본문으로 바로가기


Working paper COVID-19 and the Health of Banking Sector in Japan and South Korea: A Comparative Study 금융정책, 금융제도

저자 Munim Kumar Barai 발간번호 22-01 자료언어 English 발간일 2022.07.30

원문보기(다운로드:957) 원문보기(다운로드:166) 저자별 보고서 주제별 보고서

   한국과 일본의 거시 건전성의 경우 잃어버린 10년의 장기 침체, 1997년 아시아 금융 위기 그리고 2008년 세계 금융 위기를 겪으면서 큰 조정을 받았으며, 양국은 현재 양적 완화, 금리 조정, 금융 구조조정 등 통화금융정책 등을 통해 코로나19의 영향을 최소화하기 위한 정책을 시행하고 있다. 본 논문은 코로나19 이전과 이후 한국과 일본 각국의 거시 건전성을 비교하면서, 은행 부문의 자산 및 부채 포트폴리오, 생산성, 자본, 수익성, 운영 효율성에 대한 연구를 진행하였다. 초저금리를 유지해온 일본의 양적완화는 은행 부문의 금융건전성에 부정적 영향을 미쳤고, 코로나19 이후 대부분의 지표들에서 그 부정적 영향이 더 심화된 것으로 나타났다. 반면 한국은 일본에 비해 상대적으로 높았던 금리와 견조한 은행 부문 운영의 효율성 그리고 낮은 비율의 부실채권 등의 이유로, 2010년 이후부터 코로나 사태 이전까지 은행 부문 건전성이 지표상으로 일본과 비교하여 더 견실하게 나타났다. 그러나 코로나19 사태가 본격화된 2020년 이후 한국의 은행 부문 효율성 및 수익성은 악화된 것으로 나타났다. 이와 같이 악화된 은행 부문 건전성을 고양하기 위 해서는 일본은행은 현재의 초저금리 금융정책을 재고할 필요가 있고, 한국에 비해 미진한 은행서비스의 디지털화를 일본은 더 선진화할 필요가 있다.
   1. The economies of Japan and South Korea are dominated by banks. Both countries have created a complex financial structure, including a well-established banking industry at their heart that supports economic operations. However, both countries’ banking sectors have previously faced crises such as the Asian Financial Crisis (mostly in South Korea), the Japanese economic slowdown, and the financial crisis of 2007-08 (both). While the Bank of Japan (BOJ) approved the quantitative easing (QE) monetary policy and lowered interest rates to manage the crises, the Bank of Korea (BOK) pursued interest and financial restructuring as well as banking system digitization to overcome the crises. Covid-19 has disrupted the normal operation of banks, and the central banks and governments of both countries have implemented a variety of monetary and other measures to mitigate its economic and financial consequences.
   2. This study aims to identify and assess the health of domestic banks in Japan and South Korea for the Covid-19 ex-ante and interim periods. Several important variables, i.e., portfolios of assets and liabilities, asset productivity, stockholders' equity, profitability, and operating efficiency, have been included to evaluate the health of their banks. This compari-son of health metrics for 2010 to 2020 could help identify changes or shifts in the banking sector of Japan and Korea. The study has used ex-ploratory and descriptive methodologies to undertake qualitative and quantitative evaluations of important bank health indicators in the ex-ante and interim periods of Covid-19. It also used a hybrid method to produce research goals and arguments, including a framework based on what was already known in the field.
   3. Japanese banks are divided into four clusters, i.e., City Banks, Regional Banks I, Regional Banks II, and Trust Banks. The City Banks and Trust Banks clusters feature the largest banks, while the other clusters include smaller regional banks with a regional banking concentration. Despite being a large financial institution, Japan Post Bank is not considered a commercial bank in Japan. In Korea, Commercial and specialized banks are the two categories of banks. National and local banks make up the domestic commercial banks. The principal business of special banks is banking too.
   4. Throughout the timeframe of our investigation, the BOJ and BOK de-ployed monetary policy measures to influence bank conditions. In April 2013, the BOJ used an easy money policy, or QE, for the second time under Abenomics to combat chronic deflation and the rolling-recession effects of the 2007-08 GFC. Under QE-2, which is continuing, the BOJ has been influencing financial markets through interest rates, loan and fund support programs, and market purchases of assets of various du-rations. Starting in January 2016, the BOJ announced a negative interest rate of -0.1 percent on all new deposits. As a response to Covid-19, the BOJ gave institutions extra financial help at a low-interest rate of 0.1 percent and continues to purchase ETFs, J-REITs, JGBs, corporate bonds, etc. Due to QE-2 asset purchases, the BOJ’s balance sheet has grown by more than $5 trillion. BOK, for its part, used the bank rate as a primary policy tool to influence the money supply through bank lend-ing in the 2010s to mitigate the effects of the GFC of 2007–2008. The key interest rate was reduced from 5.25 percent in the third quarter of 2008 to 2.75 percent in the first quarter of 2013. Simultaneously, the sec-tor underwent structural restructuring to boost digitization. However, BOK adopted a more flexible monetary policy approach in response to the poor domestic economic development caused by the Covid-19 epi-demic. BOK also raised the limit on the Bank Intermediated Lending Support Facility to ₩35 trillion and made the Corporate Bond-Backed Lending Facility (CBBLF) a safety net for businesses, banks, and non-bank financial organizations.
