毕业论文(设计)-金融学《我国商业银行并购重组绩效分析》

《毕业论文(设计)-金融学《我国商业银行并购重组绩效分析》》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《毕业论文(设计)-金融学《我国商业银行并购重组绩效分析》（14页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。

1、毕业论文外文文献翻译毕业设计（论文）题目我国商业银行并购重组绩效分析翻译（1）题目并购的影响-基于美国银行效率的进一步实证研究翻译（2）题目系经贸系专 业金融学姓 名王湘香班 级08091012学 号08910217指导教师金辉杭州电子科技大学信息工程学院本科毕业论文外文翻译并购的影响-基于美国银行效率的进一步实证研究 本文详自Adel A. Al-Sharkas, M. Kabir Hassan and Shari Lawrence The Impact of Mergers and Acquisitions on the Efficiency of the US Banking Indus

2、try: Further Evidence J. Journal of Bussiness Finance Accounting, 2008,3,50-70Adel A. Al-Sharkas, M. Kabir Hassan and Shari Lawrence摘要：本文运用随机前沿方法（SFA）来研究美国银行并购对成本和收益效率的影响。同时，也使用非参数技术的数据包络分析（DEA）来评价并购银行和未并购银行的生产结构。实证结果表明，并购已经提高了银行的成本效率和收益效率。进一步说，有证据表明，相比于未并购银行，并购银行因为使用最有效的、可行的技术（技术效率）以及一个成本最小化的输入技术（配

3、置效率）已经达到降低产品成本的目的。结果表明并购是银行今后发展的一种经济合理的方式。最后，银行通过并购可以有效地利用机会改进技术。关键词：银行并购，随机前沿方法，数据包络分析法1.引言在过去的十年里，美国银行业通过兼并和收购一直刷新着纪录。因此，银行监管者和反垄断当局对银行并购能获得更好的潜在利益和结果感兴趣。具体而言，他们感兴趣的是银行并购是否能提高效率。银行并购可能增加效率通过银行规模经济或获得较之前更有利的总量输出。而且，可能通过改变投入产出和成本收入方式来提高效率。在本文中，我们运用随机前沿方法来检验银行并购效率对成本和收益的影响。成本效率是指当一家银行接近边界有效或者最佳银行（最有效

4、地管理银行）时，在相同价格和其他环境条件下会产出相同产量。利润效率是指在相同条件下一家银行的利润接近于一家最佳银行。利润效率包括成本效率，影响规模和范围，产品的成本和收益，某种程度还能影响预期收益。利润效率通过改变成本和收入更能比成本效率实现价值最大化。为了进一步验证我们的假设，运用数据包络分析方法（DEA）比较并购银行和未并购银行的表现。DEA将成本效率分解成配置效率和技术效率。配置效率是指银行在给定投入价格的情况下，能够以最佳的比例利用投入的能力，而技术效率是指在投入既定的情况下银行获得最大产出的能力。利用数据包络分析方法，我们将技术分析分为纯技术效率和规模效率。这些分法将使我们更了解银行

5、并购的有效性和无效性的根源。此外，我们可以运用这种方法计算指数（MI），在经济文献中这已成为一个计算生产力和生产效率的标准方法。据我们所了解，在这此前的研究，没有有关采用DEA、MI指标分析美国银行业并购能否提高效率。于是我们的其中一个贡献是整理文献。第二，我们研究的并购银行很全。之前的银行并购实证研究效率中大部分是大型银行的并购。第三，本文尝试对银行并购效率分析采用参数的方法和非参数方法。其余内容如下：在第二部分我们回顾相关文献。在第三部分，我们介绍方法。在第四部分我们描述数据和定义变量。在第五部分得出实证结果。最后部分，总结结论。2.文献回顾以前的研究表明，许多银行并购的目的是为了提高效率

