金融控股集团的效应研究
摘要
金融控股集团作为金融分业体制向金融综合化体制转变的历史进程中的一种金融组织创新,自二十世纪八九十年代以来得到了充分的实践发展,引起了国际金融市场的广泛关注,对越来越多的国家和地区的金融体制、金融市场、金融监管和金融创新产生了广泛而深刻的影响。本论文重点研究了金融控股集团的协同效应、特有风险,同时对中国发展金融控股集团的动力、条件和模式也进行了探讨。
一、提出了金融控股集团的定义特征
本论文在综合分析有关定义的基础上,总结提炼了金融控股集团的两大特征。一是金融控股集团的业务范围具有金融多业或金融跨业的特征;二是具有控股的财务要求和实际控制影响力,包括绝对控股和相对控股两种结构。
二、分析了主要发达国家金融控股集团的发展模式,对这些模式特征进行了剖析。
由于各国金融制度和金融监管体制的差异性,各国在具体的组织形态上有一定的区别。美国更多的是银行控股公司,并在此基础上发展成为金融控股公司。德国由于实行了全能银行制度,金融控股集团的跨业经营色彩更为紧密,德国的银行就是包括商业银行业务、证券业务、保险业务在内的金融服务集团,既有单一银行通过内部事业部制开展多元化运作,也有采取金融控股集团形式运营,控股集团公司对控股的子公司通过股权进行控制和管理,同时集团公司自身也开展专业化经营。英国大都是金融集团形式开展多元化金融业务,母公司多是从事商业银行业务,其他金融业务是通过控股专业机构经营。日本的金融体制基本类似美国的架构,采用了金融控股公司的形式,通过金融控股公司控股若干个包括银行、证券、保险等金融子公司,同时这些金融子公司相互交叉持股。
美国金融控股集团的特征可以概括为:
(1)继承与改造了分业经营体制的优点或合理成分;
(2)、美国金融体制的改革体现了有效率的竞争理念,符合国际金融一体化和全球金融竞争新时代的发展要求。有效率的竞争就是由原有分业体制下的分割竞争转变为有协同作用基础上的优势互补与合力竞争。
(3)、美国金融分业经营体制的终结,缘于对国际金融竞争的资源垄断优势和金融超级寡头的力量的充分追求与培育,体现了当代金融竞争进入了国际化和全球化这一新层次上所激发的新需求、新动力。
(4)、美国金融现代化体制的模式体现了集团混业控股、分业法人经营、分业专业监管的原则,组织架构体现专业化分工合作,并从集团战略利益层面发挥各自
协同利益。
德国金融控股集团具有以下特征:
(1)德国金融控股集团是在全能银行体制下发展起来的,是在以商业银行为基础发展证券和保险业务,整个金融体制和经济金融体系以商业银行为主导。
(2)德国全能银行体制的成功运作既促进了商业银行的发展强大,也有助于德国证券业、保险业等非银行金融业的快速稳健成长与壮大,实现了相互促进,协调发展,从而对维护德国金融体制的稳健运行、促进德国金融业的现代化发挥了重要作用。
(3)、德国全能银行体制有助于德国金融企业之间的并购扩张,并以此为手段逐渐培育出少数国际上著名的超级金融巨头,这对于提高德国金融业的国际综合竞争力,并在国际金融市场占据一席之地具有十分深远的战略意义。
(4)、德国全能银行体制有助于促进银行与企业之间的深层次合作,有助于密切和巩固良好的银企关系,所谓的德国主办银行制度就是这种典型的相互融合与紧密依赖的银企关系。在这种架构下,银行拥有对融资企业的直接控制,享有相对充分的信息对称优势,有利于加强贷款风险管理。
(5)、当代德国金融业在原有混业经营的基础上,已经积极引进了金融控股集团这一当代新兴的金融组织结构,通过集团母公司控股其他金融子公司来加强金融多元化经营。主要动力是强强联合以积极应对更加激烈的国际竞争。
三、尝试研究了金融控股集团的协同效应,构建了协同效应的理论模型。同时借鉴国外学术研究成果,对金融控股集团协同效应进行了实证研究的分析介绍。
(一)协同效应
协同效应的内涵,可解释为金融控股集团内部各金融实体运用各自的竞争优势和资源来对成员实体彼此之间相互支持、相互补充、协调行动,实现了控股公司整体上的价值增值,即预期取得1+1+1>3的良好结果。它表示公司的业务组合的价值总和大于各个部分的价值之和,具有价值增殖。如果成员实体之间关系越密切,彼此资源协调与整合的效率越高,其协同效应就越会被充分发挥与增强。协同效应比较多的运用在多样化利益分析理论和竞争优势理论中。波特(Porter)在其《竞争战略》(Competitive Strategy, 1980)和《竞争优势》(Competitive Advantage ,1985)著作中,对协同效应进行了阐述。波特的竞争优势思想的核心就是协同或合作,称之为集群或关联,竞争力的实质是合作力,就是对社会综合资源的集群效应、合力、凝聚力,通过协同或合作的手段加强资源整合,提高与外部对手的竞争力。
协同效应包括:管理协同效应、规模经济效应与范围经济效应、资产组合多元化协同、营销协同效应、产品协同效应、技术协同效应、财务协同效应、市场
竞争力效应、品牌效应等。
(二)金融控股集团协同效应的理论模型
本论文在提出若干协同效应理论模型的假设条件基础上,构建了理论模型:SFHC=αBS+θB
The Institution called Finance Holdings Group, as an innovation of financial organization during the transformation from divided financial syetem to omprehensive financial system, are given actual opportunities to develop in the history of the financial industry. during the 80s and 90s ,It attracted widespread attention of the world finance markets.This had profound influences on the financial bodies, markets and regulatory bodies of many countries and regions. This thesis aims at studying the effects of synergy on the Finance Holdings Group. This would include the particular risks, the motivation to the development of the Finance Holdings, the conditions and model in which it has developed will also be discussed.
