a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 October 2009
Received in revised form 12 July 2010
Accepted 3 August 2010
Available online 7 August 2010
JEL classication:
C23, G21
Keywords:
Bank
Cost efciency
Economic provision for loan loss
Cost management
a b s t r a c t
This study re-investigates the bank cost efciency by a combination of two strands of literature. The rst
strand is related to bank cost efciency; the other is related to earnings management. Employing the
ndings reported in bank earnings management literature, this study argues that bank observed total
cost (accounting cost) may be the biased estimator of the true total cost. Using the biased total cost
may thus yield incorrect inferences from estimating bank cost efciency. We propose a method to modify
accounting cost, which is referred to as economic cost, to be consistent with the economic theory; that is,
one that is free of cost management. Both accounting and economic costs are then adopted to analyze the
efciency of 29 commercial banks in Taiwan banking industry. Our results show that estimated efciency,
with the application of economic cost, offers results that are more reasonable results than those of the
accounting cost.
2010 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Bank cost efciency has received signicant attention in the
recent years. Various studies have focused on topics like econometric issues (Altunbas, Liu, Molyneux, & Seth, 2000; Huang &
Kao, 2006; Pastor, 2002),1 international comparisons (Carvallo &
Kasman, 2005), risk of cost functions through non-performing
loans (Berger & DeYoung, 1997; Dongili & Zago, 2005; Mester,
1996),2 and mixed-cost functions (Shen, 2005a,b).
However, while studies of bank cost efciency are abundant,
dramatically contrasting results have been observed when the
estimated efciency of each bank is released. By employing the
banking industry in Taiwan as an example, Li (2002) estimated
cost efciency based on the panel data of 43 commercial banks
in 1999, wherein Taitung Commercial Bank was the most efcient
while Kaohsiung Commercial Bank ranked 13th in overall ranking. However, nearly 30% of the loans of each of the two banks
were non-performing for that year. The two banks would later be
placed in receivership by the Taiwanese government. Incidentally,
these counter-intuitive results are not sporadic cases, as they are
often cited in Taiwan bank efciency literature. As data on estimated individual bank efciency from other countries are rarely
available,3 we can only guess the existence of these conicts. Extant
studies on bank efciencies seldom investigate the reasons for the
occurrences of the inconsistencies.4
The aim of this study is to resolve the counter-intuitive results
from the perspective of earnings management. Ahmed, Takeda, and
Thomas (1999), Laeven and Majnoni (2003), Cavallo and Majnoni
(2001), Kanagaretnam, Lobo, and Yang (2004), and Shen and Chih
(2005) to name a few, report their common observations in the
earnings management of banks. These studies claim that the provision for loan loss (PLL) is by far the largest and most important bank
accrual. Banks can accelerate recognition of accounting earnings
3
Past studies rarely report the efciency of individual bank. Hence, it is difcult for us to offer more examples to justify the conicting results. Earlier studies
typically report the efciency of one type of banks, for example, the efciency of
state-owned banks vs. private banks.
4
For example, the exceptions include Pastor (1999) and Altunbas et al. (2000).
The former used provision for loan loss as a risk factor to measure cost efciency in
Spain. The latter used provision for loan loss as the output quality proxy to evaluate
X-inefciency.
1062-9769/$ see front matter 2010 The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.qref.2010.08.002
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
425
6
In the academic eld of accounting, PLL is often decomposed into nondiscretionary and discretionary PLL (Beaver and Engel, 1996; Ahmed et al., 1999;
Bouvatier and Lepetit, 2008). Unlike non-discretionary PLL, which relates systematically to total loans and non-performing loans, discretionary PLL is manipulated
by managers.
7
The First Financial Reform is also referred to as the 258 principles, since banks
have to write off the nonperformance loans down to 5% and have to increase the
capital adequacy ratio up to 8% in 2 years.
8
Our dollar unit refers to the New Taiwan Dollars throughout the paper.
426
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
Table 1
Denition of costs.
Paper
Cost denition
Summary
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
Total cost
2 Non-interest cost
Berger and DeYoung (1997)
Kwan (2003)
9
Mega Bank should increase $6 billion PLL and investment losses, and Chinese
Bank should increase $40 billion PLL and sale losses of NPL.