6、。例如，Berger and Humphrey（1992）研究了美国1980-1990年间的57家的大银行并购。他们用一个古典成本函数来计算两种类型效率：规模经济和X-有效。他们得出两个主要结论：首先，如果一家有效银行接管另一家无效银行，并购能实质性的提高效率；第二，并购并没有成功的提高平均成本效率。平均效率改善少于5个百分点是不可信的。而且，由于规模不经济，在并购后，并购银行的实际表现会稍微逊色一些，尽管这种影响是很小的并且不是很显著的。他们认为大型并购的规模不经济轻松的抵消了X-有效，导致成本效率的下降。DeYoung（1997）发现在1987年到1989年的348家并购银行（使用成本函数

7、）中58%产生了小成本效率。虽然其中一些的上涨是由于银行破产兼并的目标（包括得到联邦存款保险公司的支持而提高银行的表现）61%的并购银行有成本效率。此外，他的结果表明，相同大小规模的银行并购取得的成本效率比平均水平低。而且，有经验的并购方获得大的效率比平均水平高。Peristiani (1993)研究内部并购，或者研究并购的银行与之前的银行有些地方有市场重叠。他发现并购银行比目标银行有更多的利润，但是一般没有产生效率。使用模拟，Shaffer (1993)发现如果最佳银行能改革不具有高效率的银行可能拥有巨大的X-有效。最近，有研究发现并购银行比目标银行更有效率(Altunbas, Maude

8、and Molyneux, 1995；and Pilloff and Santomero, 1998)。同样也发现在并购后并购银行比目标银行有更多重大收获。这是与高风险获得高利润回报效率一致的(Benston, Hunter and Wall,1995)。大量的研究表明并购后成本效率会随着改变。在20世界80年代的大多数的银行并购研究中显示很少有成本效率改善，平均成本效率大约在5%或更少(Berger and Humphrey, 1992；Rhoades,1993；and Peristiani, 1997).。从分支机构和计算机系统等获得的潜在收益可能与整合管理系统效率低下抵消。综合20世纪9

9、0年代的数据表明银行并购有些时候能获得更多的成本效率(Berger and Humphrey, 1992； and Rhoades, 1993)。Rhoades (1998)研究9家银行并购的效率影响发现并购的成本效率取决于并购的动力目标以及整合过程。尽管大多数研究集中于成本效率，很少有研究试图从另外掩盖的影响角度来研究银行并购。利润效率的研究通常给银行并购描绘了一幅蓝图。从20世纪80年代到20世纪90年代早期这样的研究中发现银行并购能提高利润效率，有益于改善增加风险回报和风险收益的权衡(Akhavein, Berger and Humphrey,1997； and Berger, 1998

10、)。最近大量的分析发现相当大规模的银行并购没有有效利用规模经济(Berger and Mester, 1997；and Berger and Humphrey, 1997)。20世纪90年代获得的规模经济多于20世纪80年代。这发现通常认为是技术的进步，管理的变化和低利率的有益影响(Berger et al., 1993)。另外，他们认为并购银行能适当地利用规模经济及其范围提高X-有效，从而使并购银行增加市场占有力。3.方法论在文献中，有各种方法来评估不同行业如银行、医院以及其他行业的效率，类似的效率方法也可以应用到评估银行并购的效率。资本市场研究银行并购的股东财富、并购前后财务比率变化。然而

11、，几乎没有研究把银行当作一个公司来考虑，分析银行不同组合的输入和输出、并购期间成本结构的变化。参数效率分析方法和非参数效率分析方法都是从微观的角度把并购银行和未并购银行看作一个整体来分析并购过程中银行并购的变化。我们使用第一种方法来探讨银行并购对并购银行和未并购银行的成本和收益效率影响，接着，我们找到并购银行并购前后的并购效率。此外，我们比较并分析并购银行和未并购银行并购前一年和并购后三年的成本和利润效率。最后，我们调查了并购银行和被并购银行的成本效率和利润效率水平。有好几种方法可以评估成本效率和利润效率，其中最简单的是财务比率法，但是这种方法不考虑价格的输入和输出。因此，用一种更复杂的方法来

