# Analysis of Chinese Commercial Banks’ Risk Management Efficiency Based on the PCA-DEA Approach

Authors: Xiao Shi; Wenqi Yu
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

As a special type of enterprises with high risks, Chinese commercial banks’ risk management plays an important role in banks’ business process. Measuring and improving the risk management efficiency of the Chinese commercial banking system has recently attracted increasing interest. Previous studies analyze the business performance of commercial banks from the perspective of the overall management level of banks, and few articles focus on the risk management ability of banks. This paper evaluates the technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management by the DEA-BCC model with window analysis to come up with some recommendations for policy makers. The technical efficiency is then decomposed into pure technology efficiency and scale efficiency. According to the banking risk supervision indicators released by the China Banking Regulatory Commission, we choose the indicators of 26 commercial banks’ risk management during the period of 2011 to 2019. Principal component analysis (PCA) is applied to delete redundant input indicators. The paper gives a dynamic evaluation of technology efficiency, pure technology efficiency, and scale efficiency. The main empirical results are as follows: (1) the technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is low, and the differences among three different types of banks are large. (2) The pure technology inefficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management has become a key factor restricting the improvement of the risk management of the Chinese banking industry. (3) The Chinese commercial banks’ risk management faces a serious problem which is economies of scale. (4) The technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management fluctuate greatly, and management capabilities need to be enhanced urgently.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