(1)
(2)
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
3.1. EL1
The expected losses are determined by the current nonperforming loan (Current NPL). However, reported NPL is the stock
concept, we need to transform it into a ow concept, which is
referred to as current non-performing loans or economic nonperforming loans. The EL1 is dened as follows.
EL1 = k1 current NPLt ,
(3)
+ Sell offt ,
(4)
(5)
Current NPL
total loans
total loant ,
coverage ratio be at least 40%, but that banks experiment with other
percentages in pursuit of robust checking. Once the consistent PLL
is obtained, the resulting total costs are generated.
The relation between RLL and PLL is:
RLLt = RLLt1 + PLLt .
Thus, the accumulated PLL should cover a large percentage of
NPL, where we dene the coverage ratio as RLL/NPL and recommend that
Coverage ratio =
10
This criterion was rst used by Taiwan Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC).
In this study, we also try 50% and 60% to check the robustness of the results.
(6)
M
am ln Ym,it +
+
3.2. EL2
RLLt
> k2,
NPLt
(5 )
427
N
bn ln Wn,it
1
amn ln Yn,it ln Ym,it
2
M
1
bmn ln Wn,it ln Wm,it
2
M
11
Because the DFA cannot estimate cost frontier every quarter (see Berger &
Humphrey, 1991), we also use SFA to estimate individual quarterly cost function. However, the two methods may generate different results. For example, Weill
(2004) utilized data on European banking and reached different results by using
the two methods. Because the results yielded by DFA are more consistent with our
intuition and hypotheses, we draw our conclusions based on the DFA approach.
12
The translog has an advantage over earlier functional forms in that it allows
returns to scale to change with output or input proportions so that the estimated
cost curve can take on the familiar U-shape.
428
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
Table 2
Denition of variables.
Variable
Denition
Operational denition
Investments
Loans
Fee revenues
Seasonal dummy
Note: 1. A PLL: accounting provision for loan loss. 2. E TC is equal to A TC A PLL +EL1 + EL2, where
EL1 = k1 Current NPL
EL2 = 0.4 NPLt (RLLt1 + EL1t ).
Current NPL is the ow non-performing loan, NPL is the stock non-performing loan and RLL is the reserve for loan loss. 3. Source: Taiwan Economic Journal database.
M
N
m
4
cq Qq + it ,
(7)
q=1
= ln(Wit , Yit ) + ln it
= ln(Wit , Yit ) + ln ui + ln vit ,
(8)
(9)
13
Some studies also consider equity capital in the cost function. For example,
Dietsch and Lozano-Vivas (2000) used the ratio of equity capital to total assets as
proxy of environmental variable to measure regulatory condition. See also Kwan
(2003), Berger and Meter (1997), and Patti and Hardy (2005) to name a few. However, because equity capital changes slowly and its price is difcult to measure, and
because our study is to illustrate the inuence of uctuate PLL on cost efciency, we
do not consider it.
where min indicates the minimum for all i. This approach corresponds with the conventional notion of efciency as the ratio
of minimum resources needed for production to the resources
actually used, and ranges over (0,1], with higher values indicating
greater efciency.
Once we obtain the estimated coefcients, the scale of
economies (SE) is obtained as follows.
SE =
3
ln C
m=1
ln Ym
= am +
3
n=1
amn ln Yn +
3
abmn ln Wn .
(10)
k=1
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
429
Table 3
Recover the economic PLL (each bank). Measure: million New Taiwan Dollars.