12、弥补这一缺点。这种方法考虑了银行输入、输出的各种价格，与最佳银行比较成本效率和利润效率。这种方法评估随机前沿（输入、输出和价格的组合）以及银行如何有效运作。另外，各银行与边界的距离作为其衡量的效率。考虑到银行的生产技术是否充分有效是未知的，只能在实践中观察估计。我们利用随机前沿方法来评估银行并购是否有成本效率和利润效率以及大小。成本效率和利润效率我们都会分析。在研究中用到的利润效率方法是最新文献中应用的不标准利润效率模型(Berger and Mester, 1997； De Young and Hasan, 1998；and Khumbakar et al., 2001)。而且，如果有效率，

13、我们使用数据包络分析研究银行并购效率。4. 选择数据和定义变量所有用来计算成本和利润效率的数据和基本信息都来自芝加哥联邦储备银行的网页。样本包括所有在年报中的银行控股公司数据库的银行。我们用的银行并购数据来自1985-1999和1986-2002的财务数据分析美国银行并购的影响。我们的样本也有收到来自芝加哥联邦储备银行的资料。最初样本有1552家银行并购也来自相同网页。最后的样本，选取的并购银行需要满足以下要求：（一）在并购期间，双方并购银行有健全机构，（二）在模型中运用的所有数据的变量是可行的，（三）在同一银行并购应用中单一目标银行可以得到，（四）并购不借助于银行监管机构，（五）不包括失败的

14、银行并购，（六）并购发生在1999年前。第一条排除了所有的失败银行并购和政府协助银行并购的银行。如果在当年或者连续两年之后银行所得超过其他银行，他们和另外的并购前的银行结合成单一的间隔观察和测量效率。72家公司被初步删除，因为他们不符合标准（一），另外223家公司被删除不符合标准（二），634家公司因为丢失数据被删除，194家由于技术原因被淘汰。最后导致样本只包括440家银行并购。对并购银行和未并购银行计算成本和收益函数。之后，我们计算并购之前三年和并购之后三年银行成本和利润效率。所以有效率水平的并购银行与同水平的银行有关。同水平的银行类似于收购银行但不参与任何并购。所有样本银行和其他银行包括

15、不只一个被同水平的排除的银行。在适当的同水平中比较各银行和平均银行的效率。5.实证结果我们使用的第一种方法对并购银行和未并购银行做比较研究银行并购对成本和收益效率的影响。未并购银行和那些并购银行拥有相同的总资产。SFA和DEA两种方法用来评估效率。6总结和结论在这篇论文中，我们广泛的实证调查了银行并购对成本效率和利润效率的影响，用参数化以及非参数方法分析银行并购效率。我们将银行和总部在同一联邦储备区的相同资产的其他银行并购的之前一年和之后三年对比。而以往的研究主要集中于大型银行并购，我们研究的是各种类型的银行并购。我们运用SFA统计数据发现一般来说银行并购能增加成本和利润效率。这些结论适用于大

16、型和小型银行并购，然而，相比于大型银行并购，小型银行并购的成本效率更高。至于利润效率，我们发现无论是大型还是小型银行并购都有助于提高利润效率。我们使用DEA得出并购银行和未并购银行效率不同的最主要原因是技术效率的不同，这表明并购银行的技术效率比未并购银行更有效。我们同样利用DEA计算MI指标来观察生产效率的趋势。从中我们得出结论并购银行比未并购银行有更多的生产率增长。此外，生产率增长主要是技术进步而不是技术的效率。总之，我们的结论表明银行并购对其未来是经济合理的。并购似乎可以使有效银行控制较弱的银行，从而有助于增加输入效率。此外，银行可以利用并购这个机遇提高技术。The Impact of M

17、ergers and Acquisitions on the Efficiency of the US Banking Industry: Further EvidenceAdel A. Al-Sharkas, M. Kabir Hassan and Shari LawrenceAbstractUsing the Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA), this study investigates the cost and profit efficiency effects of bank mergers on the US banking industry.

