歐洲并購(gòu)與銀行業(yè)績(jī)外文翻譯

1、<p>　　2040單詞，3420漢字</p><p>　　出處：Source: Yener Altunbas, David Marqués Ibáñez,2004.” Mergers and acquisitions and bank performance in Europe”. European Central Bank: working paper series.

2、NO. 398 / October.pp.4-34.</p><p>　　Mergers and acquisitions and bank performance in Europe</p><p>　　Non-technical summary</p><p>　　During the 1990s a large process of financial con

3、solidation has taken place in the European Union although cross-border mergers and acquisitions activity remains limited in the banking sector. Given the central role played by banks in the credit process and the economy

4、 in general, this process of financial consolidation has attracted substantial attention not only from managers and shareholders but also from borrowers and policy-makers. While in the United States there is extensive em

5、pirical evi</p><p>　　In terms of methodology, most of the studies analyzing the effect of bank consolidation on performance tend to follow two main kinds of empirical methods. On the one hand there are a num

6、ber of studies comparing pre- and post-merger performance. On the other hand, another strand of the empirical literature uses a event-study type methodology, in which changes in the prices of specific financial market as

7、sets around the time of the announcement of the merger are analyzed. In this respect, the hand</p><p>　　We use the former approach by comparing actual pre- and post- merger performance in acomprehensive samp

8、le of European Union banks from 1992 to 2001. The use of this methodallows us to cover a wider sample of European Union banks by including also banks which are not listed on the stock market. Building on earlier US work

9、we also examine the impact of strategic similarities between bidders and targets on post-merger financial performance. The analogy with the US banking sector seems to be a usefu</p><p>　　Unlike results from

10、most of the US-based event studies literature, we found that there are improvements in performance in the European Union after the merger has taken place particularly in the case of cross-border M&As. By making the a

11、ssumption that balance-sheet resource allocation is indicative of the strategic focus of banks, we also find that domestic and cross-border mergers are very different in terms of whether dissimilar or similar banks succe

12、ed in mergers.</p><p>　　On average, we found that consistency on the efficiency and deposits strategies of merging partners are performance enhancing both for domestic and cross-border M&As. For domestic

13、 mergers we also found support on the negative effects of dissimilarities in earnings, loan and deposit strategies on performance. Yet, differences in the capitalisation and investment in technology and financial innovat

14、ion of merging institutions were found to enhance performance.</p><p>　　For cross-border M&As, diversity in their loan and credit risks strategies improved performance of the merging banks, while diversi

15、ty in their capitalisation, technology and financial innovation strategies are negative from a performance perspective. This renders support to the often stated difficulties in integrating institutions with widely differ

16、ent strategic orientation. These findings fit well with the process of financial consolidation observed in recent years in Europe.</p><p>　　1. Introduction and motivation</p><p>　　Spearheaded by

17、 the creation of the single market for financial services and, more recently, by the introduction of the euro, an unprecedented process of financial consolidation has taken place in the European Union. During the late 19

18、90s, the volume and number of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) increased in parallel with the introduction of Monetary Union (Chart 1). According to most bankers and academics, however, the process of banking integrat

19、ion seems far from completed and is expected to co</p><p>　　As in other industries, this process of consolidation in the banking industry has attracted substantial attention from managers and shareholders. I

20、n addition, the pivotal role played by the banking sector in the economy has also ensured additional interest from borrowers, depositors and policy-makers alike. One of the concerns for policy-makers is the possible impa

21、ct of consolidation on the transmission mechanisms of monetary policy.</p><p>　　The impact of bank consolidation on the transmission of monetary policy is a multidimensional issue. According to most empirica

22、l studies, an increase in banking concentration tends to drive loan rates up in many local markets thereby probably hampering, to some extend, the pass-through from market to bank lending rates. On the other hand, in ter

23、ms of quantities, early concerns about loan supply restrictions to small and medium enterprises arising from bank concentration seem to have been exagger</p><p>　　In terms of methodology, the handful of Euro