Bank
(A) A TC
Chang-Hwa
First
Hua-Nan
International Commercial Bank of China
HsinChu
Interna. Bank of Taipei
Kings Town
Taitung Business
Taichung
China Trust
Chiao Tung
Cathay
Taipei Fubon
Chinese
Taiwan Business
Kaohsiung
Cosmos
Union
SinoPac
E. Sun
Fu-Hwa
Tai-Shin
Far-Eastern
Ta Chong
En-Tie
Bo-Wa
Jih-Sun
Bank of Overseas Chinese
Taiwan Cooperative Bank
17,382
17,196
16,198
11,591
5004
4330
1848
1421
3505
21,196
5691
11,913
10,014
4326
12,186
1874
6081
5190
5755
5249
3252
14,718
4158
4531
3704
3097
4830
3891
17,154
(B) A PLL
271
93
109
135
192
12
23
37
17
582
4
514
55
88
37
8
298
26
189
31
280
352
72
95
173
60
71
74
680
(D) EL1
548
679
727
466
235
137
84
137
61
1561
756
1483
786
225
671
52
939
306
379
406
198
1115
376
229
283
406
401
213
1644
(E) EL2
29,994
15,736
14,910
4333
4016
3755
4008
3725
9251
4167
5528
4040
4191
7624
24,090
1350
3820
2986
1473
1051
3519
1853
2346
4375
4464
12,430
4822
8292
21,269
Note: 1. A TC: accounting total cost. A PLL: accounting provision for loan loss. 2. CBPT, which is the cost before provision and tax, is equal to (A TC A PLL). 3. E PLL: economic
provision for loan loss, which is equal to EL1 + EL2. EL1 = k1 Current NPLt , EL2 = 0.4 NPLt (RLLt1 + EL1t ). E TC is economic total cost which is equal to CBPT + E PLL.
Table 4
Recover the economic PLL (each quarter). Measure: million New Taiwan Dollars.
Quarter
(A) A TC
(B) A PLL
(D) EL1
(E) EL2
2001:Q3
2001:Q4
2002:Q1
2002:Q2
2002:Q3
2002:Q4
2003:Q1
2003:Q2
2003:Q3
2003:Q4
2004:Q1
2004:Q2
2004:Q3
2004:Q4
2005:Q1
2005:Q2
2005:Q3
2005:Q4
2006:Q1
2006:Q2
2006:Q3
2006:Q4
5979
5400
5098
10,290
7087
10,783
4668
5994
8051
9424
4496
6348
7988
10,346
5070
7572
9624
15,339
6502
7135
7759
8688
59
1337
4470
5004
1308
2162
8182
1284
2018
1667
4211
750
700
1121
2699
1195
1166
4203
5644
462
111
1237
6038
4063
9568
5286
5779
8621
12,850
4710
6033
7757
8707
5598
7288
9225
7769
6377
8458
11,136
12,146
6673
7649
7451
765
1186
645
713
1396
928
240
702
1291
1276
234
715
849
840
808
856
1424
731
369
1623
836
960
12,964
11,298
13,688
12,065
10,753
8594
8864
8175
7581
6048
7736
6535
6104
4862
5030
3900
3070
2641
1492
2182
3519
3225
13,729
12,484
14,332
12,778
12,149
9522
9104
8877
8871
7323
7970
7250
6953
5702
5838
4756
4494
9910
14,972
3804
4355
4185
Note: see notes in Table 3. CBPT, which is the cost before provision and tax, is dened as accounting total cost minus provision for loan loss (A TC A PLL). E PLL is the sum
of EL1 and EL2, and they are respectively calculated based on the expected cost which comprises the ow (from new non-performing loan) and stock (from the accumulated
PLL) parts. E TC is economic total cost which is CBPT adds E PLL.
430
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
Table 5
Descriptive statistics.
Variable
Mean
SD
Min
Max
A TC (million)
E TC (million)
Fund price
Wage rate (ten thousand)
Fixed capital price
Investments (million)
Loans (million)
Fee revenues (million)
7710
15,481
0.03
18.5
0.45
358,502
89,809
907
7434
15,946
0.36
8.6
1.01
298,106
105,234
1247
6536
2076
0.01
4.6
0.01
30,126
312
37
70,312
136,363
0.71
47.6
8.18
1,713,910
434,747
8220
Note: Mean, SD, Min and Max denote the average, the standard deviation, minimum
and; A TC is accounting total cost. E TC is economic total cost. Three prices of inputs
are fund price, wage rate, and xed capital price. Three outputs comprise investments, loans, and fee revenues. The detail denition of input price and outputs are
in Table 2.
Fig. 2. accounting PLL (accounting cost) vs. economic PLL (economic cost).
Table 5 presents the mean, standard deviations, and the minimum and maximum values of A TC, E TC, fund price, wage rate,
xed capital price, investments, loans, and fee incomes. The mean
and the standard deviation of A TC are $7710 and $7434 million,
respectively, whereas they are $15,481 and $15,946 million for
E TC, respectively. The mean and standard deviation of A TC are
only half of E TC; hence, banks minimize their accounting cost and
Fig. 1. accounting cost (solid line) vs. economic cost (dash line).