18、 We also use the nonparametric technique of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to evaluate the production structure of merged and non-merged banks. The empirical results indicate that mergers have improved the cost and profit efficiencies of banks. Further, evidence shows that merged banks have lower c

19、osts than non-merged banks because they are using the most efficient technology available (technical efficiency) as well as a cost minimizing input mix (allocative efficiency). The results suggest that there is an economic rational for future mergers in the banking industry. Finally, mergers may all

20、ow the banking industry to take advantage of the opportunities created by improved technology.Keywords: banks mergers, stochastic frontier, data envelopment analysis1. INTRODUCTIONOver the past decade, the US banking industry has registered a record level ofconsolidations through mergers and acquisi

21、tions. As a result, bank regulators and antitrust authorities, among others, are interested in gaining a better understanding of the potential welfare and consequences of bank mergers. Specifically, they are interested in whether or not bank mergers improve efficiency. Bank mergers may increase effi

22、ciency by allowing the bank to achieve economies of scale or by achieving a combined output that is more profitable than before. Moreover, bank mergers may lead to efficiency gains by changing the input-output mix in a manner that optimizes costs and revenues.In this paper, we use a frontier approac

23、h to examine the cost and profit efficiency effects of bank mergers.1 Cost efficiency improvements occur when a bank moves closer to what a frontier-efficient or best practice banks (the most efficiently managed banks) cost would be for producing the same output bundle using the same input prices an

24、d other environmental conditions. Profit efficiency improvements occur when a bank moves closer to the profit of a best-practice bank under the same conditions. Profit efficiency is a more inclusive concept than cost efficiency. Profit efficiency incorporates cost efficiency, the effects of scale an

25、d scope, and product mix on both costs and revenues, and to some degree the effects of changes in the risk-expected return tradeoff. Profit efficiency also corresponds better to the concept of value maximization than cost efficiency since value is determined from both costs and revenues.As a further

26、 test of our hypotheses, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is utilizedto compare the behavior of merged banks with other banks that have not engaged in mergers. DEA decomposes cost efficiency into allocative efficiency and technical efficiency. Allocative inefficiency is defined as a decline in perfor

27、mance due to an in effective production plan whereas technical inefficiency is defined as the poor implementation of the production plan. DEA also allows us to decompose technical efficiency into pure technical efficiency and scale efficiency. These decompositionsenhance our understanding of the sou

28、rces of efficiency and inefficiency that may be associated with bank mergers. In addition, DEA permits us to compute the Malmquist Index (MI), which has become a standard methodology for estimating the evolution ofproductivity and efficiency in economic literature.2 To the best of our knowledge, the

29、re are no previous studies that have used DEA MI index analysis to identify the sources of efficiency gains, if any, associated with mergers in the US banking industry. Hence this is one of our contributions to merger literature. Second, we investigate bank mergers of all sizes. Prior empirical stud

30、ies of efficiencies in bank mergers have examined mostly large bank mergers. Third, this paper attempts to identify the existence and the magnitude of efficiency gains from bank mergers by employing a parametric approach and non-parametric approach.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows.

31、 In Section 2 we review related literature. In Section 3 we describe the methodology. In Section 4 we describe the data and definition of variables. In Section 5 we present our empirical results. In the final section we summarize our results.2. LITERATURE REVIEWPrevious research suggests that many b

32、anks engage in mergers for the purpose of improving efficiency. For instance, Berger and Humphrey (1992) study fifty-seven US banking mega-mergers from 1981 to 1989. They estimate a neo-classical cost function that allows them to consider two types of efficiencies: scale economics and X-efficiency.