24、pean studies analysing the effect of bank consolidation on performance tends to follow two main kinds of empirical methods: a comparison of pre- and post-merger performance, or an event-study type methodology based on pr

25、ices of specific financial market assets. Surprisingly, while there is a myriad of empirical studies in the United States devoted to the issue of banking consolidation, there is a paucity of studies in the European Union

26、 (see Berger et </p><p>　　In this respect, the first set of studies evaluates the effects of bank mergers comparing pre- and post- merger performance by measuring performance using either accounting or produ

27、ctive efficiency indicators. An important starting point for this latter group is that the latest empirical studies measuring bank efficiency show that scale economies seem to exist in the banking sector in the United St

28、ates and Europe. This finding tentatively suggests that improvements in efficiency could be expecte</p><p>　　A parallel strand of the literature uses event study methodology, and typically tries to ascertain

29、 whether the announcement of the bank merger creates shareholder value (normally in the form of cumulated abnormal stock market returns) for the target, the bidder and the combined entity shareholders. The underlying hyp

30、othesis of these types of studies is that excess returns around announcement day could explain the creation of value associated to the merger. Following this procedure, most US studi</p><p>　　Recent studies

31、have provided an interesting contribution by sub-sampling the population of merging banks, according to product or market relatedness, to analyse whether certain shared characteristics among merging institutions could cr

32、eate or destroy shareholder value or performance. By and large, the main conclusion of these studies is that while mergers among banks showing substantial elements of geographical or product relatedness create value, dis

33、similarities tend to destroy overall sharehol</p><p>　　A few studies looking at actual after-merger financial performance have also considered whether the existence of common bank characteristics among mergi

34、ng partners could be conducive to improved performance. However, very little effort has been directed towards understanding performance differences that occur within each type of merger and how the degree of relatedness

35、among merging firms affects post-merger performance.</p><p>　　We attempt to address this issue and analyse the factors that are expected to influence the success of M&As by considering whether the merger

36、 of firms with similar strategic orientation could lead to higher profitability. Our analysis follows the perspectives of evolutionary economic theories, particularly the strategic management and resourcebased view of th

37、e firm under the assumption that financial data from individual banks reflects the strategic profile of merging institutions. This study ai</p><p>　　2. Strategic fit and performance</p><p>　　A c

38、lear conclusion from the above discussion of the M&A empirical literature is the importance of product and geographical similarities for post-merger performance. To investigate this issue further, we borrow our model

39、 from the strategic management literature by focusing on the strategic features of financial firms engaged in M&A activity.</p><p>　　Strategists have long recognised that the ’strategic fit’ among mergin

40、g partners is a critical element in determining the success or failure of a deal. Levine and Aaronovitch (1981) and Lubatkin (1983) were among the first to stress the importance of studying the strategic and organisation

41、al aspects of M&A activity. While the same view was echoed nearly 20 years later by Zollo (1997) for the financial sector, there have only been a handful of studies – all US-based – examining these aspects of M</p

42、><p>　　These studies analyse the impact of strategic similarities in bank mergers on bank performance, by associating the resource allocation patterns as indicators of the underlying strategies pursued by US ba

43、nks engaged in horizontal mergers. It is broadly found that strategic similarities between target and bidders improve performance, providing general support to the view that mergers between strategically similar firms ar

44、e likely to provide greater benefits than mergers involving organisations tha</p><p>　　This paper aims to expand on available evidence by investigating how strategic similarities – calculated from banks’ bal

45、ance sheet data - among merging banks in the European Union have impacted bank performance from 1992 to 2001. The interest of this particular exercise is multidimensional: first, the issue of strategic similarity, emphas

46、ized indirectly by other strands of the literature is addressed directly in the European Union. Second, by analysing both domestic and cross-border merger data </p><p><b>　　譯文：</b></p><

