中、外、台資銀行對大陸地區台資企業授信考量因素之研究

A STUDY OF CREDIT EXTENSION TO TAIWANESE CORPORATE IN CHINA BY CHINESE BANKS, FOREIGN BANKS, AND TAIWANESE BANKS.

林冠均(Kuan-Chun, Lin)

指導教授 ： 沈中華

共同指導教授 ： 詹場(Chang Chan)

國立臺北大學/商學院/國際財務金融碩士在職專班/碩士(2011年)

摘要

根據投審會統計資料顯示，開放赴大陸投資以來我國赴大陸投資件數與金額高居對外投資第一位，然過去學者專家研究發現，台資企業能獲得中資銀行融資支持度相當低，而企業不論是建廠、設備採購、原物料購置等，資金來源是否暢通為企業投資成敗之主要關鍵，因此本研究主要目的在探討中、外、台資銀行對台商企業授信考量因素是否存在重視程度差異。
本研究係以問卷方式取得樣本。問卷抽樣對象包括中資、外資及台資銀行合計32家。總共回收問卷279份，有效問卷258份，有效問卷回收率為92.5%。透過敘述統計量及迴歸分析等研究方法予以探討與分析，所得結論簡述如下：
一、授信準則部份：
1.短期貸款方面，中資銀行較重視「擔保品性質」；有台商授信經驗者對「借款人基本條件」、「生產及銷售情形」及「外部經營環境」之重視程度較高，但對「擔保品性質」之重視程度則低於無台商授信經驗者；風控部門對「借款人基本條件」之重視程度低於業務部門。
2.長期貸款方面，台資銀行對「借款人基本條件」及「財務指標」之重視程度較高；有台商授信經驗者對「外部經營環境」及「其他間接徵信因素」之重視程度高於無台商授信經驗者，但對「擔保品性質」之重視程度則低於無台商授信經驗者；風控部門對「借款人基本條件」及「擔保品性質」之重視程度顯著低於業務部門。
二、授信評估項目部份：
1.中、外、台資銀行於短期和長期貸款共通且重視之授信評估項目分別為27項及33項。
2.短期貸款方面，中資銀行在共通之授信評估項目中有「該公司是否有訴訟、違法、退票或失信等情事」等4項之重視程度顯著高於外資及台資銀行，台資銀行有「簽證會計師是否有不良記錄或更換頻繁」等2項，而外資銀行並無對任何授信評估項目之重視程度高於中資及台資銀行。
3.長期貸款方面，中資銀行在共通之授信評估項目中有「有無提供擔保品及擔保債權取得的順位」等4項之重視程度顯著高於外資及台資銀行，台資銀行有「公司主要經營階層、財務主管是否經常更換」等9項，而外資銀行並無對任何授信評估項目之重視程度高於中資及台資銀行。
三、授信屬性部份：
1.短期貸款方面，有台商授信經驗者有「該公司的成立年數，是否專注於本業經營與業界經驗」等6項授信評估項目之重視程度高於無台商授信經驗者，而風控部門有「產品在國內、外市場的供需情況」等3項授信評估項目之重視程度低於業務部門。
2.長期貸款方面，有台商授信經驗者有「政府相關各種財經、金融、法令、政策等對企業的影響」等6項授信評估項目之重視程度高於無台商授信經驗者，另有1項「授信時所提供擔保品的種類與價值及其變現性」之重視程度低於無台商授信經驗者；而風控部門有「產品在國內、外市場的供需情況」6項授信評估項目之重視程度低於業務部門。

