期刊文献+

商业银行相对风险比较研究——来自中国14家商业银行2001—2004年的经验证据 被引量:3

Study on the Risk Comparison for Commercial Banks—Evidences from 14 Chinese Commercial Banks through 2001-2004
下载PDF
导出
摘要 为寻找中国商业银行整体运行中的薄弱环节,本文基于所构建的风险评价指标体系及风险比较模型,对中国14家主要商业银行2001~2004年的相对风险水平进行了对比分析。研究发现,依照相对风险程度的高低,14家商业银行可以划分为三个层次,第一层次,由华夏银行、招商银行、民生银行及中国银行所构成,安全性较高;而中国农业银行、中国工商银行和广东发展银行则隶属于风险最高的第三层次,是中国银行业安全的薄弱环节。由于不良贷款率、盈利能力和资产的流动性比率是影响商业银行风险状况的主要因素,因此从这三个方面人手,改善位于第三层次商业银行的风险状况,是提高中国银行业整体安全性的关键,应该成为当前银行业改革的重点。 In order to find the operation bottlenecks of China commercial banks,this paper analyzes and compares the risks of 14 Chinese banks based on the Risk Evaluation Index System(REIS) and the Risk Comparison Model(RCM).In accordance with the risk level,the 14 banks can be divided into 3 categories.The first category,with the highest level of safety,consists of Huaxia Bank,China Merchants Bank,Minsheng Bank,and Bank of China.While the third category,with the highest level of risks and thus the bottleneck of banking system,includes the Agricultural Bank of China,ICBC,and Guangdong Development Bank.Due to the fact that nonperforming loans,incapability of profitability,and the illiquidity ratio of assets are the main causes of commercial bank risks,we hold that the key to enhance China banking safety is to improve the risk situation of the third category of banks in terms of the solutions of nonperforming loans,incapability of profitability and illiquidity ratio of assets.
机构地区 南京大学商学院
出处 《当代经济科学》 CSSCI 北大核心 2007年第4期10-19,共10页 Modern Economic Science
基金 教育部哲学社会科学创新基地"南京大学经济转型和发展研究中心"子课题"对外开放与中国经济转型及发展研究"项目资助 国家社会科学基金项目(NO.04BJL027) 中国博士后基金项目(2005037710) 南京农业大学人文社会科学基金项目(SK06010)的阶段性成果
关键词 商业银行 指标体系 风险比较 Commercial banks Index system Risk comparison
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1Kupper E F. Risk management in banking [ C ]. Risk and Capital Management Conference Proceedings from Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, 1999.
  • 2Mester L J. The changing nature of the payments system : should new players mean new rules? [J]. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, 2000, (March/April) : 3 - 26.
  • 3[美]米歇尔·科罗赫,丹·加来,罗伯特·马克,曾刚,罗晓军,卢爽,译.风险管理[M].北京:中国财政经济出版社,2005.
  • 4[美]汉斯-乌里希·德瑞克,查萍,译.金融服务运营风险管理手册[M].北京:中信出版社,2004.
  • 5Partick F, Virginia D. R. Capital and risk:new evidence on impactions of large operational losses[ R]. Rederal Reserve Bank of Boston working paper,2003.
  • 6PricewaterhouseCoopers. Generally Accepted Risk Principles [ S ]. United Kingdom, 1996.
  • 7苏盈,吴永飞,杨晓光.商业银行风险评级的比较研究[J].管理评论,2005,17(2):3-8. 被引量:10
  • 8王宗军,崔鑫,邵芸.商业银行信贷风险的多因素多层次模糊综合评价[J].南开管理评论,2004,7(5):4-7. 被引量:11
  • 9姚铮,邵勤华.商业银行竞争力评价指标选择及其权重确定[J].科技进步与对策,2005,22(1):60-63. 被引量:21

二级参考文献20

  • 1赵昕,李莉,王义银.用于银行贷款决策的企业信用评价模型[J].数量经济技术经济研究,2001,18(10):66-69. 被引量:5
  • 2白雪梅,赵松山.指标选择与简化的定量分析方法探讨[J].财经问题研究,1995(4):63-64. 被引量:10
  • 3焦瑾璞.中国银行业竞争力比较[M].北京:中国金融出版社,2001..
  • 4股份制商业银行评价体系研究课题组.股份制商业银行评价体系研究.当代银行家,2003,(4).
  • 5Winnie P.H.Poon,Michael Firth,Hung-Gay Fung,A multivariate analysis of the determinants of Moody's bank financial strength ratings.Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money,9(1999):267-283.
  • 6Christopher D.Ittner,David F. Larcher, Marshall W.Meyer, Subjectivity and the Weighting of Performance Measures:Evidence from a Balanced Scorecard.The accounting Review,2003,78(3):725-758.
  • 7Jeffery S. Abarbanell and Brain J. Bushee. Abnormal Return to a Fundamental Analysis Strategy. The Accounting Review January 1998, 19-45.
  • 8S. Kanungo; Sharma. K. Jain. A.. Evaluation of a Decision Support System for Credit Management Decisions. Decision Support Systems, 2001, Vol. 30: 419-436.
  • 9Altman. E. I.; Saunders. A.. Credit Risk Measurement:Developments Over the Last 20 Years. Journal of Banking & Finance, 1998, Vol. 21: 1721-1742.
  • 10股份制商业银行风险评级体系(暂行).银监会,2004.2.22

共引文献44

同被引文献14

引证文献3

二级引证文献28

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部