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
431
Table 6
Translog function.
Constant
ln Y1
ln Y2
ln Y3
ln P1
ln P2
ln P3
(ln Y1 )2
2
(ln Y2 )
(ln Y3 )2
(ln P1 )2
(ln P2 )2
2
(ln P3 )
ln Y1 ln Y2
ln Y1 ln Y3
ln Y2 ln Y3
ln P1 ln P2
A TC
E TC
580.873**
(4.460)
59.126**
(5.015)
10.423**
(3.590)
5.606*
(1.699)
0.630
(0.426)
11.448**
(3.312)
2.013*
(1.913)
2.846**
(4.649)
0.461**
(2.973)
0.189
(1.425)
0.013
(0.588)
0.172
(0.449)
0.002
(0.084)
0.199
(0.860)
0.344*
(1.719)
0.264**
(2.856)
0.076
(1.125)
338.917**
(4.828)
27.789**
(4.259)
4.891**
(2.672)
0.660
(0.328)
2.328**
(2.472)
2.767
(1.251)
0.561
(0.839)
1.143**
(3.203)
0.238**
(2.436)
0.103
(1.246)
0.031**
(2.191)
0.222
(0.909)
0.030**
(2.504)
0.014
(0.094)
0.111
(0.890)
0.034
(0.583)
0.049
(1.147)
ln P1 ln P3
ln P2 ln P3
ln Y1 ln P1
ln Y1 ln P2
ln Y1 ln P3
ln Y2 ln P1
ln Y2 ln P2
ln Y2 ln P3
ln Y3 ln P1
ln Y3 ln P2
ln Y3 ln P3
Q1
Q3
Q4
A TC
E TC
0.001
(0.063)
0.023
(0.477)
0.016
(0.176)
0.705**
(3.032)
0.155**
(2.376)
0.041
(0.846)
0.140
(1.132)
0.112**
(3.409)
0.017
(0.595)
0.166*
(1.688)
0.029
(0.812)
0.162
(1.193)
0.142
(1.052)
0.002
(0.050)
0.001
(0.124)
0.009
(0.300)
0.150**
(2.579)
0.023
(0.152)
0.047
(1.134)
0.062**
(2.023)
0.003
(0.04)
0.001
(0.050)
0.013
(0.695)
0.115*
(1.819)
0.032
(1.435)
0.003
(0.028)
0.047
(0.135)
0.107*
(1.745)
ln TCit = i +
M
am ln Ym,it +
N
bn ln Wn,it +
1
2
N
M
1
2
N
M
N
M
4
cq Qq + it ,
q=1
where TCit is the total cost, proxies by either total accounting cost or economic total cost. Three input prices (W) are denoted by fund price, wage rate, and capital price. The
three outputs (Y) are investment, loans, and fee revenues. Qq is a seasonal dummy. 2. **and* represent respectively signicant at 5% and 10%level. Numbers in parentheses
are t-value.
its variations. The mean values of the price of funds, wages, and
capital are 3%, $185,000, and 45%, respectively.
Fig. 1 plots the graphs of A TC and E TC for each bank. The plots
show that most banks have higher E TC (denoted by dashed lines)
than A TC (denoted by solid lines). We can classify the total cost patterns in Fig. 1 into three groups. In the rst group, A TC and E TC
move closer over time; an example for this is First Bank. One possible reason for this phenomenon is government requests. Beginning
2002, there is sufcient PLL after Taiwans First Financial Reform
(see footnote 7). First Bank has sufcient provisions. In the second
group, A TC and E TC move up and down proportionally; the pattern of Taipei Fubon Bank reects this phenomenon. In the third
group, the difference between A TC and E TC increase over time;
Chang-Hwa Bank is a good example of this group.
Fig. 2 compares the graph of A PLL (A TC) with the graph of
E PLL (E TC) in terms of averages. E PLL is higher than A PLL, and
E TC is also higher than A TC. The uctuation of E TC is larger than
that of A TC because of the uctuation of PLL. Based on the above
results, true costs should increase with accurate PLL, indicating that
understating PLL undeniably causes misestimated in total costs.
