دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله مدیران و کارایی در بانکداری – الزویر ۲۰۰۹
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی مدیران و کارایی در بانکداری به همراه ترجمه فارسی
عنوان فارسی مقاله | مدیران و کارایی در بانکداری |
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله | Managers and efficiency in banking |
رشته های مرتبط | مدیریت، اقتصاد، بانکداری، مدیریت مالی، اقتصاد مالی، پول و بانکداری |
فرمت مقالات رایگان |
مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF آماده دانلود رایگان میباشند همچنین ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد نیز قابل خریداری و دانلود میباشد |
کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله متوسط میباشد |
مجله | الزویر – Elsevier |
مجله بانکداری و مالی – Journal of Banking & Finance | |
سال انتشار | ۲۰۰۹ |
کد محصول | F677 |
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد |
خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد |
جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات مدیریت |
فهرست مقاله: چکیده |
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله: ۱٫ مقدمه |
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: ۱٫ Introduction Bank efficiency studies have become an established field of empirical economics. These studies have developed a relatively standardised methodology and conceptual framework. A central term in this literature is ‘‘managerial efficiency”, which simply refers to the ability of a bank to maximise profits or minimise costs under given circumstances. This expression attributes efficiency to managers. Paradoxically, there seem to be almost no empirical studies on the relevance of managers to managerial efficiency in banking. This paper is an attempt to shed some light on this issue. Following Fries and Taci (2005), Sensarma (2006), Kraft et al. (2006) and Lensink et al. (2008), the stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) method of Battese and Coelli (1995) is used to derive cost effi- ciency estimates. Bank output is defined according to the production approach. A unique, detailed panel data set on Finnish cooperative and savings banks is used. The data includes detailed personal information on hundreds of bank managers; few data sets of this kind are available. It is found that age and education affect cost efficiency in a complicated way. University graduates have a comparative advantage in running relatively large banks. Managers with university degrees in business administration or economics seem to outperform their colleagues with a university degree in law or agriculture and forestry. Vocational level qualification in business administration seems an excellent educational background in very small banks. Among young managers efficiency typically improves as a function of age but among the oldest efficiency may deteriorate. An additional year of age can affect expected costs by almost 1%.Manager changes are systematically followed by above average changes in efficiency. If an old manager retires, a significant cost efficiency improvement typically follows. In other cases efficiency is affected, but there is no regularity in the direction of change. Previous literature is reviewed in Section 2. Section 3 describes the data. The method and the specification are presented in Section 4. Empirical results are presented in Section 5. Section 6 summarises and discusses the findings. ۲٫ Literature and the institutional setting ۲٫۱٫ Bank efficiency literature Efficiency has different established definitions in previous literature. The most common of them seems to be cost efficiency, which simply refers to the ability of the bank to minimise costs, when input prices and the quantity and composition of output are given. This efficiency concept has often been used as the only definition.1 Profit efficiency, instead, refers to the ability to maximise profits.2 In most efficiency analyses the logarithmic objective is regressed on variables that would affect the value of the objective function of a fully efficient institution; for instance, logarithmic costs are normally regressed on different transformations and interactions of input prices, output quantities and possible other variables. Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) is one of the most popular methods. SFA decomposes the error term into the expected value of inefficiency and random variation, such as measurement error. The random error may be either positive or negative. In cost functions the inefficiency term cannot be negative because it increases costs. The cost function of a completely efficient institution is called the efficient frontier. Many studies on the determinants of efficiency use a two-stage approach. First, efficiency scores are estimated by using the SFA. As a second step the statistical interrelationship between efficiency and its potential determinants is analysed using other methods.3 This approach may lead to biased results if the determinants of effi- ciency correlate with variables included in the cost function. The method of Battese and Coelli (1995) estimates the impact of ineffi- ciency determinants simultaneously with the efficient frontier itself by using an iterative maximum likelihood procedure. Each observation of the sample is assigned an inefficiency estimate that partly depends on these determinants. In recent years the method has been gaining ground in bank efficiency literature. Its presumably superior ability to provide estimates on different determinants of banks’ cost efficiency has been used by Fries and Taci (2005), Sensarma (2006), Kraft et al. (2006) and Lensink et al. (2008). These papers largely concentrated on the impact of ownership. Williams and Nguyen (2005) used the method in their analysis on profit efficiency and bank governance. In addition to ownership and governance structures, several other factors have been found to predict bank efficiency. These factors include home country legal traditions, balance sheet structure and size (Pestana Barros et al., 2007), labour, ATMs and the ability to maximise deposits per branch (Valverde et al., 2007) and investments in IT services or computer hardware (Beccalli, 2007). As to measuring output, banking may be one of the most diffi- cult industries. The production approach assumes that the bank produces certain financial services, such as loans, deposits and payment intermediation. The choice of services included in the output vector is often based on subjective discretion. It has been commonplace to use the number of accounts and loans as output indicators. Bank costs are defined as personnel and other operational costs. Interest expenditure is ignored. This approach used to be very commonplace.4 Its popularity seems to have declined, but it has been used by at least Prior (2003). Input prices are essential to efficiency estimations. It has been commonplace to calculate the price of inputs at the bank level. However, in a perfectly competitive market all banks in the same market should face identical factor prices. If the market is not perfectly competitive, factor prices should be endogenous. Mountain and Thomas (1999) may have been the first to discuss these issues in detail. Bank specific input price proxies are particularly misleading in cost function estimations (Koetter, 2006). One method to avoid the problem is to calculate averages for each geographic area and to use the average for all the banks of the region, as Koetter (2006) and Bos and Kool (2006) did. This paper analyses the impact of manager characteristics on bank efficiency. A few person related factors are measurable. The human capital theory pioneered by Becker (1962) assumes that education creates valuable human capital. The signalling theory, largely due to Spence (1973), assumes that skilled individuals acquire education to signal their type. Testing the theories against each other is difficult because they both yield rather similar empirical predictions. Riley (2001) reviews the empirical evidence and the findings seem to be conflicting. Both theories suggest that manager education should correlate with bank efficiency. Holmstrom (1982) argues that career concerns motivate young employees, making them work hard during the early stages of career. Hence, we might expect young managers to outperform their mature colleagues. Perhaps surprisingly, there seem to be very little econometric research on the impact of manager characteristics on bank performance. However, CEO shareholdings weaken cost efficiency among US banks (Pi and Timme, 1993). Branch manager turnover correlates with bad loans, presumably because local management gradually accumulates tacit knowledge on local borrowers (Ferri, 1997). As to non-bank financial institutions, the impact of fund manager educational background on the performance of a securities portfolio has been analysed (Gottesman and Morey, 2006; Chevalier and Ellison, 1999). Cooperative banks may have an informational advantage over limited liability banks because members of credit cooperatives normally live in the same community, and they are often engaged in similar activities. If default by one debtor causes losses to peers, borrowers would monitor each other in joint-liability arrangements (Ghatak, 2000). Alternatively non-borrower members may monitor debtors (Banerjee et al., 1994). Australian credit cooperatives seem to pass on the benefits of cost efficiency to members by lowering their interest rate spreads (Esho, 2001). |