33、Berger and Humphrey produce two main results. First, if more efficient banks take over less efficient banks, a merger may create substantial efficiency gains. Second, the mergers were not successful on average in improving cost efficiency. The average efficiency improvement was less than five percen

34、tage points and was not statistically significant. Moreover, because of diseconomies of scale, the combined firms actually performed slightly worse on average after the mergers, although this effect was small and often not statistically significant. The authors conclude that diseconomies created by

35、the mega mergers easily offset any X-efficiency gains, resulting in a decline in cost efficiency.A study by DeYoung (1997) finds that 58% out of a sample of 348 mergers in 1987 and 1989 (employing a thick-frontier cost function) generates small cost efficiencies. Although some of these gains were du

36、e to mergers involving insolvent targets (where support from the FDIC might have helped in improving the banks performance), 61% of the solvent bank purchases also generate cost efficiencies. Moreover, the results of DeYoung (1997) indicate that mergers of equal-sized banks capture smaller than aver

37、age cost efficiencies. In addition, bidders that are experienced dealmakers obtain larger average improvements.Peristiani (1993) studies in-market mergers, or mergers in which there is some local market overlap prior to merger. He reports that bidder banks are more profitable than targets; however,

38、he finds that generally no efficiency gains are created. Using simulation, Shaffer (1993) finds that large X-efficiency gains are possible if the best practice banks merge with and reform the practices of the least efficient banks. More recently, studies have found that bidder banks are more efficie

39、nt ex ante than targets (Altunbas, Maude and Molyneux, 1995; and Pilloff and Santomero, 1998). It has also been found that bidder banks bid more for targets when the merger will lead to significant diversification gains. This is consistent with a motive to improve riskexpected return tradeoff and in

40、crease profit efficiency (Benston, Hunter and Wall,1995).A number of studies measure the change in cost efficiency after mergers. Most of the studies, on average, show very little cost efficiency improvement from the mergers of the 1980s; in the order of 5% of costs or less (Berger and Humphrey, 199

41、2; Rhoades, 1993; and Peristiani, 1997). Potential gains from consolidating branches or computer operations, etc., may be offset by managerial inefficiencies or problems in integrating systems. Studies using 1990s data are mixed, but sometimes indicate more cost efficiency gains (Berger and Humphrey

42、, 1992; and Rhoades, 1993). Rhoades (1998) examines the efficiency effects of nine bank mergers. His findings suggest that cost efficiency effects of mergers may depend on the motivation behind the mergers as well as the consolidation process.Although the majority of research has focused on cost eff

43、iciency, a few studies have tried to cover additional effects of mergers (also on the income side) by using a profit function. Studies of profit efficiency usually paint a more favorable picture of mergers. Such studies from the 1980s and early 1990s found that mergers improved profit efficiency, an

44、d that this improvement could be linked to an increased diversification of risk and an improved risk-expected return tradeoff (Akhavein, Berger and Humphrey, 1997; and Berger, 1998). The most recent analyses find unexploited scale economics even for fairly large banks (Berger and Mester, 1997; and B

45、erger and Humphrey, 1997). The prospects of scale efficiency gains appear to be greater in the 1990s than in the 1980s. This finding is usually attributed to technological progress, regulatory changes, and the beneficial effects of lower interest rates (Berger et al., 1993). In addition, the authors

46、 report that mergers may be geared to exploit economies of scale or scope, improve the X-efficiency of merged banks, and enable merged banks to exercise increased market power.3. METHODOLOGYIn literature, various forms of efficiency measures have been used for assessingperformance of different indus

47、tries such as banking, hospitals, and other industries. Similar efficiency concepts can also be applied in assessing performance improvements of banks upon mergers and acquisitions. Capital market studies of bank mergers and acquisitions examine shareholder gains and losses; financial ratio analysis

48、 examines pre and post merger performance change. However, none of these studies examine performance analysis by considering banks as firms, and how different combinations of input, output, and cost structure change during the post-merger period. Both parametric and non-parametric efficiency measure

49、s used in this study analyze efficiency changes during the merger process from a micro-economic point of view, using merged and non-merged banks as economic units.The first method we use to investigate the efficiency effects of bank mergers is tocompare the cost and profit efficiency for merged and

50、non-merged banks. Next, we find the pre-merger and post merger efficiency for the merging banks. In addition we compare the costs and profits of merged and non-merged banks (1 year pre-merger to 3 years post-merger) in order to analyze efficiencies. Finally, we investigate the cost and profit effici