47、;p><b>　　歐洲并購(gòu)與銀行業(yè)績(jī)</b></p><p><b>　　非技術(shù)性總結(jié)</b></p><p>　　20世紀(jì)90年代，雖然跨國(guó)并購(gòu)活動(dòng)仍然局限于銀行業(yè)體系，但歐盟依然發(fā)生了一個(gè)非常大的并購(gòu)整合過(guò)程。由于銀行一般在信用體系和整體經(jīng)濟(jì)中扮演了至關(guān)重要的角色，因此并購(gòu)整合的過(guò)程已經(jīng)引起了不僅是企業(yè)管理人員與股東，還有借款人及決策者

48、的廣泛關(guān)注。雖然在美國(guó)有廣泛的對(duì)財(cái)務(wù)合并影響的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)，但實(shí)證文獻(xiàn)在歐洲仍然有限。本文旨在闡明歐盟銀行業(yè)合并的過(guò)程。</p><p>　　從方法論方面來(lái)看，對(duì)銀行合并業(yè)績(jī)影響的研究分析中，大多傾向于兩個(gè)主要種類的實(shí)證方法。其中一個(gè)方法是有些研究是比較合并前與合并后的業(yè)績(jī)；另一個(gè)是，其他一些實(shí)證文獻(xiàn)采用事件研究型方法，它是在合并公告的具體時(shí)間內(nèi)對(duì)金融市場(chǎng)資產(chǎn)價(jià)格的變動(dòng)進(jìn)行分析。為此，迄今開(kāi)展的跨越歐洲的很多研究采用

49、了事件研究型方法，旨在說(shuō)明銀行業(yè)間的并購(gòu)為了獲得戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)和投標(biāo)者而積累了極高的股票市值。（參見(jiàn)Cybo-Ottone和Murgia，2000年）</p><p>　　我們通過(guò)第一種方法并使用1992年到2001年實(shí)際歐盟銀行的全面樣本，來(lái)比較它們合并前與合并后的業(yè)績(jī)。通過(guò)使用這種方法使我們能涵蓋到面更廣的歐盟銀行，還包括未上市的銀行。在早前美國(guó)實(shí)驗(yàn)基礎(chǔ)上我們還研究戰(zhàn)略相似性在投標(biāo)者與目標(biāo)者合并前后業(yè)績(jī)的影響。美國(guó)

50、的銀行業(yè)似乎是一個(gè)很有用的例子，美國(guó)的洲際擴(kuò)張與銀行間極為重要的大合并過(guò)程是在20世紀(jì)80年代末和90年代初的銀行放松管制之后發(fā)生的。這可以和正在進(jìn)行的歐洲金融一體化比較，歐洲一體化加速了1990年代初期單一市場(chǎng)的金融服務(wù)，特別是最近，又引進(jìn)了歐元。在戰(zhàn)略方面考慮似乎也具有相似性。最近的研究通過(guò)對(duì)銀行合并的二次抽樣，提出了一個(gè)有趣的發(fā)現(xiàn)，根據(jù)產(chǎn)品和市場(chǎng)關(guān)聯(lián)性去分析在合并的機(jī)構(gòu)中某些共同的特征是能夠創(chuàng)造還是削弱股東價(jià)值和業(yè)績(jī)。</p

51、><p>　　和許多美國(guó)早期的文獻(xiàn)研究結(jié)果不同，特別是在歐盟發(fā)生的那些跨國(guó)并購(gòu)案件中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)在并購(gòu)后這些機(jī)構(gòu)的業(yè)績(jī)都有所提高。通過(guò)假設(shè)機(jī)構(gòu)資產(chǎn)負(fù)債的資源配置是銀行戰(zhàn)略策劃的重心，我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)無(wú)論是國(guó)內(nèi)并購(gòu)還是跨國(guó)并購(gòu)，就相似或不相似銀行間的成功合并案例來(lái)看，結(jié)果都是不同的。</p><p>　　平均來(lái)看，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)無(wú)論是國(guó)內(nèi)與跨國(guó)合并中具有一致的效率和存款戰(zhàn)略的合并伙伴，都能取得并購(gòu)后業(yè)績(jī)的提高

