盈利能力存在一定关系。
3. 实证结果分析通过多元线性回归分析，发现资本充足率、资产质量、风险控制和服务质量对城市商业银行的盈利能力具有显著影响。
其中，资本充足率和资产质量对盈利能力具有正向影响，而风险控制则对盈利能力具有负向影响。
此外，宏观经济因素如GDP增长率、市场利率等也对城市商业银行的盈利能力产生影响。
六、讨论与结论1. 讨论本文研究表明，资本充足率、资产质量、风险控制和服务质量是影响城市商业银行盈利能力的重要因素。
中国商业银行盈利能力影响因素分析中国商业银行作为金融体系中的重要角色，其盈利能力直接影响着整个金融体系的稳定和发展。
一般来说，商业银行盈利能力的影响因素可以从多个方面进行分析，如资本充足度、资产管理、负债管理、经营效益等方面。
本文将从这些角度进行分析，探讨中国商业银行盈利能力的影响因素。
一、资本充足度资本充足度是衡量商业银行盈利能力的重要指标之一。
资本充足度直接影响着银行的偿付能力和经营风险。
过低的资本充足度会使银行在面对经济波动和市场风险时难以有效应对，进而影响银行的盈利能力。
资本充足度对商业银行的盈利能力具有重要的影响。
资本充足度受到多方面因素的影响，其中包括资本结构、盈利稳定性、资产质量等。
资本结构决定了银行的资本充足度水平，盈利稳定性可以直接影响到资本充足度的维持水平，而资产质量则影响着资本充足度的衡量指标。
银行需要关注并合理管理这些因素，以提高资本充足度水平，从而增强盈利能力。
二、资产管理资产管理是影响商业银行盈利能力的重要方面。
资产的质量、收益率和规模都直接影响着银行的盈利能力。
对于资产质量来说，银行需要关注信贷风险、市场风险和流动性风险，有效管理这些风险可以保障资产的质量，进而提高盈利能力。
对于资产收益率来说，银行需要通过差异化的资产配置和投资管理，以提高资产的收益率，从而增强盈利能力。
对于资产规模来说，银行需要通过扩大资产规模，提高经济效益，进而增强盈利能力。
资产管理还需要关注资金投入和成本控制。
银行在资产管理过程中，需要合理配置资金投入，并通过成本控制措施降低运营成本，从而提高资产管理的盈利能力。
三、负债管理负债管理还需要关注资金来源和风险控制。
银行在负债管理过程中，需要建立多元化的资金来源，提高资金的灵活性，从而增强盈利能力。
银行也需要通过风险控制措施，保障负债安全，降低负债风险，从而提高盈利能力。
四、经营效益经营效益是影响商业银行盈利能力的关键因素。
经营效益包括营业收入和营业成本两个方面，直接影响着银行的盈利能力。
外文原文How Important is Financial Risk?作者：Sohnke M. Bartram, Gregory W. Brown, and Murat Atamer起止页码：1-7出版日期（期刊号）：September 2009,V ol. 2, No. 4(Serial No. 11)出版单位：Theory and Decision, DOI 10.1007/s11238-005-4590-0Abstract：This paper examines the determinants of equity price risk for a large sample of non-financial corporations in the United States from 1964 to 2008. We estimate both structural and reduced form models to examine the endogenous nature of corporate financial characteristics such as total debt, debt maturity, cash holdings, and dividend policy. We find that the observed levels of equity price risk are explained primarily by operating and asset characteristics such as firm age, size, asset tangibility, as well as operating cash flow levels and volatility. In contrast, implied measures of financial risk are generally low and more stable than debt-to-equity ratios. Our measures of financial risk have declined over the last 30 years even as measures of equity volatility (e.g. idiosyncratic risk) have tended to increase. Consequently, documented trends in equity price risk are more than fully accounted for by trends in the riskiness of firms’ assets. Taken together, the results suggest that the typical U.S. firm substantially reduces financial risk by carefully managing financial policies. As a result, residual financial risk now appears negligible relative to underlying economic risk for a typical non-financial firm.Keywords：Capital structure；financial risk；risk management；corporate finance 1IntroductionThe financial crisis of 2008 has brought significant attention to the effects of financial leverage. There is no doubt that the high levels of debt financing by financial institutions and households significantly contributed to the crisis. Indeed, evidence indicates that excessive leverage orchestrated by major global banks (e.g., through the mortgage lending and collateralized debt obligations) and the so-called “shadow banking system” may be the underlying cause of the recent economic and financial dislocation. Less obvious is the role of financial leverage among nonfinancial firms. To date, problems in the U.S. non-financial sector have been minor compared to thedistress in the financial sector despite the seizing of capital markets during the crisis. For example, non-financial bankruptcies have been limited given that the economic decline is the largest since the great depression of the 1930s. In fact, bankruptcy filings of non-financial firms have occurred mostly in U.S. industries (e.g., automotive manufacturing, newspapers, and real estate) that faced fundamental economic pressures prior to the financial crisis. This surprising fact begs the question, “How important is financial risk for non-financial firms?” At the heart of this issue is the uncertainty about the determinants of total firm risk as well as components of firm risk.Recent academic research in both asset pricing and corporate finance has rekindled an interest in analyzing equity price risk. A current strand of the asset pricing literature examines the finding of Campbell et al. (2001) that firm-specific (idiosyncratic) risk has tended to increase over the last 40 years. Other work suggests that idiosyncratic risk may be a priced risk factor (see Goyal and Santa-Clara, 2003, among others). Also related to these studies is work by Pástor and Veronesi (2003) showing how investor uncertainty about firm profitability is an important determinant of idiosyncratic risk and firm value. Other research has examined the role of equity volatility in bond pricing (e.g., Dichev, 1998, Campbell, Hilscher, and Szilagyi, 2008).However, much of the empirical work examining equity price risk takes the risk of assets as given or tries to explain the trend in idiosyncratic risk. In contrast, this paper takes a different tack in the investigation of equity price risk. First, we seek to understand the determinants of equity price risk at the firm level by considering total risk as the product of risks inherent in the firms operations (i.e., economic or business risks) and risks associated with financing the firms operations (i.e., financial risks). Second, we attempt to assess the relative importance of economic and financial risks and the implications for financial policy.Early research by Modigliani and Miller (1958) suggests that financial policy may be largely irrelevant for firm value because investors can replicate many financial decisions by the firm at a low cost (i.e., via homemade leverage) and well-functioning capital markets should be able to distinguish between financial and economic distress. Nonetheless, financial policies, such as adding debt to the capital structure, can magnify the risk of equity. In contrast, recent research on corporate risk management suggests that firms may also be able to reduce risks and increase valuewith financial policies such as hedging with financial derivatives. However, this research is often motivated by substantial deadweight costs associated with financial distress or other market imperfections associated with financial leverage. Empirical research provides conflicting accounts of how costly financial distress can be for a typical publicly traded firm.We attempt to directly address the roles of economic and financial risk by examining determinants of total firm risk. In our analysis we utilize a large sample of non-financial firms in the United States. Our goal of identifying the most important determinants of equity price risk (volatility) relies on viewing financial policy as transforming asset volatility into equity volatility via financial leverage. Thus, throughout the paper, we consider financial leverage as the wedge between asset volatility and equity volatility. For example, in a static setting, debt provides financial leverage that magnifies operating cash flow volatility. Because financial policy is determined by owners (and managers), we are careful to examine the effects of firms’ asset and operating characteristics on financial policy. Specifically, we examine a variety of characteristics suggested by previous research and, as clearly as possible, distinguish between those associated with the operations of the company (i.e. factors determining economic risk) and those associated with financing the firm (i.e. factors determining financial risk). We then allow economic risk to be a determinant of financial policy in the structural framework of Leland and Toft (1996), or alternatively, in a reduced form model of financial leverage. An advantage of the structural model approach is that we are able to account for both the possibility of financial and operating implications of some factors (e.g., dividends), as well as the endogenous nature of the bankruptcy decision and financial policy in general.Our proxy for firm risk is the volatility of common stock returns derived from calculating the standard deviation of daily equity returns. Our proxies for economic risk are designed to capture the essential characteristics of the firms’ operations and assets that determine the cash flow generating process for the firm. For example, firm size and age provide measures of line of- business maturity; tangible assets (plant, property, and equipment) serve as a proxy for the ‘hardness’ of a firm’s assets; capital expenditures measure capital intensity as well as growth potential. Operating profitability and operating profit volatility serve as measures of the timeliness and riskiness of cash flows. To understand how financial factors affect firm risk, we examine total debt, debt maturity, dividend payouts, and holdings of cash andshort-term investments.The primary result of our analysis is surprising: factors determining economic risk for a typical company explain the vast majority of the variation in equity volatility. Correspondingly, measures of implied financial leverage are much lower than observed debt ratios. Specifically, in our sample covering 1964-2008 average actual net financial (market) leverage is about 1.50 compared to our estimates of between 1.03 and 1.11 (depending on model specification and estimation technique). This suggests that firms may undertake other financial policies to manage financial risk and thus lower effective leverage to nearly negligible levels. These policies might include dynamically adjusting financial variables such as debt levels, debt maturity, or cash holdings (see, for example, Acharya, Almeida, and Campello, 2007). In addition, many firms also utilize explicit financial risk management techniques such as the use of financial derivatives, contractual arrangements with investors (e.g. lines of credit, call provisions in debt contracts, or contingencies in supplier contracts), special purpose vehicles (SPVs), or other alternative risk transfer techniques.The effects of our economic risk factors on equity volatility are generally highly statistically significant, with predicted signs. In addition, the magnitudes of the effects are substantial. We find that volatility of equity decreases with the size and age of the firm. This is intuitive since large and mature firms typically have more stable lines of business, which should be reflected in the volatility of equity returns. Equity volatility tends to decrease with capital expenditures though the effect is weak. Consistent with the predictions of Pástor and Veronesi (2003), we find that firms with higher profitability and lower profit volatility have lower equity volatility. This suggests that companies with higher and more stable operating cash flows are less likely to go bankrupt, and therefore are potentially less risky. Among