商业银行风险管理分析的过程[外文翻译].doc

外文文献翻译译文一、外文原文原文：commercial bank risk management: an analysis of the processwhat type of risk is being considered?commercial banks are in the risk business. in the process of providing financial services, they assume various kinds of financial risks. over the last decade our understanding of the place of commercial banks within the financial sector has improved substantially. over this time, much has been written on the role of commercial banks in the financial sector, both in the academic literature and in the financial press. these arguments will be neither reviewed nor enumerated here. suffice it to say that market participants seek the services of these financial institutions because of their ability to provide market knowledge, transaction efficiency and funding capability. in performing these roles they generally act as a principal in the transaction, as such, they use their own balance sheet to facilitate the transaction and to absorb the risks associated with it.to be sure, there are activities performed by banking firms which do not have direct balance sheet implications. these services include agency and advisory activities such as (i) trust and investment management, (ii) private and public placements through best efforts or facilitating contracts, (iii) standard underwriting through section 20 subsidiaries of the holding company, or (iv) the packaging, securitizing, distributing and servicing of loans in the areas of consumer and real estate debt primarily. these items are absent from the traditional financial statement because the latter rely on generally accepted accounting procedures rather than a true economic balance sheet. nonetheless, the overwhelming majority of the risks facing the banking firm is in on-balance-sheet businesses. it is in this area that the discussion of risk management and the necessary procedures for risk management and control has centered. accordingly, it is here that our review of risk management procedures will concentrate.what kinds of risks are being absorbed ?the risks contained in the banks principal activities, i.e., those involving its own balance sheet and its basic business of lending and borrowing, are not all borne by the bank itself. in many instances the institution will eliminate or mitigate the financial risk associated with a transaction by proper business practices; in others, it will shift the risk to other parties through a combination of pricing and product design.the banking industry recognizes that an institution need not engage in business in a manner that unnecessarily imposes risk upon it; nor should it absorb risk that can be efficiently transferred to other participants. rather, it should only manage risks at the firm level that are more efficiently managed there than by the market itself or by their owners in their own portfolios. in short, it should accept only those risks that are uniquely a part of the banks array of services. elsewhere, oldfield and santomero (1997), it has been argued that risks facing all financial institutions can be segmented into three separable types, from a management perspective. these are:(i) risks that can be eliminated or avoided by simple business practices, (ii) risks that can be transferred to other participants, and, (iii) risks that must be actively managed at the firm level. in the first of these cases, the practice of risk avoidance involves actions to reduce the chances of idiosyncratic losses from standard banking activity by eliminating risks that are superfluous to the institutions business purpose. common risk avoidance practices here include at least three types of actions. thestandardization of process, contracts and procedures to prevent inefficient or incorrect financial decisions is the first of these. the construction of portfolios that benefit from diversification across borrowers and that reduce the effects of any one loss experience is another. finally, the implementation of incentive-compatible contracts with the institutions management to require that employees be held accountable is the third. in each case the goal is to rid the firm of risks that are not essential to the financial service provided, or to absorb only an optimal quantity of a particular kind of risk.there are also some risks that can be eliminated, or at least substantially reduced through the technique of risk transfer. markets exist for many of the risks borne by the banking firm. interest rate risk can be transferred by interest rate products such as swaps or other derivatives. borrowing terms can be altered to effect a change in their duration. finally, the bank can buy or sell financial claims to diversify or concentrate the risks that result in from servicing its client base. to the extent that the financial risks of the assets created by the firm are understood by the market, these assets can be sold at their fair value. unless the institution has a comparative advantage in managing the attendant risk and/or a desire for the embedded risk they contain,there is no reason for the bank to absorb such risks, rather than transfer them.however, there are two classes of assets or activities where the risk inherent