一、Bring Forward The Characteristics of Finance Holding Group
Upon comprehensive analysis of other related definitions, we understand that the Finance Holdings exhibits two major characteristics: that's it is multi-financial-business and trans-financial-business and it has the financial requirements and actual influences of a Holdings Company including absolute holdings and relative holdings structure.
二、Analysing of the development model of Financial Holdings Group in major developed nations and observations of their characteristics of these models
Due to great differences in the financial policies and governing bodies of various countries, the actual organization structure varies considerably across countries. The US model typically sees Bank Holdings develop to Finance Holdings Group. Germany, on the other hand, has a universal banking system that allows for bank to offer a variety of businesses. Germany banks offer services ranging from Commercial Banking, Securities, Insurance and other related financial activities. Such activities can be performed either by transactions that take place internally within one bank or by adopting the “Holdings Group” method of operations which makes use of the Management and Control rights offered by ownership of shares in subsidiary companies to offer the same variety of products. England generally use “Holdings Group” method as well, with the parent company engaging in commercial banking activities, conducting other financial activities through other professional financial companies within the Holding Group. The Japanese model is similar to the American one. In addition, it also makes use of the “Holdings” method to across-invest equity in a variety of companies such as banks, securities houses and insurance etc.
The characteristics of American Finance Holdings Group are:
a change in the organization of the Finance System reflects an ideology towards effective competition in line with international moves towards integrated international finance fuelled by worldwide development trends. Building upon the lessons learned during the Great Depression, Bank Holdings, along with Finance Holdings grew to become the Financial Organizations of the New Generation
The death of divided finance institutions reflected a consolidation of resources in order to face international competition within the finance sector. Developing and pursuing the oligarchs of the finance industry reflected a new dimension, requirements and strength of the competition of the era.
The current American Finance Model makes use of a “Group comprehensive holdings, Separate Legal Entities, Separate Professional Regulators” way of business. The organization structure focuses on professionalism and the organizational structure pop out specialized-based divided lane and cooperations, also from the point of Group strategy, successfully brings individual interests and benefits to play.
The characteristics of German Financial Holdings Group are:
comprehensive banking institutions based on commercial banking, gradually developing to include securities, insurance. The entire Economics and Financial Systems typically focus on commercial banking.
integrated banking services that grew to become successful, resulting in the development and growth of German securities, insurance and other non-ban
一、提出了金融控股集团的定义特征
本论文在综合分析有关定义的基础上,总结提炼了金融控股集团的两大特征。一是金融控股集团的业务范围具有金融多业或金融跨业的特征;二是具有控股的财务要求和实际控制影响力,包括绝对控股和相对控股两种结构。
二、分析了主要发达国家金融控股集团的发展模式,对这些模式特征进行了剖析。
由于各国金融制度和金融监管体制的差异性,各国在具体的组织形态上有一定的区别。美国更多的是银行控股公司,并在此基础上发展成为金融控股公司。德国由于实行了全能银行制度,金融控股集团的跨业经营色彩更为紧密,德国的银行就是包括商业银行业务、证券业务、保险业务在内的金融服务集团,既有单一银行通过内部事业部制开展多元化运作,也有采取金融控股集团形式运营,控股集团公司对控股的子公司通过股权进行控制和管理,同时集团公司自身也开展专业化经营。英国大都是金融集团形式开展多元化金融业务,母公司多是从事商业银行业务,其他金融业务是通过控股专业机构经营。日本的金融体制基本类似美国的架构,采用了金融控股公司的形式,通过金融控股公司控股若干个包括银行、证券、保险等金融子公司,同时这些金融子公司相互交叉持股。
美国金融控股集团的特征可以概括为:
(1)继承与改造了分业经营体制的优点或合理成分;
(2)、美国金融体制的改革体现了有效率的竞争理念,符合国际金融一体化和全球金融竞争新时代的发展要求。有效率的竞争就是由原有分业体制下的分割竞争转变为有协同作用基础上的优势互补与合力竞争。
(3)、美国金融分业经营体制的终结,缘于对国际金融竞争的资源垄断优势和金融超级寡头的力量的充分追求与培育,体现了当代金融竞争进入了国际化和全球化这一新层次上所激发的新需求、新动力。
(4)、美国金融现代化体制的模式体现了集团混业控股、分业法人经营、分业专业监管的原则,组织架构体现专业化分工合作,并从集团战略利益层面发挥各自
协同利益。
德国金融控股集团具有以下特征:
(1)德国金融控股集团是在全能银行体制下发展起来的,是在以商业银行为基础发展证券和保险业务,整个金融体制和经济金融体系以商业银行为主导。
(2)德国全能银行体制的成功运作既促进了商业银行的发展强大,也有助于德国证券业、保险业等非银行金融业的快速稳健成长与壮大,实现了相互促进,协调发展,从而对维护德国金融体制的稳健运行、促进德国金融业的现代化发挥了重要作用。
(3)、德国全能银行体制有助于德国金融企业之间的并购扩张,并以此为手段逐渐培育出少数国际上著名的超级金融巨头,这对于提高德国金融业的国际综合竞争力,并在国际金融市场占据一席之地具有十分深远的战略意义。