51、ency levels for both the acquiring and acquired banks.There are several approaches to estimate cost and profit efficiency. The simplestapproach consists of comparing financial ratios that describe costs and profitability.3However, this methodology does not consider input prices and output mix. There

52、fore, a more complex approach is employed to control for that drawback. This allows us to measure cost and profit efficiency by comparing the best practice banks of the industry, as determined by statistical techniques, taking into account the inputs, outputs, and prices faced by each bank. One appr

53、oach estimates a stochastic frontier (a combination of inputs, outputs, and prices) along with how all efficient banks would operate. In addition, the distance of each bank is taken from the frontier as a measure of its (in) efficiency.Given the fact that the production technology of the fully effic

54、ient firm in a banking industry is not known, it should be estimated from observations in practice. We employ the stochastic frontier approach (SFA) to evaluate if and by how much bank mergers affect cost and profit efficiency. We will analyze both cost and profit efficiencies. The type of profit ef

55、ficiency method employed in this study is the non-standard profit efficiency model, which is the latest development in the literature (Berger and Mester, 1997; DeYoung and Hasan, 1998; and Khumbakar et al., 2001). Further, we use Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to investigate the sources of efficien

56、cy gain, if any, associated with bank mergers.4. DATA SELECTION AND DEFINITION OF VARIABLESAll information necessary for estimating both cost and profit efficiency was obtained from the Reports of Condition and Income Report database (Call Report) on the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicagos web page.9 .

57、The sample includes all banks in the Bank Holding Company database in the Call Report. We use merger data for the 19851999 period and financial data from the 19862002 period to analyze the effects of mergers on US banks. Our merger sample was also obtained from the merger file at the Federal Reserve

58、 Bank of Chicago. The initial sample consisted of 1,552 mergers that were selected from the same web page. To be included in the final sample, the merger was required to meet the following criteria: (a) both of the merged banks had to be healthy institutions at the time of the merger, (b) data for a

59、ll of the variables in the model were available, (c) a single target bank was acquired in the same merger application, (d) the merger was not assisted by a bank regulator, (e) the target did not involve a failed bank, and (f) the merger must have occurred before 1999. The first criterion eliminates

60、all failed-bank mergers and government assisted bank mergers. If a bank acquired more than one other bank in the same or consecutive years, they were combined into a single merger observation with additional pre-merger intervals in which efficiency is measured. Seventy-two firms were deleted from th

61、e preliminary sample because they did not meet criterion (a), another 223 firms were deleted for not meeting criterion (d), 634 additional firms were removed for missing key data, and 194 were eliminated for technical reasons.10 The resulting sample consists of 440 bank mergers.Annual cost and profi

62、t functions (frontiers) are estimated for merging and non-merging banks. After estimating the frontiers, we calculate the cost and profitefficiencies for banks involved in a merger each year for three years before and three years after the merger. All of the efficiency levels of the merging banks ar

63、e determined relative to peer groups of banks. The peer group consists of banks that are similar in size to the acquiring banks but are not involved in any merger. All sample banks and other banks involved in more than one merger are eliminated from the universe of peer groups. The efficiency of eac

64、h bank is compared to the average efficiency of all banks in the proper size-related peer group.5. EMPIRICAL RESULTSThe first method we use to examine the efficiency effects of bank mergers is to compare the cost and profit efficiency for merged and non-merged banks. The non-merged banks are defined

65、 as banks comparable in terms of size, which is measured by total assets. Two approaches are applied to estimate the efficiency levels: the SFA and the DEA.6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSIn this paper, we provide an extensive empirical investigation on the cost and profit efficiency effects of bank merge

66、rs. We analyze the efficiency gains from bank mergers by utilizing a parametric approach as well as a non-parametric approach. We also look at an industry comparison group including only banks that are involved in a merger in the year before or after (but not the year of) the merger in question, are

67、 headquartered in the same Federal Reserve district as the bidder bank, and in the same asset class as the bidder bank. Whereas previous studies have focused primarily on large bank mergers, we investigate bank mergers of all sizes.Using the SFA, we provide statistical evidence that bank mergers, in

68、 general, result in increased cost and profit efficiency. These results hold in a sub-sample of large and small bank mergers; however, small bank mergers record greater cost efficiency improvements compared to mergers by large banks. With respect to profit efficiency, we find that mergers tend to im

69、prove profit efficiency for both large and small banks.Our DEA analysis leads us to conclude that the most significant cause of efficiency among merged banks versus non-merged banks is technical efficiency, suggesting that merged banks are on average more technically efficient than non-merged banks.

