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 ~