(4)、德国全能银行体制有助于促进银行与企业之间的深层次合作,有助于密切和巩固良好的银企关系,所谓的德国主办银行制度就是这种典型的相互融合与紧密依赖的银企关系。在这种架构下,银行拥有对融资企业的直接控制,享有相对充分的信息对称优势,有利于加强贷款风险管理。
(5)、当代德国金融业在原有混业经营的基础上,已经积极引进了金融控股集团这一当代新兴的金融组织结构,通过集团母公司控股其他金融子公司来加强金融多元化经营。主要动力是强强联合以积极应对更加激烈的国际竞争。
三、尝试研究了金融控股集团的协同效应,构建了协同效应的理论模型。同时借鉴国外学术研究成果,对金融控股集团协同效应进行了实证研究的分析介绍。
(一)协同效应
协同效应的内涵,可解释为金融控股集团内部各金融实体运用各自的竞争优势和资源来对成员实体彼此之间相互支持、相互补充、协调行动,实现了控股公司整体上的价值增值,即预期取得1+1+1>3的良好结果。它表示公司的业务组合的价值总和大于各个部分的价值之和,具有价值增殖。如果成员实体之间关系越密切,彼此资源协调与整合的效率越高,其协同效应就越会被充分发挥与增强。协同效应比较多的运用在多样化利益分析理论和竞争优势理论中。波特(Porter)在其《竞争战略》(Competitive Strategy, 1980)和《竞争优势》(Competitive Advantage ,1985)著作中,对协同效应进行了阐述。波特的竞争优势思想的核心就是协同或合作,称之为集群或关联,竞争力的实质是合作力,就是对社会综合资源的集群效应、合力、凝聚力,通过协同或合作的手段加强资源整合,提高与外部对手的竞争力。
协同效应包括:管理协同效应、规模经济效应与范围经济效应、资产组合多元化协同、营销协同效应、产品协同效应、技术协同效应、财务协同效应、市场
竞争力效应、品牌效应等。
(二)金融控股集团协同效应的理论模型
本论文在提出若干协同效应理论模型的假设条件基础上,构建了理论模型:SFHC=αBS+θB
The Institution called Finance Holdings Group, as an innovation of financial organization during the transformation from divided financial syetem to omprehensive financial system, are given actual opportunities to develop in the history of the financial industry. during the 80s and 90s ,It attracted widespread attention of the world finance markets.This had profound influences on the financial bodies, markets and regulatory bodies of many countries and regions. This thesis aims at studying the effects of synergy on the Finance Holdings Group. This would include the particular risks, the motivation to the development of the Finance Holdings, the conditions and model in which it has developed will also be discussed.
一、Bring Forward The Characteristics of Finance Holding Group
Upon comprehensive analysis of other related definitions, we understand that the Finance Holdings exhibits two major characteristics: that's it is multi-financial-business and trans-financial-business and it has the financial requirements and actual influences of a Holdings Company including absolute holdings and relative holdings structure.
二、Analysing of the development model of Financial Holdings Group in major developed nations and observations of their characteristics of these models
Due to great differences in the financial policies and governing bodies of various countries, the actual organization structure varies considerably across countries. The US model typically sees Bank Holdings develop to Finance Holdings Group. Germany, on the other hand, has a universal banking system that allows for bank to offer a variety of businesses. Germany banks offer services ranging from Commercial Banking, Securities, Insurance and other related financial activities. Such activities can be performed either by transactions that take place internally within one bank or by adopting the “Holdings Group” method of operations which makes use of the Management and Control rights offered by ownership of shares in subsidiary companies to offer the same variety of products. England generally use “Holdings Group” method as well, with the parent company engaging in commercial banking activities, conducting other financial activities through other professional financial companies within the Holding Group. The Japanese model is similar to the American one. In addition, it also makes use of the “Holdings” method to across-invest equity in a variety of companies such as banks, securities houses and insurance etc.
The characteristics of American Finance Holdings Group are:
a change in the organization of the Finance System reflects an ideology towards effective competition in line with international moves towards integrated international finance fuelled by worldwide development trends. Building upon the lessons learned during the Great Depression, Bank Holdings, along with Finance Holdings grew to become the Financial Organizations of the New Generation
The death of divided finance institutions reflected a consolidation of resources in order to face international competition within the finance sector. Developing and pursuing the oligarchs of the finance industry reflected a new dimension, requirements and strength of the competition of the era.
The current American Finance Model makes use of a “Group comprehensive holdings, Separate Legal Entities, Separate Professional Regulators” way of business. The organization structure focuses on professionalism and the organizational structure pop out specialized-based divided lane and cooperations, also from the point of Group strategy, successfully brings individual interests and benefits to play.
