[雙語翻譯]銀行盈利能力外文翻譯--理清證券化對銀行盈利能力的影響（節(jié)選）

1、3900 英文單詞， 英文單詞，22500 英文字符 英文字符，中文 ，中文 7200 字文獻出處： 文獻出處：Bakoush M, Abouarab R, Wolfe S. Disentangling the Impact of Securitization on Bank Profitability[J]. Research in International Business and Finance, 2018.Disentangl

2、ing the impact of securitization on bank profitabilityMohamed Bakoush, Rabab Abouarab, Simon WolfeABSTRACT We empirically evaluate the channels through which securitization impacts bank profitability. To this end, we an

3、alyze the role played by bank risk, cost of funding, liquidity and regulatory capital in explaining the relationship between securitization and bank profitability. We find that securitization activities tend to boost pro

4、fitability. We also show that bank risk, cost of funding, liquidity and regulatory capital individually and jointly act as transmission channels in the securitization-profitability relationship. In addition, we break dow

5、n the securitization effects on bank profitability into direct and indirect effects and identify the contribution of each individual transmission channel in the overall impact on bank profitability. Our findings have sev

6、eral implications for banks, financial markets, and regulators.Keywords: Securitization；Bank profitability；Bank risk；Regulatory capital；Liquidity；Cost of funding1. IntroductionSecuritization has fundamentally altered the

7、 way in which financial intermediation is organized as it has provided banks with various incentives to improve efficiency and performance. The bank may aim to improve its cost of funding (Pennacchi, 1988), to improve it

8、s risk management (Cebenoyan and Strahan, 2004), or to improve its profitability (Affinito and Tagliaferri, 2010). Although theory suggests that securitization benefits both issuing banks and investors, empirical evidenc

9、e does not uniformly support these theoretical conclusions. In addition, securitization was blamed for being a primary cause of the 2008 US mortgage crisis where it acted as the vehicle for the increase in lower-quality

10、subprime debt.In the aftermath of the 2008 credit crisis, securitization markets became subject to intensive regulatory reforms which implied the curbing of certain higher risk activities. These reforms led to signific

11、ant impairment in securitization markets as shown by the large decline in securitization issuance in both the US and Europe (Association for Financial Markets in Europe (AFME), 2017). This impairment has contributed to t

12、he decline in bank’s revenues from capital market-related activities –including securitization– compared to commercial banking activities. It has also contributed to keeping the post-crisis bank profitability subdued (Ba

13、nk for International Settlements (BIS), 2018). Nevertheless, there have been several attempts to revive securitization markets to boost banking efficiency and risk sharing in capital markets (Mersch, 2017). These attempt

14、s require a deep revision of the securitization effects on both banks and financial markets to avoid any unintended consequences for bank performance and stability.In this paper, we empirically evaluate the impact of sec

15、uritization on bank profitability. Our main contribution is to analyze the channels through which securitization impacts bank profitability. In so doing, we argue that the impact of securitization on bank profitability i

16、s together provides an additional explanatory power regarding how securitization affects bank profitability. In addition, our findings shed light on situations in which the total effect of the securitization on bank prof

17、itability is not significant while the direct and indirect effects are significant, but with opposite signs.Our findings have several implications. First, the ability to divide the effects of securitization between diffe

18、rent components of the securitization-profitability relationship enables the bank to control this relationship. In other words, the bank can alter its decisions regarding which loans to securitize, what type of enhanceme

19、nts and recourse to provide, and the timing of transactions. These decisions together would improve the design of securitization transactions. Second, investors in financial market would improve their assessment of the c

20、hange in perceived risk of a bank due to a securitization transaction. The investors would then be able to adjust their required rates of return on the bank equity capital based on the new risk expectations, which implie

21、s a fair share price. Finally, our findings might help regulators in imposing regulations that ensure a fair and transparent securitization market.The remainder of this paper is divided as follows. Section 2 provides ins

22、titutional background. Sections 3 provides an overview of related literature and develops the research hypotheses. Section 4 provides an overview of the methodological framework and data. Section 5 presents the empirical

23、 results. Section 6 concludes the paper.2. Developments in the US banking industry and securitization marketThe US banking industry has experienced an enormous transformation over the course of the last few decades. One

24、of these transformations was a trend of increase in the portion of industry income generated from fees-based activities (such as securitization) rather than interest-generating activities starting from the 1980s. This tr

25、end has fundamentally altered the risk-return profiles of US banks over the last few decades (DeYoung et al., 2004). Particularly, banks costs of production were static or declining and there has been an increase in tota

26、l revenues from traditional and non-traditional sources. This meant that by the mid-2000s, US banks prof- itability was very strong (Carlson and Weinbach, 2007). Indeed, until mid-2007 it was widely perceived that the US

27、 banking system was sound and performing well, particularly because banks capital holdings and profitability appeared to be high and at record levels. Nevertheless, Clark et al. (2007) emphasize how the increasingly fee-

28、focused strategies of large US banks expose these banks to economic and business cycle volatility. With the onset of the mortgage crisis, problems in the housing market spelled over to the banking industry. The increased

29、 number of foreclosures and defaults in mortgages led to a decline in the value of securitized assets and reduced investors’ appetite for such securities and accordingly problems within the US banking industry (Gerardi e

30、t al., 2008). In the US, securitization origins go back to the early 1970s, when Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) started to sell mortgage loans (Ibanez and Scheicher, 2012). Then, In the 1980s, the

31、market grew with the issuances of securities by the semi-governmental agencies, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) and the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Initially, securitization p

32、rocesses included mortgage loans forming what is known as Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS). Later, they expanded to include other types of loans forming what is known as Asset Backed Securities (ABS).Furthermore, in the