整合金融服务行业原因、后果和影响未来毕业论文外文翻译.doc

外文资料The consolidation of the financial services industry: Causes, consequences, and implications for the futureAllen BergerThe financial services industry is consolidating around the globe. Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) among financial institutions are occurring at a torrid pace in the US, may occur at a rapid pace in the near future in Europe under monetary union, and may be part of the solution to problems of financial distress in Asia and elsewhere. Moreover, we may be on the brink of a new wave of M&As between large banking organizations and other types of financial service providers worldwide.While there has been considerable research on financial services industry consolidation, much is yet to be understood. The main purposes of this journal special issue are to bring together the most up-to-date research and promote additional research on this important topic. The main purposes of this introductory article in particular are to design a framework for evaluating the causes, consequences, and future implications of financial services industry consolidation, review the extant research literature within the context of this framework (over 250 references), and suggest fruitful avenues for future research.In our framework, the main motivation behind consolidation is to maximize shareholder value, although we also consider the motives of other stakeholders, particularly managers and governments. Value may be maximized through M&As primarily by increasing the participating firms market power in setting prices or by improving their efficiency, and in some cases by increasing their access to the safety net.Our framework predicts that the pace of consolidation will primarily be determined by changes in economic environments that alter the constraints faced by financial service firms. We identify five such changes that may be partially responsible for the recent rapid pace of consolidation technological progress, improvements in financial condition, excess capacity or financial distress in the industry or market, international consolidation of markets, and deregulation of geographical or product restrictions.The consequences of consolidation include not only the direct effects of increased market power or improved firm efficiency, but also some indirect effects. One potential indirect consequence may be a reduction in the availability of financial services to small customers. Potential systemic consequences of consolidation include changes in the efficiency of the payments system and changes in the safety and soundness of the financial system. In principle, policy makers may balance the expected social benefits and costs of these consequences in setting rules on consolidation or in approving/disapproving individual M&As. In practice, however, it may be difficult to quantify these benefits and costs.Our framework divides the research literature on the consequences of consolidation into two logically separable categories static analyses and dynamic analyses. Static analyses are defined here to be studies that relate the potential consequences of consolidation to certain characteristics of financial institutions that are associated with consolidation, such as institution size. However, static studies do not use data on M&As. These analyses are not necessarily intended to provide information about the effects of consolidation, but they nonetheless may prove useful in predicting the consequences of M&As. For example, static analyses of scale efficiency may give valuable information as to the efficiency effects of M&As in which the institutions substantially increase their size.Dynamic analyses are defined here to be studies that compare the behavior of financial institutions before and after M&As or compare the behavior of recently consolidated institutions with other institutions that have not recently engaged in M&As. Dynamic analyses take into account that M&As are dynamic events that may involve changes in organizational focus or managerial behavior. These analyses also incorporate any short-term costs of consummating the M&A (legal expenses, consultant fees, severance pay, etc.) or disruptions due to downsizing, meshing of corporate cultures, or turf battles. Dynamic analyses are more inclusive than static analyses. For example, dynamic analyses of the efficiency consequences of consolidation include changes in X-efficiency (distance from optimal point on the best-practice efficient frontier) as well as the changes in scale, scope, and product mix efficiencies included in static analyses.Our framework also emphasizes the importance of considering the external effects of consolidation, defined here as the reactions of other financial service providers to M&As in their markets. The changes in competitive conditions created by M&As may evoke significant reactions by rival firms in terms of their own organizational focus or managerial behavior that may either augment or offset the actions of the consolidating firms. For example, if consolidating institutions reduce their availability of credit to some small businesses, other institutions may pick up some of the dropped small business credits if it is value maximizing for them.Consolidation may increase or decrease efficiency in a number of different ways. M&As may allow the institutions to achieve a scale, scope, or mix of output that is more profitable. Consolidation also may be a means to change organizational focus or managerial behavior to improve X-efficiency. Our broad definition of efficiency gains also includes improvements in the institutions risk-expected return tradeoffs. Such gains may be particularly important in financial institution M&As, which often offer the possibility of diversification gains through investing across regions, industries, etc. and/or through entering other industries. Reductions in risk may increase shareholder wealth because financial distress, bankruptcy, and loss of franchise value are costly, and because regulators may restrict activities or impose other costs as a firms financial condition worsens.A displayed substantial cost scale economies, on the order of about 20% of costs, for bank sizes up to about $10 billion to $25 billion in assets. The data on larger banks were too thin to draw firm conclusions, but the prospects for cost scale efficiency savings or at least little or no losses from M&As among large banks appears to be greater in the 1990s than in the 1980s. This change may in part reflect technological progress that increased scale economies in producing financial services as described in above. The change in scale efficiency may also partially reflect regulatory changes such as the elimination of geographic restrictions on bank branching and BHC expansion, which may make it less costly to increase scale. Finally, the data suggest that part of the change in scale efficiency reflects the lower open-market interest rates of the 1990s, given that a greater proportion of large banks' liabilities tend to be sensitive to open-market rates.Recent studies have also examined the effects of bank scale, scope, and product mix on revenue and profit efficiency. The scale results are ambiguous, with some evidence of mild ray scale efficiencies in terms of joint consumption benefit for customers, and profit efficiency sometimes being highest for large banks, sometimes being highest for small banks, and sometimes about equal for large and small banks. In terms of scope and product mix economies, one study found little or no revenue scope efficiency between deposits and loans in terms of charging customers for joint consumption benefits and another study of profit scope economies found that joint production is optimal for most banks, but that specialization is optimal for others.As noted above, we also include improvements in the risk-expected return tradeoff from improvements in risk diversification as efficiency gains from consolidation. Some studies have found that bank managers act in a risk-averse fashion, trading off between risk and expected return, and therefore may tolerate additional costs expended to keep risk under control and Taking risk into account adds the potential for scale, scope, and product mix efficiencies in managing risk. A greater scale, a more diverse mix of financial services provided, or an increased geographical spread of risks usually implies the potential for improved diversification, so the same protection against financial distress can be attained with fewer resources. For example, one early study found scale efficiency from diversification of loan risk as bank loan portfolios increased in size up to about $1 billion, the standard deviation of the rate of return on loans fell precipitously, presumably because of diversification benefits. This does not necessarily mean that large banks