The characteristics of German Financial Holdings Group are:
comprehensive banking institutions based on commercial banking, gradually developing to include securities, insurance. The entire Economics and Financial Systems typically focus on commercial banking.
integrated banking services that grew to become successful, resulting in the development and growth of German securities, insurance and other non-ban
引文
一、中文文献
1、《金融控股公司研究》 夏斌 等著,中国金融出版社2001年9月
2、《金融业的分与合:全球演进与中国实践》 邵东亚著,北京大学出版社 2003年8月
3、《金融控股公司理论与实践》 熊波、王志强、陈柳、田晓东 著,经济管理出版社 2002年2月
4、《金融控股公司——法律、制度与实务》 安志达,机械工业出版社,2002年
5、《中国银行业的综合经营与监管》 余龙武、郭田勇编着,中国商业出版社2002 年 6 月
6、《机遇与挑战—探究中国金融业之发展》 朱毅峰、王加春主编, 经济科学出版社2002 年 10 月
7、《中国银行业竞争力比较》焦瑾璞着,中国金融出版社 2002年1 月
8、《国际金融理论》 龚关编著,武汉大学出版社 2000年7月
9、《银行业重组》 安德鲁·盛编,袁纯清、高材林、马韫译,中国金融出版社2001年5月
10、《时运变迁》 保罗·沃尔克(Paul Volcker)、行天丰雄(Toyoo Gyohten)著 中国金融出版社 1996年7月
11、《金融结构与金融发展》 雷蒙德.W.戈德史密斯 上海三联书店,1990年
12、《经济发展中的金融深化》 爱德华·S·肖著,中国社会科学出版社 1989年
13、《全能银行比较研究》 叶辅靖著,中国金融出版社 2001年8月
14、《开放经济:发展中国家政策制定者的工具》 鲁迪格·多恩布什、F·莱斯利·C·H·赫尔姆斯 编,中国财政经济出版社1990年
15、《竞争优势》 迈克尔·波特著,华夏出版社,1997年
16、《产业经济学》 苏东水主编,高等教育出版社,2000年
17、《国有控股公司理论与实践》 张冀湘、汪异明、王保喜著,经济科学出版社,2000年
18、《国有控股公司理论与实践》 海滨主编,企业管理出版社,1999年
19、《国有控股公司运行与管理》 芮明杰主编,山东人民出版社,1999年
20、《迈向21世纪的中国金融业》 戴相龙著,中国金融出版社,1997年
21、《外国金融制度与业务》 甘培根、林志琦著,中国经济出版社,1992年
22、《金融自由化:原因、历程、影响与前景》 马君潞著,中国金融出版社,
1999年
23、《金融全球化研究》 李扬、黄金老著,上海远东出版社,1999年
24、《日本金融制度研究》 刘玉操、范伟强著,天津人民出版社,2000年
25、《信贷紧缩、银行重组与金融发展》 钱小安著,上海人民出版社,2000年
26、《新一轮改革中的中国金融》 吴晓灵著,天津人民出版社,1998年
27、《中国金融制度的选择》 谢平著,上海远东出版社,1997年
28、《经济全球化与中国金融运行—中国加入WTO面临的机遇与挑战》 邢毓静、巴曙松著,中国金融出版社,2000年
29、《市场深化中的金融重构—国际性金融变革的比较研究与启示》 徐明棋著,上海财经大学出版社,1996年
30、《金融改造》 周振华著,上海人民出版社,2000年
31、《银行合业经营制度“内在不稳定性”的演变—分析美国商业银行经营制度的变迁》 程金伟 《金融研究》2001年第2期
32、《分业经营与综合经营的成本效应分析》 吉卫民、常浩 《金融研究》2000年第10期
33、《美国银行业经营与管理模式重大变化背景分析》 李志辉 《南开经济研究》2000年第2期
34、《金融控股公司与资本经营》 舒志军 《国际金融研究》1998年第6期
35、《银行与证券分业问题研究》 乔炳亚 《金融研究》2000年第1期
36、《关于商业银行和投资银行分业经营制度的再思考》 宋逢明、杜莘 《金融研究》2000年第1期
37、《金融业分业与混业经营的理论基础》 谢平 《北京大学金融与证券研究中心简报》2000年第3期
38、多元化金融业务风险特征与监管 张春子 中信国际研究所,2001年
39、多元化金融服务发展的动因与现实选择 张春子 中信国际研究所,2000年
40、多元化金融服务的利益冲突 张春子 中信国际研究所,2000年
41、金融控股公司的内部控制 凌晓东 中信国际研究所,2000年
二、英文文献
42.How did bank holding companies prosper in 1990s,Kevin, J.Stiroh,Journal of Banking & Finance ,2000.
43.The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company profitability and risk ,Riveard,R.j,Thomas,C.R,Journal of economics and business 1997.
44.Profit persistence in large US bank holding companies:an empirical
investigation,Roland,K.P. ,ecnomic working paper of comptroller of the currency,Washington D.C.,January.
45.Diversification,Organization,and Efficiency:Evidence from Bank Holding Companies,Peter,G.Klein.Marc,R.Saidenberg.1997.