in the activity must and should be absorbed at the bank level. in these cases, good reasons exist for using firm resources to manage bank level risk. the first of these includes financial assets or activities where the nature of the embedded risk may be complex and difficult to communicate to third parties. this is the case when the bank holds complex and proprietary assets that have thin, if not non-existent, secondary markets. communication in such cases may be more difficult or expensive than hedging the underlying risk. moreover, revealing information about the customer may give competitors an undue advantage. the second case included proprietary positions that are accepted because of their risks, and their expected return. here, risk positions that are central to the banks business purpose are absorbed because they are the raison detre of the firm. credit risk inherent in the lending activity is a clear case in point, as is market risk for the trading desk of banks active in certain markets. in all such circumstances, risk is absorbed and needs to be monitored and managed efficiently by the institution. only then will the firm systematically achieve its financial performance goal.why do banks manage these risks at all ?it seems appropriate for any discussion of risk management procedures to begin with why these firms manage risk. according to standard economic theory, managers of value maximizing firms ought to maximize expected profit without regard to the variability around its expected value. however, there is now a growing literature on the reasons for active risk management including the work of stulz (1984), smith, smithson and wolford (1990), and froot, sharfstein and stein (1993) to name but a few of the more notable contributions. in fact, the recent review of risk management reported in santomero (1995) lists dozens of contributions tothe area and at least four distinct rationales offered for active risk management. these include managerial self-interest, the non-linearity of the tax structure, the costs of financial distress and the existence of capital market imperfections. any one of these justify the firms concern over return variability, as the above-cited authors demonstrate.how are these risks managed ?in light of the above, what are the necessary procedures that must be in place to carry out adequate risk management? in essence, what techniques are employed to both limit and manage the different types of risk, and how are they implemented in each area of risk control? it is to these questions that we now turn. after reviewing the procedures employed by leading firms, an approach emerges from an examination of large-scale risk management systems. the management of the banking firm relies on a sequence of steps to implement a risk management system. these can be seen as containing the following four parts: (i) standards and reports,(ii) position limits or rules,(iii) investment guidelines or strategies,(iv) incentive contracts and compensation.in general, these tools are established to measure exposure, define procedures to manage these exposures, limit individual positions to acceptable levels, and encourage decision makers to manage risk in a manner that is consistent with the firms goals and objectives. to see how each of these four parts of basic risk management techniques achieves these ends, we elaborate on each part of the process below. in section iv we illustrate how these techniques are applied to manage each of the specific risks facing the banking community. (i)standards and reports the first of these risk management techniques involves two different conceptual activities, i.e., standard setting and financial reporting. they are listed together because they are the sine qua non of any risk system. underwriting standards, risk categorizations, and standards of review are all traditional tools of risk management and control. consistent evaluation and rating of exposures of various types are essential tounderstand the risks in the portfolio, and the extent to which these risks must be mitigated or absorbed.the standardization of financial reporting is the next ingredient. obviously outside audits, regulatory reports, and rating agency evaluations are essential for investors to gauge asset quality and firm level risk. these reports have long been standardized, for better or worse. however, the need here goes beyond public reports and audited statements to the need for management information on asset quality and risk posture. such internal reports need similar standardization and much more frequent reporting intervals, with daily or weekly reports substituting for the quarterly gaap periodicity.