212 /302
分析台灣金控公司之關鍵風險因子：以風險平衡計分卡結合決策分析實驗室法為基礎之分析網路法
212
lower than that calculated according to Basel I (10.87%) at the end of 2006. The Tier 1
ratio declined by 2.02%, from 9.88% to 7.86%. This decrease occurred primarily because
certain items in the Tier 1 ratio calculated using Basel I should have been deducted
according to entity capital; the capital of financial industry investment was subtracted; the
capital needs for operational risks were increased; and capital was deducted because of
insufficient provisions for predicted loss. However, these ratios rose when the profits
increased and because banks with deficient systems introduced foreign capital. The
average capital adequacy ratio for the end of 2007 was 10.88%, which is slightly higher
than that for the end of 2006 (10.87%). The Tier 1 ratio for the end of 2007 accounted for
8.59% of risk assets, which is 9.88% lower than that for the end of 2006. The main cause
for these changes is that several Tier 1 capital deduction items were added to Basel II.
When the unamortized deferred asset amount of on-sale nonperforming assets is deducted
from entity capital, the capital adequacy ratio at the end of 2007 is 10.65%, which is
slightly higher than that for the end of 2006 (10.06%). These changes occurred primarily
because of the substantial decrease in the unamortized amount. The empirical studies in
Asia shows that banks will decrease foreign investment in Japan, Taiwan or Korea to
minimize risks during the economic crisis (Chen, 2015).
Risk management involves maximizing positive risks, minimizing negative risks, and
maintaining uncertainties at an acceptable level (Simons, 1999). When the overall risk
management policies for financial holdings are considered, the benefits and costs of
subsidiary corporations must be defined clearly. FHCs increase the complexity of
organizational structures through capital reuse. This complicates the tasks of financial
supervision authorities. Compared with Basel I, Basel II, which was implemented at the
end of 2006, emphasizes the internal risk management of financial institutions. Basel II
was implemented to involve all market participants in the supervision of market risks by
relying on the supervision of financial supervisory authorities and the disclosure of
various types of information. Accordingly, market disciplines can be implemented.
Hellmann, Murdock, and Stiglitz (2000) as well as Matutes and Vives (2000) have argued
that, in a competitive economic system, the supervision of capital (e.g., controlling the
deposit rate and deposit premium or limiting assets) can be increased for reducing risks
effectively.
Laeven and Levine (2009) observed that, after the implementation of Basel II,
official supervision improved bank governance and facilitated competition. However, an
increase in competition also raises the risk behaviors of managers. Rigorous and