46.A proposal regarding bank holding company model,office of superintendent of financial institutions,1998
47.Positive Feedbacks in the Economy, Arthur, W. Brian, Scientific American, February,1990.
48.The Risk of effects combining banking ,securities and insurance activities,Linda Allen and Julapa Jagtiani,Journal of Economics and Business,2000
49.Relaxing the Glass-Stegall Act:do diversification benefits exist?,William A.Christiansen and R.Daniel Pace,Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions,1994
50.The Potential Diversification and Failure Reduction Benefits of Bank Expansion into Nonbanking Activities,Elizabeth S.Laderman,Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,1999
51.The Federal "Safety Net" and the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking ,Benston, George G., Journal of Financial Services Research(October),1989.
52.Bank Risk from Nonbank Activities, Brewer, Elijah, Diana Fortier, and Christine Pavel, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
53.The Risk of Banks Expanding Their Permissible Nonbanking Activities ,Brewer Elijah, The Financial Review, 1990.
54.Relationship between Bank Holding Company Risk and Nonbank Activity, Brewer Elijah,Journal of Economics and Business, 1989.
55."The Profitability and Risk Effects of Allowing Bank Holding Companies to Merge With Other Financial Firms: A Simulation Study, Boyd, John H and Stanley L. Graham, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,1988.
56.The Grass May Not Be Greener: Commercial Banks and Investment Banking, Dale, Betsy, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
57.Diversification and Congeneric Bank Holding Companies, Eisemann, Peter C., Journal of Bank Research, 1976.
58.Riskiness of Investments in Nonbank Activities by Bank Holding Companies, Heggestad, Arnold, Journal of Economics and Business, 1975.
59.Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance, Levy, H.
and H. M. Markowitz,American Economic Review,1979.
60.Nonbank Activities and Risk, Wall, Larry D., Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1982.
61.Risk Considerations in Deregulating Banks Activities, Wall, Larry D. and Robert A. Eisenbeis,Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1984.
62.Risk and market segmentation in financial intermediaries’ return. Allen, L., andJagtiani, J. Journal of Financial Services Research, 1997.
63.Commercial Banking and Securities Activities: A Survey of the Risks and Returns. Benston, G., and Kaufman, G. 1995.
64.Risk, regulation, and bank holding company expansion into non-banking. Boyd, J. H., and Graham, S. L. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 1986.
65.Bank holding company mergers with non-bank financial firms: Effects on the risk of failure, Boyd, J. H., Graham, S. L., and Hewitt, R. S. Journal of Banking and Finance,1993.
66.Bank holding company diversification,Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Boyd, J. H., Hanweck, G. A., and Pithyachariyakul, P. ,1980.
67.Relationship between bank holding company risk and non-bank activity, Brewer, E.,Journal of Economics and Business , 1989.
68.Scale and scope economies at large banks: Including off-balance sheet products and regulatory effects. Jagtiani, J., and Khanthavit, A. ,Journal of Banking and Finance ,1996.
69.Securities Activities by Commercial Banking Firms’ Section 20 Subsidiaries: Risk,Return, and Diversification Benefits. Kwan, S., Working Paper Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,1998.
70.The impact of underwriting and dealing on bank returns and risks. Kwast, M.,Journal of Banking and Finance , 1989.
71.Risk considerations in deregulating bank activities. Wall, L., and Eisenbeis, B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 1984.
72.The securities activities of the foreign subsidies of U.S. banks: Evidence on risks and returns. Whalen, G.,Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Working Paper on
Risk Effects of Combining Banking Securities and Insurance Activities, 1998.
73.Competitive viability in banking: Scale,scope and product mix economies. Berger, A.N., Hanweck, G.A., Humphrey, D.B., Journal of Monetary Economics , 1987.
74.Multibank holding company e.ect on cost e?ciency in banking. Newman, J.,
Shrieves, R.,Journal of Banking and Finance, 1993.
75.The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company pro?tability and risk. Riveard, R.J., Thomas, C.R., Journal of Economics and Business ,1997.
76.Profit persistence in large US bank holding companies: An empirical investigation. Roland, K.P., Working Paper of Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC. 1997. 77.The Federal "Safety Net" and the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's Separation of
Commercial and Investment Banking ,Benston, George G., Journal of Financial Services Research(October),1989.
78.Bank Risk from Nonbank Activities, Brewer, Elijah, Diana Fortier, and Christine Pavel, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
79.The Risk of Banks Expanding Their Permissible Nonbanking Activities ,Brewer Elijah, The Financial Review, 1990.
80.Relationship between Bank Holding Company Risk and Nonbank Activity, Brewer Elijah,Journal of Economics and Business, 1989.
81."The Profitability and Risk Effects of Allowing Bank Holding Companies to Merge With Other Financial Firms: A Simulation Study, Boyd, John H and Stanley L. Graham, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,1988.
82.The Grass May Not Be Greener: Commercial Banks and Investment Banking, Dale, Betsy, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
83.Diversification and Congeneric Bank Holding Companies, Eisemann, Peter C., Journal of Bank Research, 1976.
84.Riskiness of Investments in Nonbank Activities by Bank Holding Companies, Heggestad, Arnold, Journal of Economics and Business, 1975.
85.Mean-Variance versus Direct Utility Maximization, Kroll, K., H. Levy, and H. M. Markowitz, Journal of Finance, 1984.