52、。國(guó)內(nèi)合并中，我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)不同機(jī)構(gòu)并購(gòu)中在業(yè)績(jī)收入、貸款和存款戰(zhàn)略幾方面存在消極效果。然而，在資本、技術(shù)投資、金融創(chuàng)新的機(jī)構(gòu)并購(gòu)中，其業(yè)績(jī)卻在提高。</p><p>　　在跨國(guó)并購(gòu)中，并購(gòu)銀行的貸款和信貸風(fēng)險(xiǎn)策略的多樣性提高了銀行的業(yè)績(jī)，然而他們的資本、技術(shù)和金融創(chuàng)新戰(zhàn)略卻使業(yè)績(jī)降低。這說(shuō)明了多數(shù)持并購(gòu)機(jī)構(gòu)間由于迥然不同的戰(zhàn)略定位而產(chǎn)生許多困難的觀點(diǎn)成立。這些發(fā)現(xiàn)正好適合最近幾年在歐洲觀察到的金融并購(gòu)過(guò)程。<

53、/p><p><b>　　介紹與動(dòng)機(jī)</b></p><p>　　率先由單一金融服務(wù)市場(chǎng)的創(chuàng)造，再加上最近歐元的引進(jìn)，使歐盟發(fā)生了一場(chǎng)前所未有的金融并購(gòu)過(guò)程。在20世紀(jì)90年代后期，企業(yè)并購(gòu)數(shù)量、體積結(jié)構(gòu)的增加的同時(shí)，歐洲也開(kāi)始了貨幣一體化。根據(jù)眾多銀行家和學(xué)者的說(shuō)法，盡管銀行業(yè)的一體化進(jìn)程似乎遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)沒(méi)有完成，但預(yù)計(jì)在今后幾年其仍會(huì)繼續(xù)重塑歐洲金融環(huán)境。首先,許多力量支撐著

54、這一并購(gòu)的過(guò)程—比如技術(shù)變化的影響和金融全球化，他們將繼續(xù)存在著。第二，在歐盟，每1000個(gè)居民的銀行數(shù)目幾乎是是美國(guó)的兩倍，這表明了在歐盟有足夠的空間進(jìn)行并購(gòu)。第三，歐盟國(guó)家在銀行的集中度上仍然有相當(dāng)程度的不均勻性。</p><p>　　像其他行業(yè)的并購(gòu)整合，在銀行業(yè)的并購(gòu)中已經(jīng)吸引了從管理人員與股東的大量注意力。此外，銀行業(yè)對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)最重要的作用是確保借款人、存款人和決策者的額外收益。決策者關(guān)注的一個(gè)問(wèn)題是貨幣政

55、策的傳導(dǎo)機(jī)制對(duì)并購(gòu)的影響。</p><p>　　銀行合并對(duì)貨幣政策傳導(dǎo)機(jī)制的影響是多方面的問(wèn)題。根據(jù)大多數(shù)實(shí)證研究，隨著銀行集中度的提高導(dǎo)致了許多地區(qū)當(dāng)?shù)刭J款利率的提高，但在一定程度上卻阻礙了銀行借款利率的提高。另一方面，就數(shù)量而言，早期就中小企業(yè)因銀行集中度而受到貸款供應(yīng)的限制是過(guò)于夸大了。</p><p>　　就方法論而言，一些分析銀行合并對(duì)其業(yè)績(jī)的影響的歐洲研究往往遵循兩種主要經(jīng)驗(yàn)方

56、法：一種是比較合并前后的業(yè)績(jī)，另一種是建立在對(duì)特定金融市場(chǎng)資產(chǎn)價(jià)格上的事件研究型方法。令人驚訝的是，雖然在美國(guó)專門關(guān)于銀行合并有無(wú)數(shù)的實(shí)證研究，但在歐盟卻極為貧乏。（參見(jiàn)Berger et，1999年）</p><p>　　在這一方面，第一階段研究是通過(guò)測(cè)量業(yè)績(jī)是使用會(huì)計(jì)還是生產(chǎn)效率指標(biāo)來(lái)評(píng)估銀行合并前后業(yè)績(jī)的影響。后一階段研究一個(gè)重要起點(diǎn)是，最新測(cè)量銀行效率的實(shí)證研究表明了美國(guó)和歐洲的銀行業(yè)存在著規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)。這一