economic risk variables, the effects of firm size, profit volatility, and dividend policy on equity volatility stand out. Unlike some previous studies, our careful treatment of the endogeneity of financial policy confirms that leverage increases total firm risk. Otherwise, financial risk factors are not reliably related to total risk.Given the large literature on financial policy, it is no surprise that financial variables are,at least in part, determined by the economic risks firms take. However, some of the specific findings are unexpected. For example, in a simple model of capital structure, dividend payouts should increase financial leverage since they represent an outflow of cash from the firm (i.e., increase net debt). We find thatdividends are associated with lower risk. This suggests that paying dividends is not as much a product of financial policy as a characteristic of a firm’s operations (e.g., a mature company with limited growth opportunities). We also estimate how sensitivities to different risk factors have changed over time. Our results indicate that most relations are fairly stable. One exception is firm age which prior to 1983 tends to be positively related to risk and has since been consistently negatively related to risk. This is related to findings by Brown and Kapadia (2007) that recent trends in idiosyncratic risk are related to stock listings by younger and riskier firms.Perhaps the most interesting result from our analysis is that our measures of implied financial leverage have declined over the last 30 years at the same time that measures of equity price risk (such as idiosyncratic risk) appear to have been increasing. In fact, measures of implied financial leverage from our structural model settle near 1.0 (i.e., no leverage) by the end of our sample. There are several possible reasons for this. First, total debt ratios for non-financial firms have declined steadily over the last 30 years, so our measure of implied leverage should also decline. Second, firms have significantly increased cash holdings, so measures of net debt (debt minus cash and short-term investments) have also declined. Third, the composition of publicly traded firms has changed with more risky (especially technology-oriented) firms becoming publicly listed. These firms tend to have less debt in their capital structure. Fourth, as mentioned above, firms can undertake a variety of financial risk management activities. To the extent that these activities have increased over the last few decades, firms will have become less exposed to financial risk factors.We conduct some additional tests to provide a reality check of our results. First, we repeat our analysis with a reduced form model that imposes minimum structural rigidity on our estimation and find very similar results. This indicates that our results are unlikely to be driven by model misspecification. We also compare our results with trends in aggregate debt levels for all U.S. non-financial firms and find evidence consistent with our conclusions. Finally, we look at characteristics of publicly traded non-financial firms that file for bankruptcy around the last three recessions and find evidence suggesting that these firms are increasingly being affected by economic distress as opposed to financial distress.In short, our results suggest that, as a practical matter, residual financial risk is now relatively unimportant for the typical U.S. firm. This raises questions about the level of expected financial distress costs since the probability of financial distress islikely to be lower than commonly thought for most companies. For example, our results suggest that estimates of the level of systematic risk in bond pricing may be biased if they do not take into account the trend in implied financial leverage (e.g., Dichev, 1998). Our results also bring into question the appropriateness of financial models used to estimate default probabilities, since financial policies that may be difficult to observe appear to significantly reduce risk. Lastly, our results imply that the fundamental risks born by shareholders are primarily related to underlying economic risks which should lead to a relatively efficient allocation of capital.Before proceeding we address a potential comment about our analysis. Some readers may be tempted to interpret our results as indicating that financial risk does not matter. This is not the proper interpretation. Instead, our results suggest that firms are able to manage financial risk so that the resulting exposure to shareholders is low compared to economic risks. Of course, financial risk is important to firms that choose to take on such risks either through high debt levels or a lack of risk management. In contrast, our study suggests that the typical non-financial firm chooses not to take these risks. In short, gross financial risk may be important, but firms can manage it. This contrasts with fundamental economic and business risks that are more difficult (or undesirable) to hedge because they represent the mechanism by which the firm earns economic profits.The paper is organized at follows. Motivation, related literature, and hypotheses are reviewed in Section 2. Section 3 describes the models we employ followed by a description of the data in Section 4. Empirical results for the Leland-Toft model are presented in Section 5. Section 6 considers estimates from the reduced form model, aggregate debt data for the no financial sector in the U.S., and an analysis of bankruptcy filings over the last 25 years. Section 6 concludes.2 Motivation, Related Literature, and HypothesesStudying firm risk and its determinants is important for all areas of finance. In the corporate finance literature, firm risk has direct implications for a variety of fundamental issues ranging from optimal capital structure to the agency costs of asset substitution. Likewise, the characteristics of firm risk are fundamental factors in all asset pricing models.The corporate finance literature often relies on market imperfections associated with financial risk. In the Modigliani Miller (1958) framework, financial risk (or more generally financial policy) is irrelevant because investors can replicate the financialdecisions of the firm by themselves. Consequently, well-functioning capital markets should be able to distinguish between frictionless financial distress and economic bankruptcy. For example, Andrade and Kaplan (1998) carefully distinguish between costs of financial and economic distress by analyzing highly leveraged transactions, and find that financial distress costs are small for a subset of the firms that did not experience an “economic” shock. They conclude that financial distress costs should be small or insignificant for typical firms. Kaplan and Stein (1990) analyze highly levered transactions and find that equity beta increases are surprisingly modest after recapitalizations.The ongoing debate on financial policy, however, does not address the relevance of financial leverage as a driver of the overall riskiness of the firm. Our study joins the debate from this perspective. Correspondingly, decomposing firm risk into financial and economic risks is at the heart of our study.Research in corporate risk management examines the role of total financial risk explicitly by examining the motivations for firms to engage in hedging activities. In particular, theory suggests positive valuation effects of corporate hedging in the presence of capital market imperfections. These might include agency costs related to underinvestment or asset substitution (see Bessembinder, 1991, Jensen and Meckling, 1976, Myers, 1977, Froot, Scharfstein, and Stein,1993), bankruptcy costs and taxes (Smith and Stulz, 1985), and managerial risk aversion (Stulz,1990). However, the corporate risk management literature does not generally address the systematic pricing of corporate risk which has been the primary focus of the asset pricing literature.Lintner (1965) and Sharpe (1964) define a partial equilibrium pricing of risk in a mean variance framework. In this structure, total risk is decomposed into systematic risk and idiosyncratic risk, and only systematic risk should be priced in a frictionless market. However, Campbelletal (2001) find that firm-specific risk has increased substantially over the last four decades and various studies have found that idiosyncratic risk is a priced factor (Goyal and Santa Clara,2003, Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006, 2008, Spiegel and Wang, 2006). Research has determined various firm characteristics (i.e., industry growth rates, institutional ownership, average firm size, growth options, firm age, and profitability risk) are associated with firm-specific risk. Recent research has also examined the role of equity price risk in the context of expected financial distress costs (Campbell and Taksler, 2003, Vassalou and Xing, 2004, Almeida and Philippon, 2007, among others). Likewise, fundamental economicrisks have been shown to be to be related to equity risk factors (see, for example, Vassalou, 2003, and the citations therein). Choiand Richardson (2009) examine the volatility of the firm’s assets using issue-level data on debt and find that asset volatilities exhibit significant time-series variation and that financial leverage has a substantial effect on equity volatility.How Important is Financial Risk?财务风险的重要性作者：Sohnke M. Bartram, Gregory W. Brown, and Murat Atamer起始页码：1-7出版日期（期刊号）：September 2009,Vol. 2, No. 4(Serial No. 11)出版单位：Theory and Decision, DOI 10.1007/s11238-005-4590-0外文翻译译文：摘要：本文探讨了美国大型非金融企业从1964年至2008年股票价格风险的决定小性因素。