86.Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance, Levy, H. and H. M. Markowitz,American Economic Review,1979.
87.Nonbank Activities and Risk, Wall, Larry D., Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1982.
88.Risk Considerations in Deregulating Banks Activities, Wall, Larry D. and Robert A. Eisenbeis,Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1984.
89.Risk and market segmentation in financial intermediaries’ return. Allen, L., andJagtiani, J. Journal of Financial Services Research, 1997.
90.Commercial Banking and Securities Activities: A Survey of the Risks and Returns.
Benston, G., and Kaufman, G. 1995.
91.Risk, regulation, and bank holding company expansion into non-banking. Boyd, J. H., and Graham, S. L. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 1986.
92.Bank holding company mergers with non-bank financial firms: Effects on the risk of failure, Boyd, J. H., Graham, S. L., and Hewitt, R. S. Journal of Banking and Finance,1993.
93.Bank holding company diversification,Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Boyd, J. H., Hanweck, G. A., and Pithyachariyakul, P. ,1980.
94.Relationship between bank holding company risk and non-bank activity, Brewer, E.,Journal of Economics and Business , 1989.
95.Scale and scope economies at large banks: Including off-balance sheet products and regulatory effects. Jagtiani, J., and Khanthavit, A. ,Journal of Banking and Finance ,1996.
96.Securities Activities by Commercial Banking Firms’ Section 20 Subsidiaries: Risk,Return, and Diversification Benefits. Kwan, S., Working Paper Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,1998.
97.The impact of underwriting and dealing on bank returns and risks. Kwast, M.,Journal of Banking and Finance , 1989.
98.Risk considerations in deregulating bank activities. Wall, L., and Eisenbeis, B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 1984.
99.The securities activities of the foreign subsidies of U.S. banks: Evidence on risks and returns. Whalen, G.,Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Working Paper on
Risk Effects of Combining Banking Securities and Insurance Activities, 1998.
100.Competitive viability in banking: Scale,scope and product mix economies. Berger, A.N., Hanweck, G.A., Humphrey, D.B., Journal of Monetary Economics , 1987.
101.Multibank holding company e.ect on cost e?ciency in banking. Newman, J., Shrieves, R.,Journal of Banking and Finance, 1993.
102.The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company pro?tability and risk. Riveard, R.J., Thomas, C.R., Journal of Economics and Business ,1997.
103.Profit persistence in large US bank holding companies: An empirical investigation. Roland, K.P., Working Paper of Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC. 1997.
104. Competitive Viability in Banking: Scale, Scope, and Product Mix Economies, Berger, Allen N., Gerald A. Hanweck and David B. Humphrey. Journal of Monetary Economics,1987.
1、《金融控股公司研究》 夏斌 等著,中国金融出版社2001年9月
2、《金融业的分与合:全球演进与中国实践》 邵东亚著,北京大学出版社 2003年8月
3、《金融控股公司理论与实践》 熊波、王志强、陈柳、田晓东 著,经济管理出版社 2002年2月
4、《金融控股公司——法律、制度与实务》 安志达,机械工业出版社,2002年
5、《中国银行业的综合经营与监管》 余龙武、郭田勇编着,中国商业出版社2002 年 6 月
6、《机遇与挑战—探究中国金融业之发展》 朱毅峰、王加春主编, 经济科学出版社2002 年 10 月
7、《中国银行业竞争力比较》焦瑾璞着,中国金融出版社 2002年1 月
8、《国际金融理论》 龚关编著,武汉大学出版社 2000年7月
9、《银行业重组》 安德鲁·盛编,袁纯清、高材林、马韫译,中国金融出版社2001年5月
10、《时运变迁》 保罗·沃尔克(Paul Volcker)、行天丰雄(Toyoo Gyohten)著 中国金融出版社 1996年7月
11、《金融结构与金融发展》 雷蒙德.W.戈德史密斯 上海三联书店,1990年
12、《经济发展中的金融深化》 爱德华·S·肖著,中国社会科学出版社 1989年
13、《全能银行比较研究》 叶辅靖著,中国金融出版社 2001年8月
14、《开放经济:发展中国家政策制定者的工具》 鲁迪格·多恩布什、F·莱斯利·C·H·赫尔姆斯 编,中国财政经济出版社1990年
15、《竞争优势》 迈克尔·波特著,华夏出版社,1997年
16、《产业经济学》 苏东水主编,高等教育出版社,2000年
17、《国有控股公司理论与实践》 张冀湘、汪异明、王保喜著,经济科学出版社,2000年
18、《国有控股公司理论与实践》 海滨主编,企业管理出版社,1999年
19、《国有控股公司运行与管理》 芮明杰主编,山东人民出版社,1999年
20、《迈向21世纪的中国金融业》 戴相龙著,中国金融出版社,1997年
21、《外国金融制度与业务》 甘培根、林志琦著,中国经济出版社,1992年
22、《金融自由化:原因、历程、影响与前景》 马君潞著,中国金融出版社,
1999年
23、《金融全球化研究》 李扬、黄金老著,上海远东出版社,1999年
24、《日本金融制度研究》 刘玉操、范伟强著,天津人民出版社,2000年
25、《信贷紧缩、银行重组与金融发展》 钱小安著,上海人民出版社,2000年
26、《新一轮改革中的中国金融》 吴晓灵著,天津人民出版社,1998年
27、《中国金融制度的选择》 谢平著,上海远东出版社,1997年
28、《经济全球化与中国金融运行—中国加入WTO面临的机遇与挑战》 邢毓静、巴曙松著,中国金融出版社,2000年
29、《市场深化中的金融重构—国际性金融变革的比较研究与启示》 徐明棋著,上海财经大学出版社,1996年
30、《金融改造》 周振华著,上海人民出版社,2000年
31、《银行合业经营制度“内在不稳定性”的演变—分析美国商业银行经营制度的变迁》 程金伟 《金融研究》2001年第2期
32、《分业经营与综合经营的成本效应分析》 吉卫民、常浩 《金融研究》2000年第10期