57、調(diào)查結(jié)果初步表明，可以期望從銀行的合并中獲得效率的提高。（參見(jiàn)Humphrey和Vale，2003年）令人驚訝的是，大量通過(guò)比較合并前后業(yè)績(jī)的研究卻發(fā)現(xiàn)，從取得的收益中很少能夠獲得潛在效率。（參見(jiàn)Piloff，1994年，Berger，Demsetz和Strahan，1999年）關(guān)于這個(gè)難題一個(gè)可能的理由是一些效率需要花很長(zhǎng)時(shí)間來(lái)積累獲得。（參見(jiàn)Focarelli和Panetta，2003年）更確切地說(shuō)，雖然一些效率（例如那些從風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分散

58、化、品牌名稱或派生的好處）能夠在短期內(nèi)獲得，其他的比如從降低成本或范圍經(jīng)濟(jì)所帶來(lái)的好處可能需要花更長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間去實(shí)現(xiàn)。這可能是由于不同機(jī)構(gòu)間廣泛合并存在困難。（參見(jiàn)Vander Vennet，2002年）帶有不同文化背景與戰(zhàn)略特征的公司組合，在其他方面條件平等的情況下，會(huì)遇到共同的難題，這些問(wèn)題產(chǎn)生于由于企業(yè)間文化沖突并會(huì)阻礙其業(yè)績(jī)。</p><p>　　許多一系列的文獻(xiàn)都運(yùn)用了事件研究型方法，通常試圖確定宣布合并的

59、銀行能夠?yàn)閼?zhàn)略目標(biāo)、投標(biāo)人和合并后的股東創(chuàng)造股東價(jià)值。（通常是積累異常股票市值回報(bào)的形式）研究報(bào)告基本假設(shè)的類型是圍繞發(fā)布日超額收益來(lái)解釋由于合并創(chuàng)造的相關(guān)價(jià)值。按照這一程序，大多數(shù)美國(guó)的研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，銀行的合并只能為目標(biāo)機(jī)構(gòu)的股東創(chuàng)造股東價(jià)值，而費(fèi)用只會(huì)發(fā)生在招標(biāo)機(jī)構(gòu)。（參見(jiàn)Houston和Ryngaert，1994年，Berger，Demsetz和Strahan，1999年）相比之下，迄今為止進(jìn)行的為數(shù)不多的跨國(guó)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，銀行合并能夠?yàn)?/p>

60、目標(biāo)機(jī)構(gòu)和投標(biāo)機(jī)構(gòu)獲得顯著的股票市場(chǎng)價(jià)值收益。（參見(jiàn)Cybo-Ottone和Murgia，2000年）</p><p>　　最近的研究通過(guò)對(duì)銀行合并的二次抽樣，提出了一個(gè)有趣的發(fā)現(xiàn)，根據(jù)產(chǎn)品和市場(chǎng)關(guān)聯(lián)性去分析在合并的機(jī)構(gòu)中某些共同的特征是能夠創(chuàng)造還是削弱股東價(jià)值和業(yè)績(jī)?？偟膩?lái)說(shuō)這些研究的主要結(jié)論是，雖然銀行合并的地理與產(chǎn)品相關(guān)性這兩個(gè)實(shí)質(zhì)元素能夠創(chuàng)造價(jià)值，但差異性卻能毀壞整體股東價(jià)值。（參見(jiàn)Amihud，De L

61、ong和Saunders，2002年，Houston和Ryngaert，1994年）</p><p>　　一些研究在觀察合并后的財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)時(shí)能夠考慮到是否其合并伙伴存在著有利于改善業(yè)績(jī)的共同銀行特征。然而，很少有努力直接針對(duì)理解每個(gè)合并類型發(fā)生的業(yè)績(jī)差異以及合并企業(yè)間關(guān)聯(lián)性程度對(duì)其合并后財(cái)務(wù)業(yè)績(jī)的影響。</p><p>　　我們?cè)噲D解決這一問(wèn)題并分析考慮了是否具有相似戰(zhàn)略定位且能導(dǎo)致更高利潤(rùn)