In the past few years, the global economy has undergone tremendous changes. The international financial crisis that broke out in 2008 has aroused extensive thinking in the global financial industry. This once-in-a-century crisis shows that there are many shortcomings in the management of commercial banks, especially in the field of risk management and control, and there is still much room for development [1].Modern commercial banks have become the most important institutions which are responsible for fund collecting and distributing, and they are the hub of the entire national economy and social capital movement [2]. Their business activities have an important impact on the money supply of the whole society. At the same time, the state of assets and liabilities of commercial banks determines that they are a special type of enterprises with a distinctive feature of high risks, which are different from ordinary industrial or commercial enterprises [3,4]. The risks of commercial banks exist objectively, and these risks originate from all the businesses operated by the banks. The risks faced by commercial banks during their operational process mainly include liquidity risk, market risk, credit risk, operational risk, legal risk, reputation risk, and country risk [5,6]. Because the business objectives of commercial banks include profitability, liquidity, and safety, it is particularly important to strengthen the risk management of commercial banks. However, most of the existing literature studies analyze the business performance of commercial banks from the perspective of the overall management level of banks, and few articles focus on the risk management ability of banks.In the existing literature, there are many approaches for modeling bank’s efficiency, such as financial analysis, qualitative analysis, and quantitative analysis, but the following quantitative approaches are used more: parametric approach and nonparametric approach. The parametric approaches mainly include stochastic frontier analysis (SFA), thick frontier approach (TFA), and distribution-free approach (DFA). Among these approaches, researchers usually choose SFA to evaluate the efficiency of banks. Berger and DeYoung [7] used SFA and Granger causality test to explore the relationship between problem loans and bank efficiency. Mester [8] used the stochastic frontier analysis with loan loss as a proxy variable to measure the risk management efficiency of commercial banks. William and Chris [9] used SFA to study the cost-effectiveness level of 71 commercial banks in GCC member states from 1999 to 2007. The study showed that the efficiency level of banks was positively correlated with their profitability and negatively correlated with operating costs. Kallel et al. [10] used SFA to compare and analyze the banks’ efficiencies in Tunisia and Morocco from 2005 to 2014 and proposed an optimal cost model to improve bank efficiency. Nguyen et al. [11] applied two-stage stochastic frontier analysis to evaluate the cost efficiency of Vietnamese banks from 2000 to 2014. When using the parametric method to evaluate banks’ efficiencies, it reduces the sensitivity of the production frontier to random errors so that the efficiency evaluation results are less affected by the random error terms, and the results are more reliable. However, using the parametric method to model efficiency needs to preestimate the production function and the weight of each variable. In this process, it is inevitable to be affected by the subjective factors of the researchers, which makes the efficiency evaluation results biased.Thus, many scholars also choose nonparametric approaches to measure banks’ efficiencies. The main nonparametric methods include data envelopment analysis (DEA) and free permutation packet (FDH). Since DEA can handle the problems of multiple inputs and multiple outputs at the same time, it has the advantages of simplicity and computational rapidity compared with other methods [12–14]. As a result, in many previous studies, DEA has been widely applied to measure banks’ efficiencies. At first, researchers take the efficiencies of banks as a “black box,” which is called the traditional DEA model. For example, Haslem [15] used DEA to evaluate operating efficiencies of large US commercial banks in 1987 and 1992 and analyzed the trends and reasons for the changes of efficiency. Wang and Zhu [16] combined the idea of common boundary, revised the traditional DEA-Malmquist model, and proposed the Malmquist–Luenberger productivity index based on the common boundary. And they considered the impact of nonperforming loans as an undesired output. However, with the gradual deepening of people’s understanding, the traditional DEA model has been revised and improved. Some scholars proposed the multistage DEA model, which includes two-stage DEA and three-stage DEA. The two-stage DEA approach divided banks’ business process into two stages. The first stage used inputs to produce intermediates in the first stage, and the intermediates were then used in the second stage to generate final outputs, while three-stage DEA considered the influence of environmental factors so that the results are less affected by external factors. For example, Seiford and Zhu [17] divided the banks’ production process into the profitability stage and marketability stage, and they firstly proposed the two-stage DEA model to evaluate the efficiencies of banks. Chang and Chiu [18] used the two-stage DEA-Tobit analysis method to conclude whether or not to consider risk factors would significantly affect the efficiency of the results. Wang et al. [19] applied a new DEA approach, the additive multistage DEA model, and used this method to evaluate the performance of Chinese commercial banks. Zhao et al. [20] proposed a network slack-based measure with shared resources to evaluate the efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks. Chen et al. [21] applied network DEA by considering the inputs and outputs of a bank’s surrounding production processes as additional undesirable factors and integrated the dual nature of risks to evaluate banking efficiency.With the continuous improvement and development of DEA theory, more and more scholars combine the DEA method with other methods and put forward many new research methods to evaluate the performance of banks. Mensi et al. [22] used MF-DFA and MF-DXA methods to analyze the dynamic efficiency of Saudi Arabian banks. Lu et al. [23] used the AHP-DEA method to construct a comprehensive evaluation framework for risk management performance and analyzed the risk management performance of Chinese commercial banks. Xu and Zhou [24] proposed a two-stage AR-DEA model which combined the DEA method and assurance region (AR) restrictions, which overcame the shortcomings of the traditional DEA model. Shi et al. [25] combined the parallel structure with the serial structure and considered the impact of deposit reserves and nonperforming loans on the performance of commercial banks, making the paper more in line with China’s reality. However, most of the existing literature studies concentrate on evaluating the operational performance of commercial banks, while few literature studies systematically evaluate the efficiency of the risk management of banks. And even if risk factors are considered, there are still many literature studies that only use a single indicator to replace all the risks faced by commercial banks, and the efficiency evaluation methods are not comprehensive. As a result, it is impossible to accurately evaluate the bank’s risk management performance. Thus, it is necessary to consider all comprehensive indicators to evaluate the bank’s risk management performance. However, if all comprehensive indicators are considered, too many indicators may diminish the discriminating power of DEA as too many DMUs’ efficiencies are one. So, principal component analysis (PCA) is applied with DEA to consider comprehensive indicators. Furthermore, most of the literature studies only analyze the risk management performance of commercial banks from a static perspective, and very few studies analyze the risk management from a dynamic perspective.Thus, to overcome the above problems and provide some feasible suggestions for the risk management of the Chinese commercial banking industry, this paper uses the DEA-BCC model, principal component analysis (PCA), and DEA window analysis methods to dynamically analyze the risk management efficiency of Chinese commercial banks. The selection of variables refers to the banking risk supervision indicators released by the China Banking Regulatory Commission. The results could help us explore the reasons for the low efficiency of risk management and provide some suggestions for improving the performance of Chinese commercial bank’s risk management.The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The basic DEA models, the principal component analysis (PCA), and window analysis are illustrated in Section2. Section 3 interprets the data sources, describes the variables, and presents the empirical results. The conclusions and policy suggestions are given in Section 4.