客户盈利能力分析外文文献翻译(含：英文原文及中文译文)文献出处：Raaij E M V, Vernooij M J A, Triest S V. The implementation of customer profitability analysis: A case study[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2003, 32(7):573-583.英文原文The implementation of customer profitability analysis: A case studyRaaij E M V, Vernooij M J A, Triest S VAbstractBy using customer profitability analysis (CPA), firms can determine the profit contribution of customer segments and/or individual customers. This article presents an approach for the implementation of CPA. The implementation process is illustrated using a case study of a firm producing and selling professional cleaning products. The case study highlights specific issues related to CPA in an industrial setting,and the results provide examples of the possible benefits of implementing a process of regular CPA.D 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Customer profitability; Customer relationship management (CRM); Implementation; Case study1. IntroductionWithin any given customer base, there will be differences in the revenues customers generate for the firm and in the costs the firm has toincur to secure those revenues. While most firms will know the customer revenues, many firms are unaware of all costs associated with customer relationships. In general, product costs will be known for each customer, but sales and marketing, service, and support costs are mostly treated as overhead. Customer profitability analysis (CPA) refers to the allocation of revenues and costs to customer segments or individual customers, such that the profitability of those segments and/or individual customers can be calculated.The impetus for the increasing attention for CPA is twofold. First, the rise of activity-based costing (ABC) in the 1990s led to an increased understanding of the varying extent to which the manufacturing of different products used a firm’s resources (Cooper & Kaplan, 1991; Foster &Gupta, 1994). When using ABC, firms first identify cost pools: categories of activities performed within the organization(e.g., procurement).Second, information technology makes it possible to record and analyze more customer data— both in type and in amount. As data such as number of orders, number of sales visits, number of service calls, etc. are stored at the level of the individual customer, it becomes possible to actually calculate customer profitability.It is considered good industrial marketing practice to build and nurture profitable relationships with customers. To be able to do this, afirm should know how current customer relationships differ in profitability, as well as what customer segments offer higher potential for future profitable customer relationships.2. The potential benefits of CPAThe direct benefits of CPA lie in the insight it provides in the uneven distribution of costs and revenues over customers. The information on the spread of costs among customers will be valuable in particular, as the distribution of revenues will generally be known to the firm. This insight in the extent to which specific customers consume the firm’s resources generates new opportunities for the firm in three areas: cost management, revenue management, and strategic marketing management.First, CPA uncovers opportunities for targeted cost management and profit improvement programs. Published figures show examples where 20% of customers generate 225% of profits (Cooper & Kaplan, 1991), where more than half of the customers is unprofitable (Storbacka, 1997)or where the loss on a customer can be as high as 2.5 times sales revenue (Niraj, Gupta, & Narasimhan, 2001). CPA, as a specific application of ABC, reveals the links between activities and resource consumption, and it therefore points directly to profit opportunities (Cooper & Kaplan, 1991). Second, CPA provides a basis for well-informed pricing decisions, bonus plans, and discounts to customers. It shows why filling some orders cost more than others and enables firms to have their prices reflectthose differences (Shapiro et al., 1987).The analysis outcomes may also help in revising existing discounting structures to improve profitability (cf. Kalafatis & Denton, 2000).Third, CPA opens up possibilities for segmentation and targeting strategies based on cost and profitability profiles. Some companies have segmented their customer base in platinum, gold, iron, and lead customers, based on their contributions to profits.These potential benefits of CPA are frequently cited in the literature. Yet the issues arising in actually implementing CPA are seldom discussed. In the next section, an overall approach for the implementation of CPA is presented.3. An overall approach for implementing CPAThe actual calculation of customer profitability amounts to an extensive ABC exercise. To make CPA really useful, the implementation should go further than drawing up a customer profitability model and plugging data into it, as the value of the analysis is in the actions based on better informed decision-making. Therefore, a six-step approach to implementing CPA is suggested. This approach, outlined in Fig. 1, provides a directive for a team consisting of at least a marketer and a management accountant. Depending on the characteristics of the firm and its information systems, the team can also include operations managers and information specialists.The sixth and final step deals with establishing the necessary infrastructure for the continued use of CPA. Embedding CPA in the daily routines of sales and marketing and accounting may well necessitate changes in procedures(e.g., marketing planning), changes in responsibilities, and changes in systems (e.g., information systems). The next section presents the application of this six-step approach in a business-to-business setting.4. The implementation of CPA in an industrial cleaning firmThe case organization is one of the national sales offices of a multinational firm that engages in the development, production, sales, and marketing of professional cleaning products (chemicals, cleaning systems, and consumables).Among the f irm’s main markets are industrial laundry, office cleaning, hotel cleaning, kitchen hygiene, and personal hygiene. Its products are sold directly (to large end-users such as in-flight caterers and to service integrators such as professional cleaners), as well as through distributors. The firm has divided its market into market sectors based on the nature of the end-user (e.g., healthcare, lodging, or dairy).As with many industrial firms, this firm employs a considerable sales and service force. The sales force is responsible for the initiation, maintenance, and development of customer relationships. The service force is responsible for order processing, customer training, advice, product demonstrations, maintenance, and repair.Procedures are also part of the infrastructure. To improve the accuracy of future customer profitability figures, the sales managers and account managers were requested to start registering the duration of their customer visits. In the absence of such a registration in the first round of analysis, sales costs were allocated to customers as a percentage of revenues. The willingness of the sales force to record their time spent for customers was high, as they understood the importance of this information for accurate analyses of customer profitability.5. Learning from CPAThe exercise described above was this firm’s first experience with CPA. As Ward and Ryals (2001) suggest, the most effective approach for attaining accurate valuations of customer relationships is an iterative approach in which a customer profitability model is progressively implemented in the organization. This means that, with each cycle, the model is to be improved until the calculations are sufficiently accurate for marketing purposes. For this firm, the first improvement for the next iteration concerns the registration of sales force hours to allocate sales costs more accurately. It has further decided to repeat the CPA exercise every 6 months and implement improvements along the way. For the firm, the exercise has sparked learning on three different levels: On the first, and most basic level, the firm has learned what each customer’s last year contribution has been to the firm’s operating income and how thisinformation can be used for cost management, revenue management, and marketing management. Second, the firm is learning how revenues and costs are best allocated to individual customers. The first attempt described in this article is only the start of a continuous improvement of such allocation methods. And third, the firm is learning what the various factors are that determine the value of each individual customer (customer profitability being but one of those factors).6. DiscussionThere are a few things you should know about CPA users. First, CPA numbers are constructed from multiple data sources. The accuracy of these data sources limits the possible accuracy of customer profitability figures. In addition, the CPA model must be a good representation of actual processing.The CPA exercise reported here is a retrospective analysis, which is an example of an analysis of past revenues and costs incurred by customers in a particular cycle. Managers will also be interested in prospective customer profit analysis. The quasi-CPA calculates the net present value of the future expected costs and revenues associated with serving the customer throughout his future life. The Quasi-Accountant Office is also known as the customer lifetime value analysis.To be able to estimate future costs and benefits, and the analysis of customer profitability is a valuable, if not necessary, first step.7. ConclusionIn this case, a six-step approach to implementing CPA within the company. Costs and revenue should be allocated to the only active customer, which means that the customer who starts analysis and identification can consider the active customer's customer database. The second step involves the company's internal production to serve the customer's costs, analysis of all activities. For all activities, the cost driver has to be calculated in such a way that it can be calculated for each cost driver how many units are identified for each individual customer. The actual calculation step 3 performs subsequent interpretation of the results and weighs the customer's a priori expectations of profit distribution. Based on the discussion of (preliminary) outcomes, the related costs allocated to the customer's previous decisions may be modified to improve the accuracy and/or fairness of the distribution. Once the number of calculation methods agreed, marketing strategies, procedures and actions can taste new information. It may require very unprofitable accounts to act immediately, improvement programs can be installed to reduce unnecessary costs, and new strategies may be targeted at the development of a particular customer base. As a sixth process, it may be necessary to adjust the organization to establish an infrastructure Use CPA in your organization.Regarding the third issue, which is the CPA-based differentiatedmarketing strategy, industrial companies should consider adopting profitability-based market segmentation and have been applied to financial services and other non-major industries and market differentiation strategies. Once a customer’s profit figures are established within a customer pyramid rated by customers as platinum, gold, iron, lead or customers, customers can serve at their own level. Since profit base segmentation is a new industrial enterprise, the first effective implementation of this may be to gain a disproportionate share of returns.The CPA will bring a lot of new information to the company for the first time. Therefore, the CPA is its own value. At this point, there is little evidence of its widespread use, and the actual implementation of companies in industry. In an increasingly focused era of CRM, customer loyalty, CPA is likely to be in urgent need of such efforts.中文译文客户盈利能力分析的实施:案例研究Raaij E M V, Vernooij M J A, Triest S V摘要通过使用客户盈利能力分析(CPA ),企业可以决定客户群和/或个人客户的利润贡献。