70、 The DEA also allows us to compute the Malmquist Index to observe trends in productivity and efficiency. From these findings we conclude that merged banks experience greater productivity growth compared to non-merged banks. In addition, the source of productivity growth is due to technological advan

71、cements rather than increased technological efficiency.In sum, our results suggest that there is an economic rational for future mergers in the banking industry. Mergers seem to allow efficient banks to gain control of weaker banks, thus helping to increase input efficiency. Furthermore, mergers may

72、 allow the banking industry to take advantage of opportunities created by improved technology.REFERENCES1Akhavein, J. D., A. N. Berger and D. B. Humphrey (1997), The Effects of Mega Mergers on Efficiency and Prices: Evidence From a Bank Profit Function, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 12, pp

73、. 95139.2Akhavein, J. D., A. N. Berger and D. B. Humphrey ,P. A. V. B. Swamy, S. B. Taubman and R. N. Singamsetti (1997), A General Method of Deriving the Efficiencies of Banks From a Profit Function, Journal of Productivity Analysis, Vol. 8, pp. 7193.3Alam, I. M. S. (2001), A Non-Parametric Approac

74、h for Assessing Productivity Dynamics of Large Banks, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 33, pp. 12139.4Altunbas, Y., D. Maude and P. Molyneux (1995), Efficiency and Merger in the UK (retail) Banking Market, Working Paper (Bank of England).5Aly, H. Y., R. Grabowski, C. Pasurka and N. Rangan

75、(1990), Technical, Scale, and Allocative Efficiencies in U.S. Banking: An Empirical Investigation, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 72, pp.21118.6Benston, G. J., W. C. Hunter and L. D. Wall (1995), Motivations for Bank Mergers and Acquisitions: Enhancing the Deposit Insurance Pot Option Vers

76、us Earnings Diversification, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 27, pp. 77787.7Berger, A. N. (1998), The Efficiency Effects of Bank Mergers and Acquisitions: A Preliminary Look at the 1990s, data, in Y. Amihud and G. Miller (eds.), Bank Mergers & Acquisitions (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Bos

77、ton).8 Berger, A. N. and R. DeYoung (2002), The Effects of Geographic Expansion on Bank Efficiency,Journal of Financial Services Research, Vol. 19, pp. 16384.9Berger, A. N.and D. B. Humphrey (1992), Megamergers in Banking and the Use of Cost Efficiency as Antitrust Defense, The Antitrust Bulletin, V

78、ol. 37, pp. 541600.10Berger, A. N. (1997), Efficiency of Financial Institutions: International Survey and Directions for Future Research, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 98, pp. 175212.11Berger, A. N.and L. J. Mester (1997), Inside the Black Box: What Explains Differences in the Effic

79、iencies of Financial Institutions? Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 21, pp. 895947.12Berger, A. N. (1999), What Explains the Dramatic Changes in Cost and Profit Performance of the US Banking Industry, Working Paper (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia).13Berger, A. N., W. C. Hunter and S. G. Ti

80、mme (1993), The Efficiency of Financial Institutions: A Review and Preview of Research Past, Present, and Future, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 17, pp. 22149.14Casu, B., C. Girardone and P. Molyneux (2004), Productivity Change in Banking: A Comparison of Parametric and Non-Parametric Approach

81、es, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 28, pp. 252140.15DeYoung, R. (1997), Bank Mergers, X-Efficiency, and the Market for Corporate Control, Managerial Finance, Vol. 23, pp. 3247.16DeYoung, R. and I. Hasan (1998), The Performance of De Novo Commercial Banks: A Profit Efficiency Approach, Journal