choose lower levels of overall risk, as they may choose to take on additional high riskhigh expected return investments in their portfolios to achieve a higher expected rate of return.Several studies found that higher ratios of equity capital are associated with greater resources devoted to managing risks, and that these resource costs were lower for the largest US banking organizations, consistent with scale efficiency. Another study found that large banking organizations are better diversified but no less risky than small institutions large organizations take the benefits of an improved risk-expected return tradeoff primarily in higher expected returns by increasing their holdings of risky loans and reducing their equity ratios.Finally, one study looked directly at the diversification gains from improvements in the riskexpected return tradeoff by examining the tradeoffs among expected profit, variability of profit, profit inefficiency, and insolvency risk for large US banking organizations in the early 1990s. They found that when organizations are larger in a way that geographically diversifies, especially via interstate banking that diversifies macroeconomic risk, efficiency tends to be higher and insolvency risk tends to be lower. However, greater scale and greater numbers of branches without geographic diversity was associated with lower insolvency risk but no difference in efficiency. Thus, scale alone, holding the scope of operations constant, did not necessarily improve performance. Rather, gains came primarily from operating in multiple states, especially when this diversified macroeconomic risk. Similarly, one of the other studies found efficiency increased with the number of states of operation, confirming the benefits from geographical expansion.(From Journal of Banking & Finance Volume 23, Issues 24, February 1999, Pages 135194)待添加的隐藏文字内容2中文译文整合金融服务行业:原因、后果和影响未来艾伦 伯杰金融服务业是全球整合。合并和收购(并购)在金融机构发生在一个炎热的速度在美国,可能发生在一个快节奏在不久的将来在欧洲货币联盟下,可能是解决方案的一部分,财务困境问题,在亚洲和其他地方。此外,我们也许即将面临新一波的大型银行机构之间的并购和其他类型的全球金融服务提供商。虽然已经有大量的研究在金融服务行业整合,大部分尚未被理解。的主要用途,这杂志特刊是汇集最新的研究和促进更多的研究在这个重要主题。的主要用途,这篇介绍性文章尤其设计一个框架,用于评估的原因、后果,并暗示未来的金融服务行业整合现存的研究文献,评估了这个框架的上下文中(超过250引用),并提出富有成效的未来研究的方向。在我们的框架,主要动机是最大化股东价值整合,尽管我们也考虑其他利益相关者的动机,特别是管理者和政府。价值最大化通过并购可能主要通过增加参与公司的市场力量在设置价格或提高他们的效率,和在某些情况下通过增加他们的访问安全网络。我们的框架预计,整顿步伐将主要取决于经济环境的变化,改变所面临的约束金融服务公司。我们确定五个这样的变化,可能是部分负责最近的快速的整合步伐技术进步,改善财务状况,产能过剩或财务困境的行业或市场,国际市场的整合,和放松管制的地理或产品的限制。整合的后果不仅包括直接影响市场力量的增加或提高公司效率,但也有一些间接影响。一个潜在的间接后果可能会减少可用性的金融服务,以小客户。潜在的系统性后果整合包括改变支付系统的效率和改变的安全与稳健的金融体系。原则上,决策者可能平衡预期社会效益和成本的这些后果在设定的规则整合或批准/不赞成个别并购。然而,在实践中,它可能很难量化这些利益和成本。我们的框架分研究文学的后果的整合成两个逻辑上可分分类,静态分析和动态分析。静态分析是这里定义是研究有关的潜在后果的整合金融机构自身的一些特点相关的整合,如机构尺寸。然而,静态研究不使用并购数据。这些分析不一定是旨在提供信息整合的影响,但是他们仍然可以证明有用的预测并购的后果。例如,静态分析的规模效率可能给的宝贵资料的效率影响并购的机构大幅提高它们的大小。动态分析是这里定义是研究比较行为的金融机构并购或比较之前和之后的行为与其他机构最近合并机构,从事并购不是最近。动态分析考虑,并购是动态的事件,可能涉及组织焦点的变化或管理行为。这些分析也纳入任何短期成本,完善并购(法律费用,顾问费用,遣散费等)或中断由于裁员,啮合的企业文化,或者地盘争斗。动态分析是比静态分析更具包容性。例如,动态的分析效率的后果包括改变x效率的整合(距离最佳点的最佳实践有效边界)以及规模的变化、范围和产品组合效率包含在静态分析。我们的框架还强调了考虑外部效应的整合,这里定义为反应的其他金融服务提供者在其市场并购。竞争条件的变化由并购可能引起重大反应竞争公司所从他们自己的组织集中或管理行为,可以增强或抵消巩固公司的行为。例如,如果合并机构减少他们的信贷可用性一些小型企业,其他机构可能沾染上一些小型企业信用的下降如果它是价值最大化为他们。整合可能会增加或减少效率在很多不同的方式。并购可能允许机构实现规模、范围或混合输出,更有利可图。整合也可能意味着改变组织集中或管理行为来改善x效率。我们的广泛定义的效率收益还包括改进机构的风险预期回报权衡。这样的收益可能是特别重要的在金融机构并购,通常提供多元化收益的可能性通过投资、产业等跨区域和/或通过进入其他行业。减少风险可能增加股东财富,因为财务困境、破产、丧失特许权价值是昂贵的,因为监管机构可能会限制活动或采取其它成本作为一个公司的财务状况恶化。一个显示大量成本的规模经济,以约20%的成本,银行规模高达约100亿美元,250亿美元的资产。大银行的数据太薄不能得出确定的结论,但前景规模效率节省成本或至少很少或没有损失从并购大银行之一似乎是更大的在1990年代比1980年代。这种变化可能部分反映技术进步,增加规模经济生产金融服务中描述的以上。规模效率的变化也可能部分反映了监管的变化,如消除地理限制银行分支和六氯环已烷扩张,这可能使其低成本的增加规模。最后,数据表明变化的一部分在规模效率反映了公开市场利率较低的1990年代,考虑到一个大比例的大型银行的负债往往是敏感的公开市场利率。最近的研究也调查了影响银行的规模、范围和产品组合在收入和利润效率。结果是含糊不清的规模,一些证据表明轻度射线规模效率方面为客户受益,共同消费和利润效率有时被最高为大型银行,有时是对小银行的最高,有时对平等对于大型和小型银行。在适用范围和产品组合的经济体,一项研究发现很少或没有收入范围效率存款和贷款之间收取消费者而言的另一项研究表明,联合消费效益利润范围经济发现,联合生产是最优的,但是,多数银行的专业化是为别人最优。正如上面所提到的,我们还包括改进风险预期回报权衡从改善风险多样化作为提高效率从整合。一些研究发现,银行经理采取规避风险的方式,交易风险和预期回报之间了,因此可能会容忍额外成本消耗保持控制风险,把风险考虑增加潜在的规模、范围和产品组合风险管理的效率。一个更大的规模、更多元化的金融服务提供的混合,或增加风险的地理分布通常意味着潜在的改进的多样化,所以同样的防范财务困境可以达到用更少的资源。例如,一个早期的研究发现规模效率从分散贷款风险银行贷款投资组合的规模增长了约10亿美元,标准偏差的贷款收益率的急剧下滑,大概因为多样化的好处。这并不一定意味着大银行选择低水平的整体风险,他们可能会选择承担额外的高危险高预期回报的投资在他们的投资组合来达到一个更高的预期回报率。一些研究发现,高比率的股票资本伴随着更大的资源投入到管理风险,并且这些资源成本低为美国最大的银行机构,符合规模效率。最后,一个研究直接在多元化收益改善预期风险回报权衡通过检查权衡在预期利润,利润,利润低效率的变化,和破产风险的大型美国银行组织在1990年代早期。他们发现,当组织更大的地域多样化,特别是通过州际银行,宏观经济风险、效率分散往往更高和破产风险往往是较低的。然而,更大的规模和更多的分支机构没有地理多样性降低破产风险但没有区别。（摘自 银行金融期刊 1999年2月第23期 135-194页）