有关盈利能力的外文文献盈利能力是企业经营的核心指标之一，直接关系到企业的生存与发展。
本文将通过对多篇外文文献的综合分析，探讨盈利能力的相关因素和提升方法。
1. 文献A：《盈利能力与企业规模的关系》这篇文献研究了盈利能力与企业规模之间的关系。
研究发现，企业规模对盈利能力有重要影响。
大型企业通常拥有更多的资源和市场份额，能够更有效地利用规模经济效应，从而提升盈利能力。
同时，大型企业在市场竞争中也更具竞争优势，能够更好地应对市场变化，进一步提高盈利能力。
2. 文献B：《盈利能力的影响因素分析》该文献对盈利能力的影响因素进行了深入研究。
研究发现，市场需求、产品竞争力、成本控制和管理能力是影响盈利能力的关键因素。
市场需求决定了企业销售额的大小，产品竞争力决定了企业能否获得更高的市场份额。
成本控制和管理能力直接影响企业的成本和效率，进而影响盈利能力的提升。
3. 文献C：《盈利能力的提升策略》该文献提出了一些提升盈利能力的策略。
首先，企业应不断提高产品质量和创新能力，以提升产品竞争力，从而获得更高的市场份额和利润。
其次，企业应积极控制成本，提高经营效率，降低生产成本。
此外，合理的财务管理和资金运作也是提升盈利能力的重要手段。
最后，企业还应积极拓展市场，开拓新的销售渠道和客户群体，以扩大销售规模，实现更高的盈利能力。
4. 文献D：《行业竞争对盈利能力的影响》该文献研究了行业竞争对企业盈利能力的影响。
研究发现，行业竞争激烈度对企业盈利能力有显著影响。
在竞争激烈的行业中，企业需要更加注重产品创新和市场营销，提高产品差异化和品牌影响力，才能在竞争中占据优势，实现盈利能力的提升。
总结起来，企业的盈利能力受到多个因素的影响，包括企业规模、市场需求、产品竞争力、成本控制、管理能力以及行业竞争等。
为提升盈利能力，企业应注重提高产品质量和创新能力，积极控制成本，合理管理财务和资金运作，拓展市场，并根据行业竞争情况采取相应的策略。
文献出处：标题 : A ssessm ent of Financial R isk in Firm 's Profitability A naly sis作者 : S olomon, Daniela C ristina; M untean, M i rcea出版物名称 : Economy Transdisciplinarity C og nition卷 : 15期 : 2页 : 58 -67页数 : 10出版年份 : 2012A ssessm en t of F in a n c ia l R isk in F ir m ' s P r ofita b i l i t y A n a ly sisA bstract: In the contex t of g lobalization w e are w i tnessing an unprecedented diversification of risk situations and uncertainty in the business w orld, the w hole ex i stence of an org anization being related to risk . The notion of risk i s inextricably l inked to the return. R eturn includes ensuring remuneration of production factors and invested capital but a lso resources manag em ent in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. A full financial and econom ic diag nosis can not be done w i thout reg a rd to the return-risk ra tio.S tock profitability analy s i s should not be dissociated from risk analy s i s to w hich the com pany i s subdued. R isk analy sis i s useful in decision making concerning the use of economic-financial potential or investm ent decisions, in developing business plans, and a lso to inform partners about the enterprise's performa nce level.R i sk takes many form:, operational risk, financial risk and tota l risk , risk of bankruptcy ( other risk categ ories) each influencing the business activity on a g reater or lesser extent. Financial risk analy s i s, realized w i th the use of specific indicators such as: financial leverag e , financial breakeven and leverag e ra tio ( C LF) accompany ing call to debt, presents a major interest to optim ize the financial s tructure and viability of any com pany operating under a g enuine m arket econom y .Key w ords: risk analy sis fina ncial risk , financial leverag e , breakeven point.IntroductionR i sk and return a re tw o interdependent aspects in the activity of a com pany , so the question i s assuming a certain level of risk to achieve the profitability that it a l low s. R eturn can only be assessed but on the basis of supported risk . This risk a ffects econom ic asset returns first, and secondly of capital invested. Therefore it can be addressed both in terms of business, as the org anizer of the production process driven by intention to increase property ow ners and adequate remuneration of production factors and the position of outside financial investors, interested in carry ing the best investm ent, in financial market conditions w i th several areas of return and different risk levels.R isk assessm ent should consider manag ing chang e : people chang e , methods chang e , the risks chang e [ 1 , 36 ] .C onsequently , profitability i s subject to the g eneral condition of risk w here the org anization operates. R i sk takes m any forms, each a ffecting the ag ents' econom ic activity on a lesser or g reater ex tent. For econom ic and financial analy sis a t the micro level presents a particular interest those form s of risk that ca n be influenced, in the sense of reduction, throug h the actions and measures the economic ag ents can underg o.1.. Financial R i sk in Economic Theory and PracticeFinancial activity , in i ts m any seg m ents is influenced by unex pectedly restrictive e lem ents as evolution, often unexpected, not depending directly on economic ag ents. Impact of various factors ( m a rket, competition, tim e factor,inflation, ex chang e rates, interest, com missions, human factors and not least the company culture) often mak es financial decision become a decision under risk.Financial risk characterizes variability in net profit, under the company 's financial structure. There a re no financial templa te features, each business activity prints i ts ow n sig nificant varia tions from case to case. In the case of reta i l ers, "intang ible assets a re less important, but stocks a re significant, and the appeal to credit provider is frequently used, being very useful for treasury business" [ 2 , 40 ] .A n optim a l capital structure w i l l max imize enterprise value by balancing the deg ree of risk and ex pected return rate.M anag em ent of financial risk is an integ ra l part of planning and financial control, subm itted to strateg ic and tactical decisions for a continuous adaptation to inside and outside company conditions, constantly chang ing and it requires:-identification of a reas that are prone to risk;-l ikelihood estima tion of financial risk production;-determining the independence relations betw een financial risk and other significant risks ( operational risk , market risk - interest rate fluctuations);-delim i ta tion of risk and keeping i t under observation to stop or diminish ( minim ize) the effect;-identify causal factors for financial risk, in order to define potential adverse effects induced on the overall activity of the company ;-determining the risk as quantifiable s i ze, as w ell as the effects associated to risk occurrence;-determining the routes to follow and strateg ies to fit the company 's financial activity in an area of financial certainty .Financial risk i ssues can be found a t the heart of R om anian accountant's norma l izors. A ccording to the OM PF 3055 /2 009 , the B oard m ust prepare for each financial y ear a report, called a M anag ers ' report, w hich must include, besides an accurate presentation of development and performance of the entity 's activity and i ts financial position, a lso a description of main risks and uncertainties that i t fa ces.Thus, M anag ers report must provide information on: the objectives and policies of the entity concerning financial risk m anag ement, including i ts policy for risk covering for each major ty pe of forecasted transaction for w hich risk coverag e accounting i s used, and entity 's exposure to market risk, credit risk , l i quidity risk and cash flow .R equired disclosures provide information to help users of financial statem ents in evaluating the risk financial instrum ents, recog nized or not in balance sheet.The m a in categ ories of financial risks a ffecting the company 's performance a re [ 3 ] :1 . M arket risk that com prises three ty pes of risk :0 currency risk - the risk that the value of a financial instrument { Financial instrum ent i s defined according OM FP 3055 /2 009 , A rt. 126 , as: ''... any contract that s im ultaneously g enerates a financial active for an entity and a financial debt or equity instrument for another entity ") w i l l fluctuate because of chang es in currency exchang e rates; the low ering of ex chang e rate can lead to a loss of value of assets denominated in foreig n currency thus influencing business perform ance;0 fa i r value interest rate risk - the risk that the value of a financial instrument w i l l fluctuate due to chang es in market interest ra tes;0 price risk - the risk that the value of a financial instrum ent w i l l fluctuate as a result of chang ing market prices, eveni f these chang es are caused by factors specific to individual instruments or their i ssuer, or factors a ffecting a l l instrum ents traded in the ma rket. The term "market risk " incorporates not only the potential loss but as w e l l the g a in.2.. C redit risk - the risk that a party of financial instrument w i l l not to com ply w i th the undertaking , causing the other party a financial loss.3.. Liquidity risk - ( a lso called funding risk) is risk that an entity meets in difficulties in procuring the necessary funds to m eet com mitm ents related to financial instrum ents. L iquidity risk ma y result from the inability to quickly se l l a financial asset a t a value close to i ts fa i r va lue.4.. Interest ra te risk from cash flow - i s the risk that future cash flow s w i l l fluctuate because of chang es in ma rket interest rates. For ex am ple, i f a variable rate debt instruments, such fluctuations a re to chang e the effective interest rate financial instrument, w i thout a corresponding chang e in its fa i r va lue.Financial environment i s characterized by a hig h interest rate volatility , w hich translates in term s of risk and indiscriminate harm s the va lue and profitability of any enterprise [ 4 , 89 ] . Interest ra te risk on the balance sheet i s reflected by chang es in m arket value of an asset, as the present value of an asset i s determ ined by discounting cash flow s using interest rate or w eig hted averag e cost of capital [ 5 , 89 ] .2 . Financial R isk A ssessmentFinancial risk assessm ent is performed by using specific indicators such as: financial leverag e, financial breakeven and leverag e factor ( C L F) w hose values ex press fluctuations in net profit, under the company 's financial structure chang e .Financial leverag e effectFinancial ri sk or capital concerns the com pany 's financial structure and depends on the manner of funding the activity : i f it is w holly financed by equity , i t w i l l not involve financial risk . This risk appears only if loan financing sources involving charg e to pay interest and show s a direct influence on financial profitability ( of equity ) [ 6 , 170 ] .Debt, the size and cost drives the variability of results and autom a tica l l y chang es the financial risk. The size of influence of financial structure on firm performance has produced financial leverag e effect, w hich can be defined as the m echanism throug h w hich debt a ffects return on equity , return on the ratio of benefits ( net income) and equity .B etw een economic profitability and financial return there i s a tig ht correlation. Financial return