14
Hausman (1978) suggests using the Chi square test to examine the null hypothesis of random effects vs. the alternative of the xed-effects panel model. The Chi
square 2(30) is found to be 5.927, which does not undermine the null hypothesis of
432
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
Table 7
Economic scale.
Total assets (thousand)
A TC
E TC
Bank group
Less 200,000
0.148
0.081
200,000400,000
0.629
0.222
400,000600,000
0.295
0.896
600,000800,000
800,0001,000,000
1.569
0.931
0.625
0.212
Note: 1. A TC is accounting total cost. E TC is economic total cost. 2. Bank Group lists banks name of each group based on total assets.
Bo-Wa Bank was classied as a distressed bank and was taken over
by Taiwan through Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC)15 in August
2007 because of the banks worsening net worth and substantial
NPL of 13%. Consequently, the results of the least efcient yield by
E TC are consistent with our intuition, indicating that E TC is preferable over A TC. The same argument applies to Taitung Business
Bank, which was also taken over by RTC in 2006. Its rank dropped
from seventh to eighth when the two measures were used. The rank
of Bank of Overseas Chinese, whose non-performing ratio reached
10.96% and average non-performing ratio at 9.41%, also saw major
changes, dropping from its rst-place ranking in efciency (i.e., by
using A TC) to the 27th standing (i.e., by using E TC). The ranking
of Chang-Hwa Bank exhibits the most drastic change, falling from
fourth to 26th, the drop of which is also consistent with intuition.
This consistency reects the banks non-performing ratio, previously at 4.85%; its average ratio is 4.32%, which is higher than the
average of 2.78%, in 2004.16
15
The RTC is a government company that was established to take over distressed
banks whose net worth is negative or whose capital-adequacy ratio is less than 2%.
Bo-Wa Banks assets reached a negative level of NT$24.7 billion in 2007, and the
banks non-performing ratio hit a high of 13%. It was taken over by the RTC in 2007
and then sold to Development Bank Singapore (DBS) through an auction.
16
The Taiwan government decided to sell Chang-Hwa Bank through global depository receipts at the end of 2004. However, because the bidding price was low, the
bank was not sold. After the failed attempt to sell the bank through global depository
receipts (GDR), the government auctioned it on the market in June 2005. Taishin
Financial Holding Company purchased 22.5% of the banks special equity shares,
becoming the largest shareholder of the bank.
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
433
Table 8
X-Efciency and rank (A TC and E TC).
A TC
E TC
Value
Chiao Tung
Cathay
Kings Town
Far-Eastern
Fu-Hwa
E. Sun
SinoPac
Taitung Business
Ta Chong
Interna. Bank of Taipei
Kaohsiung
Tai-Shin
Taiwan Cooperative Bank
Union
Cosmos
Taiwan Business
Hua-Nan
En-Tie
Taipei Fubon
International Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
Taichung
Hsinchu
Jih-Sun
First
China Trust
Chang-Hwa
Bank of Overseas Chinese
Chinese
Bo-Wa
Rank
0.97683
0.94199
0.96948
0.96815
0.97350
0.96574
0.96328
0.97308
0.96808
0.96652
0.96881
0.96880
0.96879
0.96878
0.96442
0.99073
0.95723
0.96746
0.97255
0.96605
0.96790
0.95810
0.96385
0.96315
0.95454
0.97755
1.00000
0.96178
0.99756
5
29
9
14
6
20
23
7
15
18
10
11
12
13
21
3
27
17
8
19
16
26
22
24
28
4
1
25
2
Value
Rank
1.00000
0.98591
0.97601
0.97421
0.97390
0.97375
0.97276
0.96903
0.96851
0.96755
0.96733
0.96732
0.96731
0.96730
0.96688
0.96663
0.96609
0.96600
0.96583
0.96574
0.96573
0.96567
0.96554
0.96411
0.96404
0.96360
0.95816
0.94822
0.93953
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Note: 1. A TC is accounting total cost. E TC is economic total cost. 2. The spearman correlation coefcient (Rs ) of two efcient measures is 0.0601.
Table 9
X-Efciency and rank (operating cost).