   5. Figures show that the total assets of Japanese banks increased continu-ously, albeit at varied rates, from 2010 to 2019, never falling below 2 per-cent. The increase in bank loan amounts, from ¥8 trillion in 2012 to ¥543.9 trillion in 2021, explains some of the banks’ asset expansion. The loan portfolio breakdown reveals increased bank engagement in the real estate and housing sectors. Real estate has the highest industry share of outstanding loans, accounting for roughly 81 percent of all bank loans in 2020. Before Covid-19, both new consumer and home loans fell. Overall, portfolios of commercial banks did not undergo any significant rebalancing after QE-2. Their stockholdings fluctuated, and corporate bond holdings decreased, but t stock holdings climbed. In contrast to the BOJ's expectations, banks saw a significant increase in JGB purchas-es in FY 2020–21. Except for deposits, the effects of QE-2 and Covid-19 on banks’ liabilities were minimal. Their loan-to-deposit ratio has worsened, with loans accounting for only 66.2 percent of deposits in 2021, a record high during the pandemic. Throughout the period 2011 to 2020, the asset growth lines of Korean domestic banks shifted fre-quently. On the other hand, bank assets have been increasing since 2017, with assets reaching ₩2,977.6 trillion in 2020, up 10.6 percent from 2019. Most of the growth in banks’ assets came from borrowers’ loans and securities holdings, presently hovering around 70 percent. Between 2011 and 2020, the loans stayed higher than the deposits. In 2020, the overall liabilities of banks in South Korea were larger than the country’s GDP.
   6. Japanese banks had relatively low net earnings against their assets in terms of productivity, resulting in a poor return on assets (ROA). The highest ROA for all clusters of banks, both individually and collectively, was recorded in FY 2013-14. However, their ROA dropped in 2016-17 and 2019-2020. Nevertheless, Japanese banks earned a much higher ROE than their ROA. However, in 2020–2021, the overall bank ROE increased to 3.96 percent. Since 2010, the ROE of Regional Banks I and II has been lower than that of other banks. For Korean banks, the high-est ROA was in 2011, at 0.81 percent, and the lowest in 2016, at 0.11 percent. Banks’ ROA dropped dramatically in 2019 and 2020. Korean banks’ return on equity peaked in 2011 (9.81 percent) and troughed in 2016 (1.37 percent). In the year 2020, Covid-19 had a low ROE of 5.54 percent.
   7. Japanese banks’ ordinary profits peaked at 7.39 percent in 2014 and have steadily declined. However, the operational profit data from 2015 to 2020 has formed a U-shaped curve, indicating recent improvement. At the same time, banks' net incomes were significantly lower than their op-erating profits. QE-2 is perceived to be the significant underlying factor for their low NIs. When Covid-19 was at its most disruptive, however, the rate of net income increased to 1.84 percent in 2020, up from 1.11 percent the year before. In contrast, Korean banks had a difficult year in 2016, with NI falling by 43.18 percent from the previous year. However, net income improved over the next two years. Nonetheless, their net in-come has fallen since 2018, declining to ₩11 trillion in 2020.
   8. The efficiency of Japanese banks has remained low for a long time. From 2011 to 2021, none of the Japanese bank clusters met even the less strict efficiency standard of 60%. Even though Covid-19 might the-oretically cut operational expenses, Japanese banks’ overall efficiency ra-tio in 2021 was 83.9 percent. We are constrained by the Korean banks’ operational efficiency data. However, available data for 2020, the year of the COVID-19 outbreak, shows that most of them maintained an effi-ciency ratio of 60% or less.
   9. Since 2012, Japanese banks have reduced the percentage of non-performing loans to total loans. Between 2012 and 2020, however, the ratio fell from 2.4 to 1.1 percent. Due to Covid-19, the NPL ratio went marginally up to 1.2 percent in 2021. At the same time, Korean banks had significantly lower NPL ratios than Japanese banks. All banks’ total NPL was 0.25 percent of their loans in 2020. Banks in Japan and Korea are well-capitalized, evidenced by their good CARs. However, Japanese banks are better positioned with a higher ratio of CAR. The net interest margins (NIM) index clearly shows that Korean banks do better than their Japanese counterparts. However, in 2019 and 2020, the profitability index of Japanese and South Korean domestic banks fell.
   10. Despite their differences, the study revealed that Korean domestic banks could sustain better health indicators than their Japanese counterparts for much of the study period. Banks in Japan are trying to maintain bet-ter financial health with the ultra-low interest rates imposed by the QE-2 monetary policy. During Covid-19, the profitability and efficiency of the sector have been adversely affected. In contrast, Korean banks had the advantage of higher interest rates. They maintained a better degree of ef-ficiency, while their low nonperforming loans provided them with man-agerial strength, though Covid-19 seems to have marginally impacted their efficiency, profitability, and performance.