is rooted in economic returns. The difference betw een the tw o rates is g enerated by com pany policy options for funding . U sually , on equal economic rate return, financial profitability ra tes vary depending on finance source - from ow n equity or borrow ed capital.In econom ic theory the link betw een financial profitability ra te ( R f) and econom ic ra te of return ( R e) is hig hlig hted by the follow ing equation:...w here: d = averag e interest rate; D= total debts; C pr = ow n equity ;...If for calculation of return ra tes profit tax i s taken into account, the relationship becomes [ 6 , 170 ] :w here: i=the tax rate....W e can see the influence that financial structure, respective "all financial resources or capital composition that financial manag er use to increase the needed funding " [ 7 , 36 ] , has on the overall profitability of the company . B y reporting total debt ( D) to ow n equity ( C PR ) i s determined financial leverag e ( L F) ( or leverag e ratio) reflecting the proportion of g rants to loans and g rants to i ts ow n resources. The report should not ex ceed the value 2 , otherw i se the debt capacity of the enterprise i s considered saturated, and borrow ing above this l im i t lead to the risk of insolvency , both to the borrow er and the lender.The financial leverag e effect ( E L F) results from the difference betw een financial and economic return and "ex pressesthe impact of debt on the entity 's equity , the ratio betw een ex ternal and domestic financing ( dom estic resources) " [ 2 , 40 ] thus reflecting the influence offinancial structure on the perform ance of an entity :...Depending or not on the consideration of income tax , net or g ross ra tes of return can be measured, i.e . net or raw financial leverag e effect, as follow s:Debt i s favorable w hile the interest rate i s inferior to the ra te of economic profitability , w hich has a positive influence on financial ra te of the company .Financial leverag e i s even g reater as the difference betw een economic profitability and interest rate i s hig her, in this respect can be seen several cases presented in Table 1 .Leverag e effect a l low s evolution stimulation for financial profitability according to the chang e in funding policy of the enterprise being an im portant param eter for stra teg ic business decisions [ 8 , 164 -165 ] .B ased on the balance sheet and profit and loss account of tw o studied companies' rates of return and financial leverag e a re determ ined, as presented in table no. 2 .From the analy sis of the data presented in Table 2 w e may see the follow ing conclusions:1.. Economic and financial rates of return, in the case of S .C . A L FA S .A . follow s an upw a rd trend recently analy zed aspect reflecting the increased efficiency in the use of equity capital invested, w hile for S .C . B ETA S .A . evolution is a descendant one.2.. R eturn on equity ( equity efficiency ) w as hig her than the ra te of economic profitability ( econom ic efficiency of assets, invested capital respectively ) throug hout the period under review follow ing a positive financial leverag e ( EL F> 0 ) and hig her econom ic efficiency cost of borrow ing ( R e> d).3.. R educing financial leverag e for S .C . A L FA S .A . reduced the favorable effect of the debt presence on financial efficiency ra te , w hich w as due to low er w e ig ht ra tio of tota l debt and equity g row th.4.. Total debt increased during N-l and N y ears for S .C . B ETA S .A . resulted in increased financial leverag e that potentiates financial return ahead as the economic ra te of return.The evolution of the relationship betw een g ross economic return ( R ebr) and g ross financial profitability ( R fbr) for S .C . A L FA S .A . is g raphically presented in Fig ure 1 , and for S .C . B ETA S .A . in Fig ure 2 .A naly zing the evolution offinancial leverag e ( Fig ure 3 ) one can see that risk capital i s not placed a t a level too hig h, w hich m ig ht jeopardize the financial autonom y of enterprises.S ome financiers, as M odig l i ani and Fisher a rg ue that i t i s more advantag eous for the company to finance from loans than from equity [ 6 , 170 ] as the cost of borrow ed capital ( debt interest) i s a lw a y s deductible company 's tax , w hile the cost of equity ( preserved benefits and dividends) i s not tax deductible for the com pany . S hareholders tend to fa ll into debt to g et more tax sa ving , in this w a y , "indebted enterprise va lue appears to be hig her than the company that i s not under debt"[ 7 , 36 ] .Financial breakeven returnEstablishing the company 's position in relation to financial return breakeven for financial risk analy s i s i s determined taking into account fix ed costs and fix ed financial costs, meaning interest ex penses. In this s ituation turnover is calculated corresponding to a financial breakeven return or "financial standstill".B reakeven thus determ ined depends on four fundam ental variables [ 10 ] :-three parameters that influence the stability results of operations:*stability of turnover;*costs structure;*firm position in relation to i ts dead point;-financial ex penses level, respective the debt policy practiced by the company .B ased on these values safety indicators or position indicators are estimated, presented in Table 3 .w here: C A ^tic= financial breakeven;C f = fix ed ex penses;C hfin = financial ex pensesC V = variable ex penses; CA = turnover;R mcv = variable ex penses rate marg in.Financial risk deepens econom ic risk ( in addition to repa y ment of loans, interest costs need to be paid), and finally g enerates a pay ment default of the company that can lead to bankruptcy risk [ 11 , 36 ] .Financial leverag e ratio ( C L F)Financial risk assessment and evaluation can be m ade based on financial leverag e factor ( C L F). It ex presses the sensitivity of net income ( R net) to operating results variations ( R exp) and m easures the percentag e increase of net incom e in response to increase w i th one percentag e of results from operations. C a lculation relationship is as follow s:...respective: ...The C L F calculation takes into account only the current result and financial ex penses, only that correlate w i th the operation, w hich reduces net income relationship: R net = ( R ex p - C hfin) * ( ! - /)In these c ircum stances, financial leverag e coefficient g a ins ex pression: d c . \ /. .v i R exp...C L F= R qx PIt notes that the financial leverag e ratio i s directly proportional to financial ex penses w hich increase hig her the value of C L F and therefore increase in financial risk .Financial risk as measured by financial leverag e ra tio meets vary ing deg rees depending on know ing the coefficient values from zero to infinity [ 6 , 170 ] :B ased on profit and loss account of the tw o studied companies w e determine financial risk indicators presented in Table no. 4 .It can be noticed that, based on the data in Table 4 , the com panies have a com fortable s i tuation in term s of financial risk , because financial expenses have insig nificant values, and in N-2 y ear their absence a l low ed to obtain a financial leverag e ra tio equal to 1 , companies' ex posure to financial risk being m inor.A ctual turnover for the tw o com panies w ere above breakeven financial ( o ver critical turnover) in the analy zed period, aspect w hich a l low ed the recording of safety m arg ins, safety spaces and positive efficiency g a ins.Graphical representation of comparative evolution of financial leverag e ratio i s sug g estively show n in Fig ure no. 4 .In the case of S . C . A L FA S .A . the entire period financial risk is minor due to low level of financial costs, the company preferring to use only i ts ow n resources to finance the activity . Poor values of financial leverag e ra tio ( very c lose to 1 ) support the previous sta tements.Greatest financial risk to w hich S .C . B ETA S .A . i s ex posed to i s manifested in financial y ear N, w hen the value ofcoefficient C L F is max imum , respectively 1 ,11047 w hich show s increasing dependence of net result on the operating result, and consequently , increased financial risk due to the g ap betw een the index and results of operations index of financial ex penses ( l R ex p <Ichfin)- How ever, financial risk i s minor, the society proves superior financial perform ance as turnover i s w e l l above the critical turnover ( financial breakeven), rang e safety hovering w ell above the 20 % in the analy zed period.C onclusionsDebt had a positive effect on financial profitability m anifested as a "financial leverag e" ( positive leverag e effect). Ex tremely low level of debt and low er value of financial l iabilities inferior to ow n equity makes companies not ri sk y in term s of financial solvency . In this situation, for both com panies, i s m ore advantag eous to use the medium and long term loans to finance business, thus ensuring them an additional profit. U s ing debt should be made w i th caution in order not to l imit the financial independence of firm s and reduce additional debt opportunities in times of crisis.A naly sis of financial risk and leverag e effect that accom pany the call to debt, presents a major interest to optim ize the financial structure and viability of any com pany operating under a real market econom y .The use of loans can be risky for the entity and i ts shareholders, but this m ethod of financing becom es advantag eous for entity shareholders s imply because they are able to hold an asset more im porta nt than equity value, increasing their economic pow er. The financing of company ex pansion activity can be achieved by a s ig nificant increase in borrow ed capital provided economic returns exceed the averag e interest rate.C ompany 's risk assessment on the basis of leverag e coefficients i s required for the predicted behavior analy s i s for estimating future results, w hich must be taken into account in decision m aking process.R efer en ces[ 1 ] M orariu, A ., C recanä,C ., D., ( 2009 ) , ''Internal audit. S tra teg y in manag em ent advising ", Theoretical and A pplied Economics - supplem ent, B ucharest, p. 36 .[ 2 ] M orariu, A ., C recanä, C ., D., ( 2009 ) , ''The im pact of economic performance on financial position", Financial A udit, no. 5 , The C hamber of Financial A uditors from R omania Publish house ( C A FR ) , B ucharest, p. 40 .[ 3 ] OM FP, 3055 /2 009 , A rt. 306 , a l .( 3) .[ 4 ] J offre, P., S im on, Z., ( 2007 ) , Ency c lopédie de g estion, Economie Publish house, Paris, 1989 , quoted by J ianu, L , p. 89 .[ 5 ] J ianu, I., ( 2007 ) , Evaluation, presentation and analy sis of enterprise's performance - A n approach from International Financial R eporting S tandards, C EC C A R Publish house, B ucharest, p. 89 .[ 6 ] Petrescu, S ., ( 2010 ) , A naly sis and financial - accounting diag nostic -Theoreticapplicative g uide, 3 rd edition, revised and enlarg ed, C EC C A R Publish house, B ucharest, p. 170 .[ 7 ] M i roniuc, M ., ( 2007 ) , A ccounting and financial manag ement of the company . C oncepts. Policies. Practices, S edcom L ibris Publish house, Iaçi, p. 36 .[ 8 ] Zait, D., ( 2008 ) , Evaluation and manag em ent of direct investments, S edcom Libris Publish house, Ia §i, p. 164 -165 .[ 9 ] National B ank of R om ania, R eference Interest - history , available on[ 10 ] Quiry , P., Le Fur, Y ., Pierre V emim men ( 2008 ) , Finance d'entreprise 2009 , 7 th edition , Dalloz Publisher, Paris.[ 11 ] B erheci, M ., ( 2009 ) , "The risks in l i fe business and accounting outcom e variability " - Part II, A ccounting , auditing and business expertise, p. 36 .。