62、的合并企業(yè)存在可能影響合并成功的因素。我們的分析遵循經(jīng)濟(jì)理論的角度，特別是在戰(zhàn)略管理與企業(yè)進(jìn)化觀點(diǎn)的假設(shè)下，從單個(gè)銀行的財(cái)務(wù)數(shù)據(jù)中反映了合并機(jī)構(gòu)的戰(zhàn)略概括。本研究的目的是填補(bǔ)美國(guó)在這一領(lǐng)域?yàn)閿?shù)不多的實(shí)證研究的一個(gè)空缺。從歐洲銀行系統(tǒng)得到的具體實(shí)證證據(jù)是至關(guān)重要的，因?yàn)槊绹?guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)不能自動(dòng)適應(yīng)于歐洲環(huán)境，比如，人們可以觀察到一個(gè)大大不同的制度現(xiàn)實(shí)。</p><p><b>　　2．戰(zhàn)略配合與業(yè)績(jī)</b

63、></p><p>　　從上面并購(gòu)的實(shí)證文獻(xiàn)討論中一個(gè)明確的結(jié)論是，產(chǎn)品和地域的相似性對(duì)于合并后的公司業(yè)績(jī)存在著重要性。為了更進(jìn)一步調(diào)查這一問(wèn)題，我們借用戰(zhàn)略管理文獻(xiàn)中的模型，講注意力集中在并購(gòu)活動(dòng)中具有戰(zhàn)略特點(diǎn)的金融企業(yè)。</p><p>　　戰(zhàn)略家們?cè)缇鸵庾R(shí)到，合并伙伴間的“戰(zhàn)略配合”是決定交易成功或失敗的最關(guān)鍵因素。Levine，Aaronovitch（1981年）和Lubat

64、kin (1983年)是最早強(qiáng)調(diào)學(xué)習(xí)并購(gòu)活動(dòng)戰(zhàn)略和組織方面重要性的學(xué)者。而同樣的看法是出現(xiàn)在幾乎20年后金融業(yè)的Zollo (1997年)，目前僅有極少數(shù)的研究，而都是在美國(guó)的基礎(chǔ)上，全部是對(duì)并購(gòu)活動(dòng)這些方面的審核。</p><p>　　這些研究通過(guò)集中從事橫向兼并的美國(guó)銀行所追求潛在戰(zhàn)略的資源配置模式作為指標(biāo)來(lái)分析銀行并購(gòu)中的戰(zhàn)略相似性對(duì)銀行業(yè)績(jī)的影響。研究還廣泛發(fā)現(xiàn)目標(biāo)機(jī)構(gòu)和投標(biāo)機(jī)構(gòu)間的戰(zhàn)略相似性能夠提高業(yè)績(jī)

65、，提供普遍支持的觀點(diǎn)是具有戰(zhàn)略相似性的企業(yè)比追求不能戰(zhàn)略方向的企業(yè)能夠獲得更大的利益。</p><p>　　本文旨在根據(jù)現(xiàn)有的證據(jù)，在1992年—2001年間歐盟已影響銀行業(yè)績(jī)的合并銀行中，計(jì)算銀行資產(chǎn)負(fù)債表數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)研究如何擴(kuò)大戰(zhàn)略相似性。這種特殊練習(xí)的興趣是多方面的：首先，是戰(zhàn)略相似性問(wèn)題，其他文獻(xiàn)中強(qiáng)調(diào)了間接性，但在歐盟卻是直接性。第二，通過(guò)分析國(guó)內(nèi)和跨國(guó)并購(gòu)的數(shù)據(jù)，我們不僅評(píng)估出了目標(biāo)企業(yè)與投標(biāo)企業(yè)間的文化差