金融學(xué)專業(yè)外文翻譯------客戶角度下的最優(yōu)選擇：銀行與保險(xiǎn)公司聯(lián)盟-金融財(cái)政-全文預(yù)覽
【正文】 gement views). 1. Product development (maximize efficiency), 2. Onedoorprinciple (implement as effectively as possible), 3. Earnings logics (avoid conflicts), 4. Customer relationship management (maximize efficiency), 5. Cost and revenue synergies (maximize), 6. Channel conflicts (minimize), 7. Required solvency capital (optimize the balance), 8. Investor power (maximize), 9. Sales management (maximize efficiency). According to the interviews the overall importance of earnings logics, synergies and channel conflicts was the greatest one. II. Evaluating with management criteria Korhonen and Voutilainen [2020]) studied the above defined six different possible structure models for alliances and the nine criteria. Searching for the most preferred alliance model is a multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. To solve the problem, the AnalyticHierarchy Process (AHP) was used, see Saaty [1980]. The use of the AHP focused the discussions on pairwise parisons. The panel (the same members as in Voutilainen [2020]) was also willing to consider its evaluations in case the inconsistency was too high. The second meeting was the initiative of the panel members felt that the problem required more considerations. During the second meeting the panel first evaluated critically the original criteria and revised some of them. The resulting criteria were 1. Earnings logics (avoid conflicts), 2. Customer relationship management (maximize efficiency), 3. Cost and revenue synergies (maximize), 4. Channel conflicts (minimize), 5. Required solvency capital (optimize the balance), 6. Sales management (maximize efficiency), 7. Economies of scale (maximize), 8. Economies of scope (maximize), 9. Risk. The panel preferred the Control by ownership models. Actually, the Financial conglomerate was the most preferred. On the other hand, a riskaverse manager might also prefer Crossselling agreement with no overlapping service channels or even Alliance of independent partners with no overlapping service channels to Financial conglomerate. III. Compromise with supervisors In the third paper, Korhonen et al. [2020] broaden the analysis to include the search for the best alliance promise structure between the executives of the banks and insurance panies and the bank and insurance supervisory authorities. First, the alternative alliance structures were studied from the point of view of supervisory authorities. The leaders and experts of the supervisory authorities introduced eight criteria for the evaluation of the above presented alternative alliance structures. 1. Equality of the member panies of the alliance, 2. System risk management, 3. Capability of the authorities to supervise the alliance as well as possible, 4. Flexibility of the alliance with respect to changes in its environment, 5. Optimal functioning of insurance and finance markets, 6. Synergies brought about by the alliance, 7. Sufficiency of capital, 8. Dependency of the alliance on the petence of executive management. The ultimate goal was to search for the alternative which bank and insurance supervisory authorities and bank and insurance executive management might accept as a solution to the alliance problem. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was again used. The loosely connected alliance models Crossselling agreements received the highest overall priorities largely because they got very high priorities according to the important criteria System risk management and Capability of the authorities to supervise the alliance as well as possible. The control by ownership models were not considered desirable with respect to these criter
畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1