33、《美国银行业经营与管理模式重大变化背景分析》 李志辉 《南开经济研究》2000年第2期
34、《金融控股公司与资本经营》 舒志军 《国际金融研究》1998年第6期
35、《银行与证券分业问题研究》 乔炳亚 《金融研究》2000年第1期
36、《关于商业银行和投资银行分业经营制度的再思考》 宋逢明、杜莘 《金融研究》2000年第1期
37、《金融业分业与混业经营的理论基础》 谢平 《北京大学金融与证券研究中心简报》2000年第3期
38、多元化金融业务风险特征与监管 张春子 中信国际研究所,2001年
39、多元化金融服务发展的动因与现实选择 张春子 中信国际研究所,2000年
40、多元化金融服务的利益冲突 张春子 中信国际研究所,2000年
41、金融控股公司的内部控制 凌晓东 中信国际研究所,2000年
二、英文文献
42.How did bank holding companies prosper in 1990s,Kevin, J.Stiroh,Journal of Banking & Finance ,2000.
43.The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company profitability and risk ,Riveard,R.j,Thomas,C.R,Journal of economics and business 1997.
44.Profit persistence in large US bank holding companies:an empirical
investigation,Roland,K.P. ,ecnomic working paper of comptroller of the currency,Washington D.C.,January.
45.Diversification,Organization,and Efficiency:Evidence from Bank Holding Companies,Peter,G.Klein.Marc,R.Saidenberg.1997.
46.A proposal regarding bank holding company model,office of superintendent of financial institutions,1998
47.Positive Feedbacks in the Economy, Arthur, W. Brian, Scientific American, February,1990.
48.The Risk of effects combining banking ,securities and insurance activities,Linda Allen and Julapa Jagtiani,Journal of Economics and Business,2000
49.Relaxing the Glass-Stegall Act:do diversification benefits exist?,William A.Christiansen and R.Daniel Pace,Journal of Financial and Strategic Decisions,1994
50.The Potential Diversification and Failure Reduction Benefits of Bank Expansion into Nonbanking Activities,Elizabeth S.Laderman,Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,1999
51.The Federal "Safety Net" and the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's Separation of Commercial and Investment Banking ,Benston, George G., Journal of Financial Services Research(October),1989.
52.Bank Risk from Nonbank Activities, Brewer, Elijah, Diana Fortier, and Christine Pavel, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
53.The Risk of Banks Expanding Their Permissible Nonbanking Activities ,Brewer Elijah, The Financial Review, 1990.
54.Relationship between Bank Holding Company Risk and Nonbank Activity, Brewer Elijah,Journal of Economics and Business, 1989.
55."The Profitability and Risk Effects of Allowing Bank Holding Companies to Merge With Other Financial Firms: A Simulation Study, Boyd, John H and Stanley L. Graham, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,1988.
56.The Grass May Not Be Greener: Commercial Banks and Investment Banking, Dale, Betsy, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
57.Diversification and Congeneric Bank Holding Companies, Eisemann, Peter C., Journal of Bank Research, 1976.
58.Riskiness of Investments in Nonbank Activities by Bank Holding Companies, Heggestad, Arnold, Journal of Economics and Business, 1975.
59.Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance, Levy, H.
and H. M. Markowitz,American Economic Review,1979.
60.Nonbank Activities and Risk, Wall, Larry D., Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1982.
61.Risk Considerations in Deregulating Banks Activities, Wall, Larry D. and Robert A. Eisenbeis,Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1984.
62.Risk and market segmentation in financial intermediaries’ return. Allen, L., andJagtiani, J. Journal of Financial Services Research, 1997.
63.Commercial Banking and Securities Activities: A Survey of the Risks and Returns. Benston, G., and Kaufman, G. 1995.
64.Risk, regulation, and bank holding company expansion into non-banking. Boyd, J. H., and Graham, S. L. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 1986.
65.Bank holding company mergers with non-bank financial firms: Effects on the risk of failure, Boyd, J. H., Graham, S. L., and Hewitt, R. S. Journal of Banking and Finance,1993.
66.Bank holding company diversification,Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Boyd, J. H., Hanweck, G. A., and Pithyachariyakul, P. ,1980.
67.Relationship between bank holding company risk and non-bank activity, Brewer, E.,Journal of Economics and Business , 1989.
68.Scale and scope economies at large banks: Including off-balance sheet products and regulatory effects. Jagtiani, J., and Khanthavit, A. ,Journal of Banking and Finance ,1996.