Growing up in an era where globalization is a buzzword, I have always been fascinated by the interconnectedness of economies and the role of currencies in shaping the worlds financial landscape. One such currency that has captured my attention is the Euro, and the profound influence that Europe and America have had on its value and stability.The Euro, introduced in 1999, is the official currency of the 19 Eurozone countries. Its not just a currency but a symbol of European unity and economic integration. However, its journey has not been without challenges, and the influence of the United States and other European nations has been significant.The United States, with its strong economy and the dominant global currency, the US Dollar, has always had a say in the worlds financial matters. The Euros introduction was seen as a challenge to the Dollars supremacy, and the US has had a complex relationship with the Euro ever since. The US has often influenced the Euro through its monetary policies and economic strategies. For instance, when the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates, it can cause fluctuations in the Euros value against the Dollar. This is because investors may shift their assets between the two currencies based on the perceived benefits of each.Moreover, the US has a significant impact on the Euro through its trade policies. The US is one of the largest trading partners of the Eurozone, and any trade disputes or agreements can affect the Euros stability. For example, tariffs imposed by the US on European goods can lead to a decrease in the Euros value as it may reduce the demand for the currencyin international trade.On the European front, the Euros influence is a doubleedged sword. While the currency has brought economic benefits to the member countries by facilitating trade and reducing transaction costs, it has also exposed them to shared risks. The 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Eurozone crisis were testaments to this. The crisis highlighted the flaws in the Euros structure, where a single monetary policy was applied to economies with diverse strengths and weaknesses. Countries like Greece, Spain, and Ireland faced severe economic downturns, and the Euros value plummeted as a result.The European Central Bank ECB has played a crucial role in managing the Euros stability. Through measures like quantitative easing and setting interest rates, the ECB has tried to maintain the Euros value and stimulate economic growth in the Eurozone. However, these measures have also had their critics, who argue that they may lead to inflation and debt accumulation in the long run.As a high school student, I have observed the Euros journey with keen interest. I have learned that the Euro is not just a currency but a complex financial instrument influenced by various factors. The US and Europes influence on the Euro has been significant, shaping its value and stability in different ways.In conclusion, the Euros story is a fascinating one, filled with challenges and triumphs. The influence of the US and Europe on the Euro has beenprofound, highlighting the interconnected nature of our global economy. As we move forward, it will be interesting to see how the Euro evolves and continues to shape the worlds financial landscape.。
《利率市场化对商业银行盈利能力的影响研究》篇一一、引言随着中国金融市场的不断深化和开放，利率市场化成为我国金融改革的重要一环。
利率市场化旨在通过市场供求关系决定利率水平，提高金融市场的效率和竞争力。
对于商业银行而言，利率市场化不仅改变了其传统的盈利模式，也对其盈利能力产生了深远的影响。
本文旨在探讨利率市场化对商业银行盈利能力的影响，以期为商业银行在新的市场环境下寻找盈利增长点提供参考。
二、利率市场化的背景及发展利率市场化是指央行放宽对利率的直接管制，通过市场供求关系决定利率水平。
我国利率市场化的进程始于20世纪90年代，经历了逐步放开贷款利率、扩大存款利率浮动范围等阶段。
随着利率市场化的推进，商业银行的盈利模式和盈利能力受到了较大的挑战。
三、利率市场化对商业银行盈利能力的影响（一）影响商业银行传统业务在利率管制时期，商业银行主要通过存贷利差获取利润。
然而，在利率市场化环境下，存款和贷款利率由市场供求关系决定，导致存贷利差缩小。
这使得商业银行传统业务的盈利能力受到挑战。
（二）促进商业银行创新业务尽管存贷利差的缩小对商业银行的盈利能力造成了一定的压力，但也促使商业银行寻求创新业务。
例如，发展中间业务、资产管理业务、财富管理业务等，这些创新业务为商业银行提供了新的盈利增长点。
（三）影响商业银行的风险管理利率市场化使得利率波动加大，增加了商业银行面临的市场风险。
为了降低风险，商业银行需要加强风险管理，包括建立完善的风险管理机制、提高风险识别和评估能力等。
这有助于商业银行在新的市场环境下保持稳健的经营。
四、应对策略及建议（一）优化资产负债结构在利率市场化环境下，商业银行应优化资产负债结构，降低负债成本，提高资产收益。
例如，通过发展大额存单、同业存单等低成本负债产品，以及加大对企业贷款、个人消费贷款等高收益资产的投放。
（二）加强创新业务发展商业银行应加强创新业务的发展，如中间业务、资产管理业务、财富管理业务等。
中文2474字1外文资料翻译译文欧盟国内外银行盈利能力影响因素分析摘要：本文使用银行级数据，通过1995 - 2001年期间国内和外国银行在15个欧盟国家的商业运营情况来了解银行的具体特点和整体银行业环境对影响盈利能力。
结果表明, 国内和外国银行的盈利能力不仅受银行具体特点的影响，也受金融市场结构和宏观经济条件的影响。
除了在集中情况下国内银行利润, 所有的变量都是有重大意义的，尽管它们的影响和关系对国内和国外银行并不总是相同。
1 介绍在过去的几年许多的因素造成了欧盟银行业竞争日益激烈。
最重要的因素之一是针对服务、建立、运行和监督信贷机构的第二个欧洲指令出台，在银行和金融领域放松管制。
这个指令为所有欧洲银行机构在单一欧洲金融市场和提供了平等的竞争条件，因此银行正在先前无法预料的国内外竞争之中。
另外, 最近一些的技术进步对规模经济和范围提供了更多的机会，而采用欧元也加速了行业的变化。
此外,宏观经济政策后大多数国家通货膨胀率和利率逐步降低。
最后,在越来越多的欧洲国家非金融公司被允许提供传统的银行服务,并且在竞争中进一步提高，银行被迫产生新的产品和寻找新客户。
许多银行为了参加欧洲市场和银行业扩大被迫增加规模，通过合并和收购的方式进行了前所未有的整合。
在环境快速变化的情况下，这些变化给在欧盟的银行带来很大的挑战，因此影响了他们的效能。
格林指出，充足的收益是必要的条件让银行保持偿付能力,在一个合适的环境生存、发展和繁荣。
考虑到银行业的健康发展和经济知识增长，影响银行的盈利能力的潜在因素不仅和管理者有关，而且和众多利益相关者如中央银行,银行家协会、政府以及其他金融当局有关。
2 文献综述参考文献与本文可分为三大类。
第一部分是研究集中于银行的盈利能力的决定因素。
第二部分包括研究欧洲银行的利润和成本效率。
第三由研究比较国内外银行。
在下面几个部分中,我们讨论这些类别中的每一个。
3 决定因素和变量选择3．1 因变量本研究使用平均资产回报率(ROAA)来评估银行的性能。
ROAA是把净利润表示为一个百分比的平均总资产。
它显示了每欧元资产获得的利润并指明如何有效的银行的资产去设法创造收益。
平均资产是用来在会计年度中发现发现资产上的任何差异。
Golin(2001)指出,平均资产回报率是衡量盈利能力的关键。
3．2 决定因素和独立变量四个银行特征用作内部决定因素。
这些都是银行的总资产、成本收入比、权益与资产比率和银行的贷款的比率除以客户和短期融资。
此外,六个外部因素是用来检查环境的影响对银行的表现。
4 数据和方法我们的示例是一个平衡面板数据集，由在15个欧盟国家的584家商业银行从1995 - 2001年期间的4088组数据组合而成。
表2和表3分别展示了目前银行的数量所属的国家和所有权和样本特征。
5 实证结果表4报告对银行的平均资本回报率（ROAA）的实证估计。
第一列体现了把所有的银行(584)同时考虑的结果。
第二、三列体现了我们通过银行经营这所属的国家把银行分离出来的结果。
我们定义一个银行是国外还是国内是依靠外国人的股份资本是否超过50%，这个子样本包括332家国内银行和218家外资银行。
在这个阶段，约34个银行被排除在分析,由于我们没有足够的信息来辨别其是国内还是国外。
除了在集中情况下国内银行平均资本回报率，所有的变量都是显著的,尽管它们对国内外银行的平均资本回报率的影响和关系并不总是相同的。
这个模型的解释力对国内银行是更高的(调整R2国内银行等于0.6371，而外资银行等于0.3903),而f统计所有模型的重要性在1%的水平。
这意味着额外的因素可能会影响外国银行的盈利能力。
像威廉姆斯(2003)正确地指出,外资银行运行在一个受两个因素影响的主机市场，分别是他们是属于外国跨国银行和他们的参与银行系统的主机。
由比较高的显着系数的股权资产（EQAS）和成本收入比（COST）显示，在一般情况下，平均资产回报率的主要决定因素是资本实力及费用管理效率。
股权资产与平均资本成本是正相关关系，无论我们考察国内银行还是国外的银行，而且它是国内银行盈利能力是最重要的决定因素。
这一调查结果与以往的调查研究是一致的，资本充足的银行在破产和规模缩减方面面临着较低的成本，因此，它们的融资成本比较低或具有较低的外部资金的需求，促成了较高的盈利能力。
成本收入比（COST）被预期是外资银行盈利能力的最重要的决定因素，是正如预期的那样的，呈现出负相关关系，这些费用的增加会在很大程度上减少在欧盟银行的经营利润。
很多学者也发现了费用管理不善是盈利能力差的主要因素。
因此，在欧盟的商业银行应采取必要的行动，以实现更有效的成本控制，以进一步增加他们的利润。
外国（-0.309）和国内银行（-0.144）之间的系数的差异可能是由于不当的管理操作以及与监测机构存在的距离。
关于流动性，结果是喜忧参半。
客户的净贷款及短期资金比率（LOFUND）在统计上显着，并与国内银行的盈利能力呈正相关，表明银行流动性资产持有量水平和盈利能力水平呈负相关关系，与预料的一样。
对于外资银行来说，变量也很显着，但有一个负号，说明流动性和银行利润的正相关关系，出乎我们的意料，虽然与伯克（1989）和Kosmidou（2006）的研究一致。
无论是国内或国外银行，规模（SIZE）之间的关系和银行的业绩是负的。
负系数表明，在这两种银行中，大银行的收入水平就会低于的利润，研究也发现要么经济规模和范围为较小的银行或金融机构的规模不够大。
范德Vennet（1998）发现的证据表明，在欧盟规模经济效益只有在根据资产小于10亿欧元的最小银行才有效，此后报酬不变和规模不经济的最大银行超过1000欧亿。
6 结语在最近几年中，许多因素加剧了欧盟银行业的竞争，尤其是银行的操作环境的急速变化给银行带来了巨大的挑战。
这是合理的假设去认为所有这些变化都必然会对银行的表现有一定的影响。
格林在2001年指出，银行需要足够的资金以维持偿债能力并在合适的环境中生存。
银行的效率和经济增长之间的关系是有据可查的。
与此同时，银行的破产会对经济产生不利的后果。
因此，认识影响银行的盈利能力的潜在因素是必不可少的，不仅是为了银行经理，也是为了在15个欧盟国家众多的利益相关者，如的中央银行，银行协会，政府和其他金融机构。
从这项研究中得出的结论对于那些经济和银行系统正经历根本性变化的新欧盟国家都是很有意义的。
2外文原文Factors influencing the profitability of domestic and foreign commercial banks in the EuropeanUnionAbstractUsing bank level data this paper examines how bank's specific characteristics and the overall banking environment affect the profitability of commercial domestic and foreign banks operating in the 15 EU countries over the period 1995–2001. The results indicate that profitability of both domestic and foreign banks is affected not only by bank's specific characteristics but also by financial market structure and macroeconomic conditions. All the variables, with the exception of concentration in the case of domestic banks profits, are significant although their impact and relation with profits is not always the same for domestic and foreign banks.Keywords Banks; European Union; Profitability1. IntroductionOver the last years a number of factors have contributed to the growing competition in the European Union (EU) banking sector. One of the most important factors is deregulation, promoted by the Second European Directive on Banking and Financial services, concerning establishment, operation and supervision of credit institutions. This Directive sets out the principles of banking in the Single European financial market and provides equal competitive conditions for all European banking institutions. As a result banks now compete in previously inaccessible domestic and foreign markets. Furthermore, a number of recent technological advances offered more opportunities for economies of scale and scope while the adoption of euro accelerated the changes in the industry. For instance, income generation from foreign exchange transactions has been lost while the pricing of banking products and services has become more transparent, enhancing competition. Furthermore, the macroeconomic policies that were followed in most countries gradually reduced inflation and interest rates. Finally, in more and more European countries non-financial firms were allowed to offer traditional banking services, leading to further increase in competition. Therefore, banks were forced to generate new products and seek new customers. This is reflected in the continued diversificationacross geographical areas and business lines. Many banks have been forced to increase in size in order to compete in the enlarged European market and the banking industry experienced an unprecedented level of consolidation through mergers and acquisitions.It is reasonable to assume that all these changes posed great challenges to banks in the EU as the environment in which they operated changed rapidly, a fact that consequently had an impact on their performance. As Golin (2001) points out adequate earnings are required in order for banks to maintain solvency, to survive, grow and prosper in a suitable environment. Given the relation between the well-being of the banking sector and the growth of the economy (Rajan and Zingales, 1998, Levine, 1997 and Levine, 1998), knowledge of the underlying