A TC
Value
Chiao Tung
Cathay
Kings Town
Far-Eastern
Fu-Hwa
E. Sun
SinoPac
Taitung Business
Ta Chong
Interna. Bank of Taipei
Kaohsiung
Tai-Shin
Taiwan Cooperative Bank
Union
Cosmos
Taiwan Business
Hua-Nan
En-Tie
Taipei Fubon
International Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
Taichung
Hsinchu
Jih-Sun
First
China Trust
Chang-Hwa
Bank of Overseas Chinese
Chinese
Bo-Wa
0.97683
0.94199
0.96948
0.96815
0.97350
0.96574
0.96328
0.97308
0.96808
0.96652
0.96881
0.96880
0.96879
0.96878
0.96442
0.99073
0.95723
0.96746
0.97255
0.96605
0.96790
0.95810
0.96385
0.96315
0.95454
0.97755
1.00000
0.96178
0.99756
E TC
Rank
5
29
9
14
6
20
23
7
15
18
10
11
12
13
21
3
27
17
8
19
16
26
22
24
28
4
1
25
2
Operating expense
Value
Rank
Value
Rank
1.00000
0.98591
0.97601
0.97421
0.97390
0.97375
0.97276
0.96903
0.96851
0.96755
0.96733
0.96732
0.96731
0.96730
0.96688
0.96663
0.96609
0.96600
0.96583
0.96574
0.96573
0.96567
0.96554
0.96411
0.96404
0.96360
0.95816
0.94822
0.93953
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1.00000
0.92990
0.93413
0.93947
0.93564
0.93511
0.93067
0.92549
0.93197
0.93297
0.93832
0.93303
0.94580
0.93303
0.92187
0.94326
0.92874
0.93493
0.93102
0.93130
0.92970
0.93524
0.93283
0.92246
0.92348
0.93644
0.93767
0.93450
0.93001
1
23
13
4
8
10
21
26
18
16
5
14
2
15
29
3
25
11
20
19
24
9
17
28
27
7
6
12
22
434
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
Table 10
X-Efciency and rank (outlier).
E TC
Chiao Tung
Cathay
Kings Town
Far-Eastern
Fu-Hwa
E. Sun
SinoPac
Taitung Business
Ta Chong
Interna. Bank of Taipei
Kaohsiung
Tai-Shin
Taiwan Cooperative Bank
Union
Cosmos
Taiwan Business
Hua-Nan
En-Tie
Taipei Fubon
International Commercial Bank of China (ICBC)
Taichung
Hsinchu
Jih-Sun
First
China Trust
Chang-Hwa
Bank of Overseas Chinese
Chinese
Bo-Wa
Delete outlier
Value
Rank
Value
Rank
1.00000
0.98067
0.97149
0.95542
0.94910
0.94784
0.94781
0.94780
0.94736
0.94394
0.94262
0.94164
0.94057
0.93996
0.93327
0.92589
0.92571
0.91773
0.91175
0.91150
0.89806
0.89674
1.00000
0.98067
0.97149
0.95542
0.94910
0.94784
0.94781
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1.00000
0.99523
0.98897
0.98680
0.98649
0.98728
0.98519
0.98157
0.98225
0.98066
0.98157
0.98157
0.98157
0.98157
0.98129
0.98091
0.98165
0.98148
0.97336
0.97788
0.98077
0.97978
0.98069
0.97977
0.97852
0.97872
0.97467
0.96798
0.96667
1
2
3
5
6
4
7
11
8
20
12
13
14
10
16
17
9
15
27
25
18
21
19
22
24
23
26
28
29
7. Conclusion
This study suggests that A TC is identied often as the biased
estimator of true total cost, primarily because banks manipulate
provision for loan loss. In this paper, we propose a new measure for total cost, which is designed to act consistently with
economic theory. This new total cost argues that banks manage earnings by highlighting revenues while concealing losses,
making the conventional measure of A TC misleading. In particular, banks report higher accounting earnings by providing less
PLL. Our E TC overcomes these weaknesses to reect true total
cost.
Both A TC and E TC are used to calculate bank cost efciency.