82、of Banking and Finance, Vol. 22, pp. 56587.17DeYoung, R. and D. Nolle (1996), Foreign-Owned Banks in the US: Earning Market Share or Buying it? Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 28, pp. 62236.18Ferrier, G. D. and C. A. K. Lovell (1990), Measuring Cost Efficiency in Banking: Econometric and

83、 Linear Programming Evidence, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 46, pp. 22945.19Ferrier, G. D. and C. A. K. Lovell and S. S. Schmidt (eds.) (1993), The Measurement of Productive Efficiency: Techniques and Applications (New York: Oxford University Press, New York), pp. 16094.20Garden, K. A. and D. E. Ral

84、ston (1999), The X-Efficiency and Allocative Efficiency Effects of Credit Union Mergers, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Vol. 9, pp. 285301.21Isik, I. and M. K. Hassan (2003a), Governance, Corporate Control and Efficiency of the Turkish Banking Industry, Journal o

85、f Business Finance & Accounting , Vol. 30, pp. 1363421.22Isik, I. and M. K. Hassan (2003b), Financial Deregulation and Total Factor Productivity Change: An Empirical Study of Turkish Commercial Banks, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 27, pp. 145585.23Jondrow, J., C. A. K. Lovell and P. Schmidt (

86、1982), On the Estimation of Technical Inefficiency in the Stochastic Frontier Production Function Model, Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 19, pp.23338.24Khumbakar, S. C., A. Lozana-Vivas, C. A. K. Lovell and I. Hasan (2001), The Effects of Deregulation on the Performance of Financial Institutions: The

87、Case of Spanish Savings Banks, Working Paper (New Jersey Institute of Technology). McAllister, P. H. and D. McManus (1993), Resolving the Scale Efficiency Puzzle in Banking,Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 17, pp. 389405.25Mitchell, K. and N. M. Onvurall (1996), Economies of Scale and Scope at L

88、arge Commercial Banks: Evidence from the Fourier Flexible Functional Form, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 28, pp. 17899.26Mukherjee, K., S. C. Ray and S. M. Millar (2001), Productivity Growth in the Large US Banks: The Initial Post Deregulation Experience, Journal of Banking and Finance,

89、 Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 91339.27Peristiani, S. (1993), The Effects of Mergers on Bank Performance. Federal Reserve of New York Studies on Excess Capacity in the Financial Sector. 1993.28Peristiani, S. (1997), Do Mergers Improve the X-Efficiency and Scale Efficiency of U.S. Banks? Evidence from the 1980

90、s, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 29, pp. 32637.29Pilloff, S. J. and A. M. Santomero (1998), The Value Effects of Bank Mergers and Acquisitions, in Y. Amihud and G. Miller (eds.), Bank Mergers&Acquisitions (Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA) pp. 5978.30Rhoades, S. A. (1993), The Efficiency Ef

91、fects of Horizontal Bank Mergers, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 17, pp. 41122.31Rhoades, S. A. (1998), The Efficiency Effects of Bank Mergers: An Overview of Case Studies of Nine Mergers, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 22, pp. 27391.32Rogers, K. E. (1998), Nontraditional Activities and

92、the Efficiency of U.S. Commercial Banks, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 22, pp. 46782.33Sealey, C. and J. Lindley (1977), Inputs, Outputs, and a Theory of Productionand Cost at Depository Financial Institutions, Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, pp. 125166.34Shaffer, S. (1993), Can Mega Mergers Imp

93、rove Bank Efficiency? Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 17, pp. 42336.35Wheelock, D. C. and P. W. Wilson (1999), Technical Progress, Inefficiency and Productivity Change in the US Banking, 19841993, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 31, pp. 21334.1 外文翻译考核表指导教师对外文翻译的评语： 指导教师 （签名） 年 月 日建议成绩（百分制）评阅小组或评阅人对外文翻译的评语：评阅小组负责人或评阅人 （签名） 年 月 日建议成绩（百分制）