factors that influence banks’ profitability is essential not only for the managers of the banks but for numerous stakeholders such as the Central Banks, Bankers Associations, Governments, and other Financial Authorities. Knowledge of these factors would also be of particular interest to the new EU countries whose economies and banking systems are experiencing fundamental changes during this period.The aim of this paper is to extent earlier work on the determinants of profitability of banks in the EU and examine to what extent the performance of commercial banks operating in EU markets is influenced by internal factors (i.e. banks’ specific characteristics) and to what extent by external factors (i.e. macroeconomic and financial market structure) in view of the ongoing process of integration and concentration. Although a growing literature uses efficient frontier approaches to examine the profit and cost efficiency of EU banks (e.g., Altunbas et al., 2001 and Schure et al., 2004), to our best knowledge, there are only few studies that focus on the determinants of profitability while focusing on the EU as a total1 (e.g., Molyneux and Thorton, 1992 and Staikouras and Wood, 2003).Molyneux and Thorton (1992) were the first that examined the determinants of banks profitability operating in 18 European countries over the period 1986–1989. Most recently the European banking sector was examined by Staikouras and Wood (2003) that considered banks from 13 EU countries over the period 1994–1998. The present study attempts to provide additional and more recent evidence on the determinants of banks profitability in the EU. In order to accomplish this task, our paper differs from the earlier mentioned studies in several aspects. First of all, we include more recent years in the analysis by examining the period 1995–2001. Furthermore, we examine more factors by introducing the influence of additional financial market structure variables such as stock market capitalization to GDP, stock market capitalization to assets of deposits money banks and assets of deposits money banks to GDP, not considered in the above studies. Finally, we are the first that distinguish between foreign and domestic banks. During the last years both developed and developing countries around the world have relaxed restrictions on foreign banking and most of them now allow more foreign banks to undertake more banking-related activities in their domestic banking markets, mainly because of the increasingly importance of international trade in goods and financial services. As Goddard et al. (2001) point out since 1989 the number of foreign banks has increased in every banking market inEurope, which now hold a large proportion of banking assets in the UK (53% of banking sector assets in 1999), Belgium (24% of assets in 1999), Portugal (12% of assets in 1999) and France (12% in 1999). Previous studies that distinguish between domestic and foreign banks focus mostly on differences on profit and cost efficiencies using frontier approaches (e.g., Berger et al., 2000 and Sathye, 2001) or financial characteristics that differentiate these two groups of banks (e.g., Kosmidou et al., 2006a) and not on whether the internal and external determinants of profitability among domestic and foreign banks are different.The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a literature review of related studies. Section 3 describes the dependent and independent variables while Section 4 presents the data and methodology used in the study. The empirical results are presented in Section 5. Finally, in Section 6, the concluding remarks are discussed.2. Literature reviewPrior literature related to the present paper can be classified in three broad categories. The first consists of studies that focus on the determinants of banks’ profitability. T he second consists of studies that examine the profit and cost efficiency of European banks. The third consists of studies that compare domestic and foreign banks. In the following sections we discuss each one of these categories.2.1. Studies on the determinants of profitabilityFollowing the early studies of Short (1979) and Bourke (1989) a number of more recent studies have attempted to identify some of the major determinants of banks’ profitability. They consider internal and external factors and examine a single country (e.g., Berger, 1995, Angbazo, 1997, Guru et al., 1999, Ben Naceur, 2003, Mamatzakis and Remoundos, 2003, Kosmidou et al., 2005 and Kosmidou, 2006) or a panel of countries (Molyneux and Thorton, 1992, Demirguc-Kunt and Huizinga, 1999, Abreu and Mendes, 2001, Staikouras and Wood, 2003, Hassan and Bashir, 2003 and Goddard et al., 2004). In the discussion that follows we focus on the studies that examine the EU banking market.2The study of Molyneux and Thorton (1992) is one of the first that examines the determinants of banks profitability in several countries. The results indicate a positive association between the return on equity and the level of interest rates, bank concentration and the government ownership. In a more recent study, Abreu and Mendes (2001) examine Portugal, Spain, France and Germany and find that loan to assets and equity to assets ratios have a positive impact on interest margins and profitability. They also find that operating costs have a positive impact on net interest margins measures but not on profits measures, while the opposite holds for bank's market share. From the macroeconomic variables, inflation is relevant in all cases, while the nominal effective exchange rate does not have an impact on performance. The unemployment rate has a negative sign in all regressions and is significant in the case of profits although not on net interest margins measures. Staikouras and Wood (2003) examine the performance of a sample of banks operating in thirteen EU banking markets. The results indicate that loans to assets ratio and the proportion ofloan loss provisions are inversely related to banks’ return on assets, as well as that banks with greater levels of equity are relatively more profitable. The funds gap ratio is also significant and positively related to performance. Furthermore, the authors found no evidence to support either the structure–conduct–performance or the efficient hypothesis. Two of the three macroeconomic indicators, the variability of interest rates and the growth of GDP had a negative impact, while the level of interest rates had a positive effect. Goddard et al. (2004) investigate the determinants of profitability in Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, for the period 1992–98. They find only weak evidence for any consistent or systematic size–profitability relationship and a positive relationship between capital-assets ratio and profitability. The relationship between the importance of off-balance-sheet business in a bank's portfolio and profitability is positive for the UK, but either neutral or negative elsewhere.2.2. Studies on the profit and cost efficiency of EU banksIn recent years, there has also been an increase of academic studies that focus on the efficiency of financial institutions using frontier analysis. Berger and Humphrey (1997) outline 130 studies, covering 21 countries, multiple time periods and various types of institutions that applied three parametric (i.e. stochastic frontier approach (SFA), distribution free approach (DFA), thick frontier approach (TFA)) and two non-parametric (i.e. data envelopment analysis (DEA), free disposal hull (FDH)) frontier approaches for determining the best-practice frontier against which relative efficiencies are measured.3 The efficiency of a bank is measured relatively to that of the best-practice banks of similar size, with most studies focusing on cost efficiency rather than profit efficiency.4 Some recent studies also consider both cost and profit efficiency (e.g., Berger and Humphrey, 1997 and Berger and Mester, 1997), as well as risk variables (e.g., Berger and DeYoung, 1997, Berg et al., 1992, McAllister and McManus, 1993, Mester, 1996 and Rao, 2005).Although the EU is considered relatively under researched (given its size and importance) there is now a growing strand of literature that examines the efficiency of EU banking institutions. Examples of such studies are Altunbas et al. (2001), Bikker (2002), Maudos et al. (2002), Schure et al. (2004) and Staikouras et al. (2005). The studies of Dietsch and Weil (1998), Cavallo and Rossi (2002), Casu and Molyneux (2003), are also interesting as they focus on most of the main EU banking sectors. Earlier studies, as the ones of Berg et al. (1993), Pastor et al. (1995), Lang and Welzel (1996), Lozano-Vivas (1997), Dietsch and Lozano-Vivas (2000), focus mostly on sub-sets of selected markets or individual countries such as the nordic countries, France, Germany and Spain among others.2.3. Studies on foreign versus domestic banksOther studies have employed similar techniques to compare the efficiency of foreign and domestic banks. Hasan and Hunter (1996), Mahajan et al. (1996), and Chang et al. (1998) conclude that foreign banks in the US are less cost efficient than domestic banks, while Seth (1992) and Nolle (1995), find that foreign-owned banks are not as profitable as domestically owned banks. Similar results were obtained in studieswhich examined the Australian market. Using DEA Sathye (2001) found foreign banks to be less efficient than domestic, while comparable results were obtained by Avkiran (1997).Fewer studies have examined European markets. After estimating separate frontiers for foreign and domestic banks in Spain, Hasan and Lozano-Vivas (1998) find that foreign banks are about equal as profit efficiency as domestic banks. Berger et al. (2000) estimate cost and profit frontiers to compare the efficiency of banks in France, Germany, Spain, UK and US. For the US case, the results showed that domestic banks are on average less cost efficient than foreign banks. For the EU countries, cost efficiency and profit efficiency were found higher for domestic banks than foreign banks in three cases (i.e. France, Germany, UK), but the difference was not found to be statistically significant. Using a multicriteria decision aid methodology, Kosmidou et al. (2004) find that domestic banks exhibit higher overall performance compared to foreign banks operating in the UK. Kosmidou et al. (2006a) examine how foreign banks differ from domestic banks in the UK and find that the later are characterized by higher return on equity, net interest revenue to total earning assets, and loans to customer and short term funding.Studies that compare the performance of foreign and domestic banks in developing countries yield in general