We have examined which of the estimated efciency is consistent
with intuition. We have dened our intuition as follows: Banks
that have been taken over by the government due to their negative net worth, high non-performing loans, or substantial negative
prot, as observed over years of operations, should display strong
inefciency. Otherwise, banks that exhibit high efciency but yield
receivership of government are contradicts economic theory, as
well as yields wrong predictions from the perspective of bank
development.
Our results also show that E TC is higher than A TC, suggesting
that banks typically under-provision their loan loss. In addition,
because the Taiwan banking industry suffered the enterprise crisis in 2002, the second wave of nancial reforms in 2004, and the
double-card crisis in November 2005, the total cost should have
uctuated signicantly as a result of the uctuation of PLL. Our
C.-H. Shen, T.-H. Chen / The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50 (2010) 424435
435
Hasan, I., Wall, L. D., (2003). Determinants of the loan loss allowance: some crosscountry comparisons, Bank of Finland Discussion Papers.
Hausman, J. (1978). Specication tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6),
12511271.
Huang, T. H., & Kao, T. L. (2006). Joint estimation of technical efciency and production risk for multi-output banks under a panel data cost frontier model. Journal
of Productivity Analysis, 26, 87102.
Hughes, J. P., & Mester, L. J. (2008). Efciency in banking: Theory, practice, and
evidence. Working paper.
Jordan, J. S. (1998). Problem loans at New England Banks 1989 to 1992: Evidence of
aggressive loan policies. New England Economic Review, (January/February).
Kanagaretnam, K., Lobo, G. J., & Yang, D. H. (2004). Joint tests of signaling and
income smoothing through bank loan loss provisions. Contemporary Accounting
Research, 21(Winter), 843884.
Koch, T. W., & MacDonald, S. S. (2002). Bank management. Dryden Press.
Kwan, S. H. (2003). Operating performance of banks among Asian economies: An
international and time series comparison. Journal of Banking and Finance, 27,
471489.
Laeven, L., & Majnoni, G. (2003). Loan loss provisioning and economics slowdowns:
Too much, too late? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 12, 178197.
Li, P. W. (2002). An efciency analysis of commercial bank mergers in Taiwan:
Data envelopment analysis. Taiwan Academy of Management Journal, 1(2), 341
356.
Liu, C. C. (1999). Differential valuation implications of loan loss provision across
banks and scal quarters. The Chinese Accounting Review, 31, 6380.
Maudos, J., Pastor, J., Perez, F., & Quesada, J. (2002). Cost and prot efciency in
European Banks. Journal of International Financial Markets Institutions and Money,
12, 3358.
Mester, L. J. (1996). A study of bank efciency taking into account risk-preferences.
Journal of Banking and Finance, 20, 10251045.
Pastor, J. M. (1999). Efciency and risk management in Spanish Banking: A method
to decompose risk. Applied Economics, 9, 371384.
Pastor, J. M. (2002). Credit risk and efciency in The European Banking System: A
three-stage analysis. Applied Economics, 12(12), 895911.
Patti, E. B., & Hardy, D. C. (2005). Financial sector liberalization, bank privatization, and efciency: Evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Banking and Finance, 29,
23812406.
Podpiera, J., & Weill, L. (2008). Bad luck or bad management? Emerging banking
market experience. Working paper.
Rezvanian, R., & Mehdian, S. (2002). An examination of cost structure and production
performance of commercial banks in Singapore. Journal of Banking and Finance,
26, 7998.
Shen, C. H. (2005a). Bank rating-estimating earnings consistent quality. Review of
Financial Risk Management, 1(3), 89105.
Shen, C. H. (2005b). Cost efciency and banking performances in a partial universal
banking system: An Application of the panel smooth threshold model. Applied
Economics, 37, 981992.
Shen, C. H., & Chih, H. L. (2005). Investor protection, prospect theory, and earnings
management: An international comparison of the banking industry. Journal of
Banking and Finance, 29, 26752697.
Valverde, S., Humphrey, D., & Paso, R. (2007). Do cross-country differences in bank
efciency support a policy of national champions? Journal of Banking and
Finance, 31, 21732188.
Vennet, R. V. (2002). Cost and prot efciency of nancial conglomerates and
universal banks in Europe. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 34(1), 254
282.
Wall, L. D., & Koch, T. W. (2000). Bank loan-loss accounting: a review of theoretical
and empirical evidence. Economic Review, 120.