關鍵字

銀行授信 ； 中資銀行 ； 內部信用評等 ； 問卷 ； 敘述統計 ； 多項式迴歸

並列摘要

This study is to explore if credit evaluation and analysis among Taiwanese Banks, Chinese Banks, and Foreign Banks toward Taiwanese corporations in China have significant difference or variation. In addition, key factors and rationale causing the difference would be analyzed and investigated to provide insights and reasons.
According to the statistic data provided by Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC), investments, in terms of both application and amount, on China are at top among oversea investments since the regulation release. However, the banking facility supports from Chinese banks are considered relative limited. Sufficient funding with various sources to support capital expenditure, raw materials purchase, or working capital needs, is one of key successful factors for corporation to execute its investment or expansion. Given the importance of funding support from banking community mentioned-above, this study covers three-type banks, including Taiwanese Banks, Chinese Banks, and Foreign Banks, to examine their credit policy and analysis. Total questionnaires are distributed to 32 banks. Effective questionnaires are 258 against collected 279, representing 92.5% hit rate. All data collected is examined by descriptive statistics and polynomial regression. The key summary is presented below.
A. Credit Policy
A1: short-term loan /facility
Chinese Banks emphasized more on “collateral nature”; Credit officers with experience on credit extension to Taiwanese companies view a) borrower credit standing, b) operation performance, c) macro environment more important, but less focus on collaterals than credit officers with non-credit experience to Taiwanese companies. Marketing persons or loan officers pay more attention on borrower’s qualification or criteria than Risk (or credit department in some banks).
A2: Term loan or long-term facility
Taiwanese Banks weight more on a) borrower’s qualification or criteria, and b) financial indicators/performance. Officers with credit experience on Taiwanese companies in China put more scores on 1) macro environments and 2) other credit indicators, ie CPA opinions, or management turnover rate, etc., but less focus on collaterals than credit officers with non-credit experience to Taiwanese companies. Risk people pay less attention on 1) borrower’s qualification or criteria and 2) collaterals than market officers.
B. Detailed credit analysis items
B1: 27 items for short-term facility and 33 items for long-term facility are common and the importance by Taiwanese Banks, Chinese Banks, and Foreign Banks.
B2: For common credit analysis items on short-term facility, Chinese Banks weight more on “litigation, illegal events, bounced check, or default” and other 3 items than Taiwanese and Foreign Banks. “CPA related concerns or frequent change of CPA” and the other item are more concerned by Taiwanese Banks. No significant item more emphasized by Foreign Banks is shown in this regard.
B3: To common credit evaluation items on long-term debt or facility, Chinese Banks weight more on “collateral and subordinated rank” and other 3 items than Taiwanese and Foreign Banks. Taiwanese Banks pay more attention on “senior management, frequency of changing financial chief” and other 8 items. No significant item more emphasized by Foreign Banks is shown in this regard.
C. credit experience and job function
C1: To short-term facility, interviewees with credit experience on Taiwanese companies in China weight more on “age of company, focusing on core business, experience and expertise on industry”, and other 5 items, than interviewees without credit experience. Risk or Credit persons focus less on “market supply and demand on domestic and oversea market” and other 2 items, than marketing officers.
C2: To long-term debt or facility, Interviewees with credit experience on Taiwanese companies in China emphasize more on “government’s policy and regulatory issues”, and other 5 items toward corporate than interviewees without credit experience to companies in China. Nevertheless, they score less “liquidity value of collateral” then non-China credit experience person. Risk or Credit persons focus less on “market supply and demand on domestic and oversea market” and other 4 items, than marketing officers.

並列關鍵字

bank credit ； chinese banks ； internal credit rating ； questionnaire ； descriptive statistics ； polynomial regression

參考文獻

陳家彬、江惠櫻及賴怡洵等，2003，商業銀行對企業授信決策考量因素與授信品質之關係，管理評論第二十二卷第二期，台北。

王思評，2006，房屋抵押貸款授信風險評估研究－以X銀行為例，大同大學事業經營學系碩士論文。

宋文海，2006，內部信用評等系統在銀行授信決策實務運用之探討－以國內某銀行為例，國立政治大學經營管理碩士學程碩士論文。

鄭宗明，2005，影響商業銀行授信決策之研究，中興大學應用經濟學系所碩士論文。

Berger, A. N. and G. F. Udell, 1990, ”Collateral, Loan Quality, and Bank Risk,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 25, pp.21-42.