Executive Summary

1. Introduction
2. Structure of Banking Systems in Japan and South Korea
2.1 Japan
2.2 Korea

3. Literature Review
3.1 A Review of the Japanese Banking System
3.2 A Review of the Korean Banking System

4. Objectives and Methodology of the Study

5. Monetary Policy of BOJ and BOK Since 2010

6. Covid-19 and the Banking Health of Japan and South Korea
6.1 Portfolios of Banks in Japan and South Korea
6.2 Productivity of Assets and Stockholders’ Equity (ROA and ROE)
6.3 Profitability of Japanese and Korean Banks
6.4 Operating Efficiency

7. Banking Health in Pre-and Interim Period of Covid-19: A Comparative Analysis
7.1 Comparative Portfolios of Banks
7.2 Productivity of Banks
7.3 Efficiency Ratios and NPAs of Banks
7.4 Profitability

8. Conclusion and Policy Recommendations



분량/크기, 판매가격
분량/크기 73
판매가격 3000 원

구매하기 목록

같은 주제의 보고서

연구보고서 순대외금융자산이 경제안정과 금융 국제화에 미치는 영향 분석 2023-12-29 연구보고서 디지털금융을 통한 아프리카 금융포용성 개선 방안 연구 2023-12-30 연구자료 중국의 녹색금융 발전전략과 주요내용 2022-12-30 연구자료 국내외 ESG 평가사별 점수 비교: 국내 기업을 중심으로 2022-12-30 연구보고서 환율과 기초여건 간 괴리에 대한 연구: 시장심리를 중심으로 2021-12-30 연구보고서 국제사회의 부동산 보유세 논의 방향과 거시경제적 영향 분석 2021-12-30 ODA 정책연구 글로벌 ESG 동향 및 국가의 전략적 역할 2021-12-30 연구보고서 신용공급 변동이 경제성장 및 금융위기에 미치는 영향 2020-12-30 연구보고서 국내 증권시장에서 외국인 자금 이동 결정요인 분석: 금리와 환율을 중심으로 2020-12-30 연구보고서 환율과 경상수지의 구조적 변화와 정책방향 2020-12-30 연구보고서 중국 산업, 얼마나 强한가?: 중국 산업경쟁력의 미시적 토대 분석 2020-02-28 연구보고서 개방경제에서 인구구조 변화가 경상수지 및 대외자산 축적에 미치는 영향분석 및 정책적 시사점 2019-12-30 연구보고서 포용적 무역을 위한 중소기업의 국제화 정책방향 연구 2019-12-30 연구보고서 내국인 해외증권투자 확대가 외환시장에 미치는 영향 2019-12-30 APEC Study Series Asia-Pacific Stock Market Connectedness: A Network Approach 2019-10-31 APEC Study Series Asia-Pacific Stock Market Connectedness: A Network Approach 2019-10-31 연구자료 외화예금의 역할과 정책적 시사점 2019-08-26 Working paper The Effect of Export Insurance and Guarantees on Export Performance: An Empirical Analysis for Korea 2019-08-20 연구보고서 개방경제에서의 금융혁신 파급효과와 블록체인기술 발전의 시사점 2018-12-31 연구자료 중국 모바일 결제 플랫폼의 발전과 시사점: 알리바바 사례를 중심으로 2018-12-28
공공누리 OPEN / 공공저작물 자유이용허락 - 출처표시, 상업용금지, 변경금지 공공저작물 자유이용허락 표시기준 (공공누리, KOGL) 제4유형

대외경제정책연구원의 본 공공저작물은 "공공누리 제4유형 : 출처표시 + 상업적 금지 + 변경금지” 조건에 따라 이용할 수 있습니다. 저작권정책 참조

콘텐츠 만족도 조사

이 페이지에서 제공하는 정보에 대하여 만족하십니까?

콘텐츠 만족도 조사