## 2. Research Method

### 2.1. Data Envelopment Analysis Model

To evaluate the relative efficiencies of comparable units, the DEA method proposed by Charnes and Cooper [26] is used. The method is a quantitative analysis method. Assume that each decision-making unit (DMU) has m inputs and s outputs. The input variable vector of the ith decision-making unit is denoted by Xiv=x1i,x2i,……,xmiT, and the output variable vector is denoted by yiu=y1i,y2i,……,ysiT, where v and u represent the weight vector of the input and output, respectively. The DEA model can be divided into the BCC model with variable returns to scale and the CCR model with constant returns to scale. The CCR model can be expressed by the following formulas:(1)minθ=hi0≤1∑i=1Nxiλi≤θxi0∑i=1Nyiλi≥yi0λi≥0,i=1,2,…,N.Record the optimal solution asθ∗. If θ∗ = 1, it means that the decision-making unit is effective; if θ∗ <1, it means that the decision-making unit is inefficient. For equation (1), if ∑i=1Nλi>1, it means that, with inputs increasing, the proportion of output growth is greater than the proportion of input growth. This situation is called increasing returns to scale. On the contrary, if ∑i=1Nλi<1, it means that, with inputs increasing, the proportion of output increase is less than the proportion of input growth. This situation is called diminishing returns to scale. If the constraint condition in equation (1) is strengthened to ∑i=1Nλi=1, then we will obtain the BCC model. The BCC model is expressed as follows:(2)minθ=hi0≤1∑i=1Nxiλi≤θxi0∑i=1Nyiλi≥yi0∑i=1Nλi=1λi≥0,i=1,2,…,N.Fixed assets, operating expenses, and other inputs can be independently controlled by the commercial banks, while profits, nonperforming loans, and other inputs are largely influenced by the banks’ inputs and external factors. At the same time, most of the previous studies use the BCC model to analyze the performance of banks; this paper also selects the input-based BCC model to analyze the technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management.


### 2.2. Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a multivariate statistical method to investigate the correlation among multiple variables [27]. It studies how to reveal the internal structure of multiple variables by a few principal components so that they retain the information of the original variables as much as possible. At the same time, they are not correlated with each other. The usual mathematical treatment is to take the original N indicators as a linear combination, and the combination is seen as a new composite index. Its expression is as follows:(3)FN=a1i∗ZX1+a2i∗ZX2+⋯⋯+ani∗ZXn,where a1i,a2i……,ani are the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue of the covariance matrix of X and ZX1,ZX2,……,ZXn are the normalized value of the original variablesX1,X2……,Xn.Since there are many input indicators used in the risk management efficiency evaluation in this paper, there may be different degrees of correlation between various indicators. This paper adopts principal component analysis (PCA) to eliminate duplicate information among input indicators.


### 2.3. Window Analysis

The DEA window analysis method treats the data of the same DMUs in adjacent periods as different decision-making units [28]. The method is a variation of the traditional DEA approach that can handle cross-sectional and time-varying data so as to measure dynamic effects. The basic principle is as follows. Suppose there are n decision-making units and d windows, the width of each window is ω, and the time span is T. It is necessary to establish T−ω−1 windows for efficiency measurement, and each window has n∗ω DMUs, and each decision-making unit has d∗ω observation variables. The input matrix of this window with width ω starting from time t is(4)Xtω=x1t,x2t,…,xnt,x1t+1,x2t+1,…,xnt+1,…,x1t+ω−1,x2t+ω−1,…,xnt+ω−1,t=1,2,...,T.The output matrix is(5)Ytω=y1t,y2t,…,ynt,y1t+1,y2t+1,…,ynt+1,…,y1t+ω−1,y2t+ω−1,…,ynt+ω−1,t=1,2,...,T.In this paper, width of each windowω is 3, and its DEA window analysis example is shown in Table 1.Table 1
DEA window analysis example (ω = 3).
Windowt = 1t = 2t = 3t = 4t = 5…t = T − 4t = T − 3t = T − 2t = T − 1t = TWindow 1E1,1E1,2E1,3Window 2E2,1E2,2E2,3…WindowT − ωET−ω,1ET−ω,2ET−ω,3WindowT − ω + 1ET−ω+1,1ET−ω+1,2ET−ω+1,3The entire proposed procedure of calculating the Chinese commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies is depicted in Figure1. The proposed algorithm is summarized as follows: first, we choose the risk evaluation index. Second, we use the PCA method to obtain the total value of each commercial bank’s risk input. Third, we run the BCC model to evaluate Chinese commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies. Last, window analysis with DEA is applied to dynamically evaluate the Chinese commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies and make dynamic analysis.Figure 1
The flowchart of calculating the risk management efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks.