69.Securities Activities by Commercial Banking Firms’ Section 20 Subsidiaries: Risk,Return, and Diversification Benefits. Kwan, S., Working Paper Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,1998.
70.The impact of underwriting and dealing on bank returns and risks. Kwast, M.,Journal of Banking and Finance , 1989.
71.Risk considerations in deregulating bank activities. Wall, L., and Eisenbeis, B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 1984.
72.The securities activities of the foreign subsidies of U.S. banks: Evidence on risks and returns. Whalen, G.,Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Working Paper on
Risk Effects of Combining Banking Securities and Insurance Activities, 1998.
73.Competitive viability in banking: Scale,scope and product mix economies. Berger, A.N., Hanweck, G.A., Humphrey, D.B., Journal of Monetary Economics , 1987.
74.Multibank holding company e.ect on cost e?ciency in banking. Newman, J.,
Shrieves, R.,Journal of Banking and Finance, 1993.
75.The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company pro?tability and risk. Riveard, R.J., Thomas, C.R., Journal of Economics and Business ,1997.
76.Profit persistence in large US bank holding companies: An empirical investigation. Roland, K.P., Working Paper of Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC. 1997. 77.The Federal "Safety Net" and the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act's Separation of
Commercial and Investment Banking ,Benston, George G., Journal of Financial Services Research(October),1989.
78.Bank Risk from Nonbank Activities, Brewer, Elijah, Diana Fortier, and Christine Pavel, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
79.The Risk of Banks Expanding Their Permissible Nonbanking Activities ,Brewer Elijah, The Financial Review, 1990.
80.Relationship between Bank Holding Company Risk and Nonbank Activity, Brewer Elijah,Journal of Economics and Business, 1989.
81."The Profitability and Risk Effects of Allowing Bank Holding Companies to Merge With Other Financial Firms: A Simulation Study, Boyd, John H and Stanley L. Graham, Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,1988.
82.The Grass May Not Be Greener: Commercial Banks and Investment Banking, Dale, Betsy, Economic Perspectives, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 1988.
83.Diversification and Congeneric Bank Holding Companies, Eisemann, Peter C., Journal of Bank Research, 1976.
84.Riskiness of Investments in Nonbank Activities by Bank Holding Companies, Heggestad, Arnold, Journal of Economics and Business, 1975.
85.Mean-Variance versus Direct Utility Maximization, Kroll, K., H. Levy, and H. M. Markowitz, Journal of Finance, 1984.
86.Approximating Expected Utility by a Function of Mean and Variance, Levy, H. and H. M. Markowitz,American Economic Review,1979.
87.Nonbank Activities and Risk, Wall, Larry D., Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1982.
88.Risk Considerations in Deregulating Banks Activities, Wall, Larry D. and Robert A. Eisenbeis,Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1984.
89.Risk and market segmentation in financial intermediaries’ return. Allen, L., andJagtiani, J. Journal of Financial Services Research, 1997.
90.Commercial Banking and Securities Activities: A Survey of the Risks and Returns.
Benston, G., and Kaufman, G. 1995.
91.Risk, regulation, and bank holding company expansion into non-banking. Boyd, J. H., and Graham, S. L. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review, 1986.
92.Bank holding company mergers with non-bank financial firms: Effects on the risk of failure, Boyd, J. H., Graham, S. L., and Hewitt, R. S. Journal of Banking and Finance,1993.
93.Bank holding company diversification,Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Boyd, J. H., Hanweck, G. A., and Pithyachariyakul, P. ,1980.
94.Relationship between bank holding company risk and non-bank activity, Brewer, E.,Journal of Economics and Business , 1989.
95.Scale and scope economies at large banks: Including off-balance sheet products and regulatory effects. Jagtiani, J., and Khanthavit, A. ,Journal of Banking and Finance ,1996.
96.Securities Activities by Commercial Banking Firms’ Section 20 Subsidiaries: Risk,Return, and Diversification Benefits. Kwan, S., Working Paper Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,1998.
97.The impact of underwriting and dealing on bank returns and risks. Kwast, M.,Journal of Banking and Finance , 1989.
98.Risk considerations in deregulating bank activities. Wall, L., and Eisenbeis, B. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, 1984.
99.The securities activities of the foreign subsidies of U.S. banks: Evidence on risks and returns. Whalen, G.,Office of the Comptroller of the Currency: Working Paper on
Risk Effects of Combining Banking Securities and Insurance Activities, 1998.
100.Competitive viability in banking: Scale,scope and product mix economies. Berger, A.N., Hanweck, G.A., Humphrey, D.B., Journal of Monetary Economics , 1987.
101.Multibank holding company e.ect on cost e?ciency in banking. Newman, J., Shrieves, R.,Journal of Banking and Finance, 1993.
102.The effect of interstate banking on large bank holding company pro?tability and risk. Riveard, R.J., Thomas, C.R., Journal of Economics and Business ,1997.
103.Profit persistence in large US bank holding companies: An empirical investigation. Roland, K.P., Working Paper of Comptroller of the Currency, Washington, DC. 1997.
104. Competitive Viability in Banking: Scale, Scope, and Product Mix Economies, Berger, Allen N., Gerald A. Hanweck and David B. Humphrey. Journal of Monetary Economics,1987.