27.03.2015 Views

o_19heefouak9i9v4do11ac41pi7a.pdf

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

DEVELOPMENT BANKING IN GREECE 1963-2002<br />

whole period, initially by 17% during 1965-74 and 1975-86 and subsequently by<br />

60% when moving on in the liberalization era. Solvency was certainly a problem<br />

for all banks during the crisis years when they all maintained high loss ratios of<br />

about 0.05-0.07 on average. Furthermore, solvency seems to have preoccupied<br />

ETEBA’s management<br />

during the liberalization era, as expected, because of the higher risk in its operation,<br />

which justified average ratios of about 0.07, similar to those of the crisis<br />

years (although median values are much lower). The puzzling issue, however, is<br />

the reverse trend in both average and median values of loss ratios for ETBA, especially<br />

during the deregulation period when the average value was only 0.02<br />

with very small variability, although the same ratio is fairly stable between 0.06<br />

and 0.05 during the two previous periods.<br />

Table 7: Loss ratio: summary statistics<br />

ETEBA Investment Bank ETBA<br />

1964-74 1975-86 1987-2001 1963-74 1976-86 1987-97 1965-74 1975-86 1987-2002<br />

Mean 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.02<br />

Median 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.01<br />

Std. Dev. 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01<br />

Min. 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.00<br />

Max. 0.05 0.12 0.17 0.03 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.05<br />

An indirect measure of the degree to which the banks could service their obligations<br />

is the average cost of debt. We have seen this measure when calculating<br />

the net and gross profit margins. However, a separate examination of this ratio is<br />

interesting, especially in terms of the comparison of the cost of debt from various<br />

sources between banks and between periods.<br />

The average cost of debt (ACD) (Jain, 1989) is obtained by dividing the financial<br />

charges by the total borrowed funds. However, in our case the variable ‘debt’<br />

includes only long-term borrowing plus bond issues while the numerator pertains<br />

to total financial expenses. Hence, this measure is an approximation of the average<br />

cost of debt.<br />

Figure 8 shows the evolution of the average cost of debt over time.<br />

~ 243 ~

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!