different results. Demirguc-Kunt and Huizinga (1999) as well as Claessens et al. (2001) find foreign banks to be disadvantaged compared to domestic banks in developed countries although not in less developed countries. Finally, in a more recent study, Fries and Taci (2005) examine the cost efficiency in 15 post-communist countries. The results indicate that privatized banks with majority foreign ownership are the most cost efficient ones and those with domestic ownership are the least, though both being more efficient than state-owned banks.3. Determinants and variable selection3.1. Dependent variableThis study uses return on average assets (ROAA) to evaluate bank's performance. ROAA is the net profits expressed as a percentage of average total assets. It shows the profits earned per euro of assets and indicates how effectively the bank's assets are being managed to generate revenues. Average assets are being used in order to capture any differences that occurred in assets during the fiscal year. As Golin (2001) points out, return on average assets is the key measure of profitability.3.2. Determinants and independent variablesFour bank characteristics are used as internal determinants of performance. These are the bank's total assets, the cost to income ratio, the ratio of equity to assets and the ratio of bank's loans divided by customers and short term funding. In addition, six external determinants are used to examine the impact of environment on bank's performance (Table 1).Table 1. Variables descriptionVariables DescriptionVariables DescriptionDependentROAA The return on average total assets of the bankIndependentBanks characteristics (internals factors)EQAS This is a measure of capital adequacy, calculated as equity to total assets. High capital-asset ratios are assumed to be indicators of low leverage and therefore lower riskCOST This is the cost to income ratio. It provides information on the efficiency of the management regarding expenses relative to the revenues it generates. Higher ratios imply a less efficient managementLOFUND This is a measure of liquidity calculated as loans to customers and short term funding. Higher figures denote lower liquiditySIZE The accounting value of the bank's total assets (in €)Macroeconomic and financial structure (external factors)INF The annual inflation rateGDPGGR The real gross domestic product (GDP) growthCONC The C5 concentration measure calculated by dividing the assets of the five largest banks with the assets of all banks operating in the countryASSGDP The ratio total assets of the deposit money banks divided by the GDP (ASSGDP). It reflects the overall level of development of the banking sector and measures the importance of bank financing in the economy (in constant US$ 1995)MACPASS The ratio stock market capitalization to total assets of the deposit money banks.a This variable serves as a proxy of financial development as well as a measure of the size of financial market and the relationship between bank and market financing (in constant US$ 1995)MACGDP The ratio stock market capitalization to GDP. It measures the overall level of development of the market and its importance in financing the economy (in constant US$ 1995)Notes: the data for the calculation of internal factors and CONC were obtained from Bankscope Database. The data for the external factors were obtained from Euromonitor International Database which uses sources such as International Monetary Fund's (IMF) International Financial Statistics (IFS), World Economic Outlook/UN/National Statistics and World Bank.The ratio of equity to assets (EQAS) is used as a measure of capital strength. Generally speaking, banks with high capital-asset ratios are considered relatively safer in the event of loss or liquidation. Therefore, the conventional risk–return hypothesis would imply a negative relationship between equity to assets ratio and bank performance. However, the lower risk increases banks creditworthiness andconsequently reduces the cost of funding. At the same time, banks with higher equity to assets ratio will normally have lower needs of external funding and therefore higher profitability.Another basic policy of commercial banks refers to their liquidity management and specifically the process of managing assets and cash flow to maintain the ability to meet current liabilities as they come due. Without the required liquidity and funding to meet obligations, a bank may quickly fail, or at least be technically insolvent. The ratio of net loans to customers and short term funding (LOFUND) is used to measure the relationship between liquidity management and performance. This ratio shows the relationship between comparatively illiquid assets (i.e. loans) and comparatively stable funding sources (i.e. deposits and other short term funding). Therefore, the lower the value of this ratio, the more liquid the bank is. Since liquid assets are associated with lower rates of return a positive relationship is expected between this variable and performance.The cost to income ratio (COST) is used to measure the impact of efficiency in expenses management on banks performance. This ratio shows the costs of running the bank, the major element of which is staff salaries and benefits, and is expected to have a negative relationship with bank's performance.Bank's size (SIZE) is considered an important determinant of its performance. The reason is that large size may result in economies of scale that will reduce the cost of gathering and processing information (Boyd and Runkle, 1993). As in most studies in banking, we use total assets of the bank as a proxy for its size to account for size related economies or diseconomies of scale.Turning to the external determinants, two sets of variables have been considered in this study, indicating macroeconomic conditions and financial structure characteristics. The two macroeconomic variables used are gross domestic product growth (GDPGR) and inflation (INF).GDP is among the most commonly used macroeconomic indicators and it is a measure of total economic activity within an economy. The real GDP growth, used in this study, is expected to have a positive impact on bank's performance according to the well-documented literature on the association between economic growth and financial sector performance.The relationship between inflation and banks performance depends on whether the inflation is anticipated or unanticipated (Perry, 1992). In the first case (i.e. anticipated inflation) banks can timely adjust interest rates, which consequently results in revenues that increase faster than costs, with a positive impact on profitability. In the second case (i.e. unanticipated inflation) banks may be slow in adjusting their interest rates resulting in a faster increase of bank costs than banks revenues. This will consequently have a negative impact on bank profitability.We finally examine how the performance of banks is related to the relative development of the banking industry and the stock market using the ratios stock market capitalization to GDP (MACGDP), stock market capitalization to total assets of deposit money banks (MACPASS), total assets of deposit money banks to GDP (ASSGDP) and banking industry concentration (CONC). MACPASS reflects thecomplementarity or substitutability between bank and stock market financing, while ASSGDP and MACGDP measure the overall level of development of the banking sector and the stock market, respectively as well as their importance in financing the economy. Concentration is the proportion of an industry's total assets controlled by its largest firms. According to the structure-conduct performance (SCP) hypothesis, banks in highly concentrated markets tend to collude and therefore earn monopoly profits (Short, 1979, Gilbert, 1984 and Molyneux et al., 1996). Collusion may result in higher rates being charged on loans, less interest rates being paid on deposits and so on (Goddard et al., 2001). CONC is calculated as the total assets held by the five largest commercial banks in the country divided by the total assets of all commercial banks in the country.4. Data and methodology4.1. DataOur sample is a balanced panel dataset of 584 commercial banks operating in the 15 EU countries over the period 1995–2001 consisting of 4088 observations.5Table 2 and Table 3 present the number of banks by country and ownership and the sample characteristics, respectively.Table 2. Banks in sample by country and ownershipCountry DomesticbanksForeignbanksaNot available or completeinformation for ownership inBankscopeTotalnumber ofbanksAustria 13 7 0 20 Belgium 5 15 0 20 Denmark 31 2 9 42 Finland 2 0 1 3France 90 40 14 144 Germany 57 26 5 88 Greece 6 0 0 6Ireland 3 8 0 11Italy 49 4 1 54 Luxembourg 3 54 0 57The Netherlands 10 13 1 24 Portugal 7 4 0 11Spain 28 11 3 42 Sweden 5 0 0 5UK 23 34 0 57Total 15 EU 332 218 34 584a We define a bank to be foreign when foreigners own more than 50% of its share capital.Table 3. Sample characteristics: independent variables means (and S.D.)S ND GDP ASS GDP GR CAustria 8.5649(6.1501)63.9675(16.0473)56.2402(27.6708)2174.0293(4697.8790)0.369(0.0300)0.4173(0.0607)0.1524(0.0130)1.6986(0.7312)2.2857(1.0548)88.7943(1.6549)Belgium 8.4901(12.4237)65.9792(31.2047)40.4446(28.8199)7102.865(23011.8401)0.7563(0.2460)0.1040(0.0530)0.0661(0.0195)1.7500(0.5836)2.4000(1.1832)91.5886(3.8120)Denmark 10.9835(4.0547)69.0187(16.4308)68.6064(21.9184)3647.0282(18890.2384)0.3874(0.0458)1.3548(0.2032)0.5309(0.1207)2.2871(0.3177)2.5286(0.4949)86.8100(2.1805)Finland 5.2438(1.1279)65.2871(11.9674)63.1967(13.0329)11079.5762(8659.0861)0.1889(0.0485)8.1501(7.0367)1.3410(0.8871)1.4886(0.8262)4.2571(1.6910)99.1886(0.2073)France 9.5674(11.0528)70.0557(45.3486)70.7802(69.8005)12622.7131(59381.6366)0.3969(0.0743)1.9497(1.0919)0.6991(0.2899)1.3600(0.5316)2.5571(1.0377)60.5285(2.8459)Germany 9.0886(10.8851)65.7206(23.7526)64.273(41.0126)2734.8172(5428.5443)0.2974(0.0522)1.6206(0.6039)0.4788(0.1680)1.5686(0.5995)1.6571(0.6884)77.2729(5.4576)Greece 8.764(6.8035)66.0269(16.1258)48.500(13.1278)15401.6024(13779.4125)0.1146(0.0201)5.6998(4.3633)0.6713(0.5104)5.2257(2.3141)3.3429(0.7442)87.3471(5.4860)Ireland 8.3094(5.2682)33.1019(23.6464)58.4917(27.4379)12959.7545(21601.9533)1.216(0.3663)0.5604(0.1407)0.6529(0.1567)2.8800(1.5354)9.3286(1.6807)77.9629(3.5921)Italy 8.7328(6.4068)76.5104(30.1354)78.5084(53.0946)10373.1082(23514.5038)0.1184(0.0384)4.5216(3.0910)0.4266(0.1871)2.8857(1.1905)2.0571(0.6522)55.5066(3.9818)Luxembourg 5.4107(5.8141)49.6299(24.3863)24.6536(19.6574)5077.4035(7990.2227)18.3469(8.3414)0.1161(0.0549)1.7163(0.2233)1.7800(0.7828)5.4714(2.6223)34.0235(8.3610)The 7.77157.1187.66235287.940.5352.6122 1.3146 2.47 3.2590.6。