(ii) position limits and rulesa second technique for internal control of active management is the use of position limits,and/or minimum standards for participation. in terms of the latter, the domain of risk taking is restricted to only those assets or counterparties that pass some prespecified quality standard. then, even for those investments that are eligible, limits are imposed to cover exposures to counterparties, credits, and overall position concentrations relative to various types of risks. while such limits are costly to establish and administer, their imposition restricts the risk that can be assumed by any one individual, and therefore by the organization as a whole. in general, each person who can commit capital will have a well-defined limit. this applies to traders, lenders, and portfolio managers. summary reports show limits as well as current exposure by business unit on a periodic basis. in large organizations with thousands of positions maintained, accurate and timely reporting is difficult, but even more essential.(iii) investment guidelines and strategiesinvestment guidelines and recommended positions for the immediate future are the third technique commonly in use. here, strategies are outlined in terms of concentrations and commitments to particular areas of the market, the extent of desired asset-liability mismatching or exposure, and the need to hedge against systematic risk of a particular type. the limits described above lead to passive risk avoidance and/or diversification, because managers generally operate within position limits and prescribed rules. beyond this, guidelines offer firm level advice as to the appropriate level of active management, given the state of the market and the willingness of senior management to absorb the risks implied by the aggregate portfolio. such guidelines lead to firm level hedging and asset-liability matching. in addition, securitization and even derivative activity are rapidly growing techniques of position management open to participants looking to reduce their exposure to be in line with managements guidelines. (iv) incentive schemes to the extent that management can enter incentive compatible contracts with line managers and make compensation related to the risks borne by these individuals, then the need for elaborate and costly controls is lessened. however, such incentive contracts require accurate position valuation and proper internal control systems. such tools which include position posting, risk analysis, the allocation of costs, and setting of required returns to various parts of the organization are not trivial. notwithstanding the difficulty, well-designed systems align the goals of managers with other stakeholders in a most desirable way. in fact, mostfinancial debacles can be traced to the absence of incentive compatibility, as the cases of the deposit insuranceand maverick traders so clearly illustrate.bank risk management systemsthe banking industry has long viewed the problem of risk management as the need to control four of the above risks which make up most, if not all, of their risk exposure, viz., credit, interest rate, foreign exchange and liquidity risk. while they recognize counterparty and legal risks, they view them as less central to their concerns. where counterparty risk is significant, it is evaluated using standard credit risk procedures, and often within the credit department itself. likewise, most bankers would view legal risks as arising from their credit decisions or, more likely, proper process not employed in financial contracting. source: anthony m. santomero,1997. “commercial bank risk management: an analysis of the process”.the wharton school university of pennsylvania, february,pp.101-129.二、翻译文章译文：商业银行风险管理:分析的过程什么类型的风险是被考虑的?商业银行风险的业务。在提供金融服务这个过程中，他们承担各种各样的金融风险。在过去的十年里我们对商业银行在金融部门的理解已经大大改善了。在这段时间，很多人写的都是关于商业银行在金融部门的作用,无论在学术文学与金融出版社。这些观点不大一致，这里也就不一一列举。市场参与者寻找这些金融机构的服务,因为他们有能力提供市场知识、交易效率和资金的能力。在履行这些职责，他们通常作为交易中的主要角色。这样,他们用自己的资产负债表促进交易和吸收与之相关联的风险。当然,也有银行业金融机构进行的活动是不直接影响资产负债表。这些服务包括代理和咨询活动,如（1）信托投资管理,（2）私人和公共存款通过“最大努力”或便利合同,(3)通过第二十条标准的控股公司分支机构承销,(4)包装、证券化、分销和消费服务贷款和房地产债务主。这些项目缺少传统的财务报表,因为后者依靠公认会计程序而不是真正的经济资产负债表。然而,银行业所面临的风险企业中绝大多数是在资产负债表的企业。正是在这方面的风险管理讨论程序和必要的风险管理和控制中心。因此,在这里我们对风险管理程序将集中精力。要关注什么样的风险?银行的主要活动包含的风险,即那些涉及自身的资产负债表及其基本的商业贷款和借款中的风险,都不是银行本身承担。在许多情况下,机构将会通过适当的商业交易消除或减轻相关的财务风险;而在某些情况下,它将转移风险是结合其他各方的价格和产品设计。银行业认识到一个机构不需要从事经营的方式,对它施加不必要的风险也不应当吸收的风险,可以有效地转移到其他参与者。相反,它应该只在该公司管理风险水平进行有效管理, 更有效的风险管理不是由市场本身或由业主自己的投资组合。简而言之,它应该只接受这些银行数组的服务所特有的风险的一部分。在其他地方, 奥德菲尔德和圣多马罗(1997年)认为,从管理角度来看可以将所有金融机构面临的风险划分为三个可分离的类型,它们是:（一）通过简单的经营手法消除或避免的风险，（二）可以转让给其他参与者的风险，（三）必须在企业层面积极管理的风险。在第一种情况下,实践的风险规避措施包括降低采取行动的风险, 尤其是通过消除该机构多余的经营宗旨，来减少银行标准活动特有的损失的机会。这里常见的风险规避的惯例至少包括三种类型的行动。在来自全国各地的投资组合，多元化的利益，而且借款人减少损失经验，对于任何一个建设的影响是另一回事。最后，与该机构的管理层激励兼容合同的执行，要求员工承担责任是第三个。在每一种情况下，目标是摆脱风险，尤其是公司提供没有必要的金融服务，或只吸收了特定类型的最佳数量的风险。也有一定的风险通过技术的风险转移可以被除去的,或者至少是大幅度减少。市场存在着许多降低自己所承担的风险的金融公司。利率风险是可以转让的,如互换或其他衍生工具利率产品。借款条件可以进行修改，以在他们的时间内持续影响变化。最后，银行在从它的客户群提供服务的风险可以购买或出售金融债权分散或集中。对于该公司所创造的资产的财务风险是在市场的理解程度上，这些资产可以按其公允价值出售。除非该机构已在管理随之而来的风险和/或一个包含嵌入的风险，银行没有理由吸收这些风险，而不是将它们转移。然而，有两类资产或在银行内在风险水平的活动必须也应该考虑。在这些情况下,存在很好的理由使用公司资源管理银行水平的风险。第一项包括金融资产或的嵌入式风险可能是复杂的，难以传达给第三方。这是当银行拥有的情况复杂，专有资产有薄，如果不存在的二级市场。在这种情况下通讯可能更加困难或较昂贵的对冲替在风险。此外，关于客户的信息泄露给竞争对手是一种不正当的好处。第二项情况包括专有的位置都同意了，因为他们的风险,他们预期回报。在这里，风险头寸是至关重要的,给银行的经营宗旨的吸收，因为他们是该公司存在的理由。信用风险贷款活动所固有就是一个明显的例子。在所有这些情况下，风险被吸收，需要进行监测和有效的管理。只有这样，该公司实现其财务绩效表现系统的目标。为什么银行要管理风险?为什么银行要管理风险，这似乎是任何适当的风险管理程序在讨论开始时都要进行的。根据标准的经济理论，价值最大化企业经理应该最大限度地不考虑围绕其预期利润预期值的变化。然而，现在有一个关于积极的风险管理的文献越来越多，原因包括斯图尔兹的工作（1984年），史密斯，史密森和沃尔福德（1990），froot，sharfstein和stein（1993），但很少有更值得注意的结论，圣多马罗最近发表的风险管理审查报告（1995）列出了几十个领域的贡献和至少提出四个不同积极风险管理的理由。这些措施包括管理自身的利益，非税收结构的线性关系，财务困境成本和不完全资本市场存在。上述任何一个理由关注公