## 2.1. Data Envelopment Analysis Model

To evaluate the relative efficiencies of comparable units, the DEA method proposed by Charnes and Cooper [26] is used. The method is a quantitative analysis method. Assume that each decision-making unit (DMU) has m inputs and s outputs. The input variable vector of the ith decision-making unit is denoted by Xiv=x1i,x2i,……,xmiT, and the output variable vector is denoted by yiu=y1i,y2i,……,ysiT, where v and u represent the weight vector of the input and output, respectively. The DEA model can be divided into the BCC model with variable returns to scale and the CCR model with constant returns to scale. The CCR model can be expressed by the following formulas:(1)minθ=hi0≤1∑i=1Nxiλi≤θxi0∑i=1Nyiλi≥yi0λi≥0,i=1,2,…,N.Record the optimal solution asθ∗. If θ∗ = 1, it means that the decision-making unit is effective; if θ∗ <1, it means that the decision-making unit is inefficient. For equation (1), if ∑i=1Nλi>1, it means that, with inputs increasing, the proportion of output growth is greater than the proportion of input growth. This situation is called increasing returns to scale. On the contrary, if ∑i=1Nλi<1, it means that, with inputs increasing, the proportion of output increase is less than the proportion of input growth. This situation is called diminishing returns to scale. If the constraint condition in equation (1) is strengthened to ∑i=1Nλi=1, then we will obtain the BCC model. The BCC model is expressed as follows:(2)minθ=hi0≤1∑i=1Nxiλi≤θxi0∑i=1Nyiλi≥yi0∑i=1Nλi=1λi≥0,i=1,2,…,N.Fixed assets, operating expenses, and other inputs can be independently controlled by the commercial banks, while profits, nonperforming loans, and other inputs are largely influenced by the banks’ inputs and external factors. At the same time, most of the previous studies use the BCC model to analyze the performance of banks; this paper also selects the input-based BCC model to analyze the technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management.


## 2.2. Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) is a multivariate statistical method to investigate the correlation among multiple variables [27]. It studies how to reveal the internal structure of multiple variables by a few principal components so that they retain the information of the original variables as much as possible. At the same time, they are not correlated with each other. The usual mathematical treatment is to take the original N indicators as a linear combination, and the combination is seen as a new composite index. Its expression is as follows:(3)FN=a1i∗ZX1+a2i∗ZX2+⋯⋯+ani∗ZXn,where a1i,a2i……,ani are the eigenvectors corresponding to the eigenvalue of the covariance matrix of X and ZX1,ZX2,……,ZXn are the normalized value of the original variablesX1,X2……,Xn.Since there are many input indicators used in the risk management efficiency evaluation in this paper, there may be different degrees of correlation between various indicators. This paper adopts principal component analysis (PCA) to eliminate duplicate information among input indicators.


## 2.3. Window Analysis

The DEA window analysis method treats the data of the same DMUs in adjacent periods as different decision-making units [28]. The method is a variation of the traditional DEA approach that can handle cross-sectional and time-varying data so as to measure dynamic effects. The basic principle is as follows. Suppose there are n decision-making units and d windows, the width of each window is ω, and the time span is T. It is necessary to establish T−ω−1 windows for efficiency measurement, and each window has n∗ω DMUs, and each decision-making unit has d∗ω observation variables. The input matrix of this window with width ω starting from time t is(4)Xtω=x1t,x2t,…,xnt,x1t+1,x2t+1,…,xnt+1,…,x1t+ω−1,x2t+ω−1,…,xnt+ω−1,t=1,2,...,T.The output matrix is(5)Ytω=y1t,y2t,…,ynt,y1t+1,y2t+1,…,ynt+1,…,y1t+ω−1,y2t+ω−1,…,ynt+ω−1,t=1,2,...,T.In this paper, width of each windowω is 3, and its DEA window analysis example is shown in Table 1.Table 1
DEA window analysis example (ω = 3).
Windowt = 1t = 2t = 3t = 4t = 5…t = T − 4t = T − 3t = T − 2t = T − 1t = TWindow 1E1,1E1,2E1,3Window 2E2,1E2,2E2,3…WindowT − ωET−ω,1ET−ω,2ET−ω,3WindowT − ω + 1ET−ω+1,1ET−ω+1,2ET−ω+1,3The entire proposed procedure of calculating the Chinese commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies is depicted in Figure1. The proposed algorithm is summarized as follows: first, we choose the risk evaluation index. Second, we use the PCA method to obtain the total value of each commercial bank’s risk input. Third, we run the BCC model to evaluate Chinese commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies. Last, window analysis with DEA is applied to dynamically evaluate the Chinese commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies and make dynamic analysis.Figure 1
The flowchart of calculating the risk management efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks.


## 3. Empirical Analysis

### 3.1. Data and Variables

In this paper, 26 stock-listed Chinese Commercial banks over periods of 2011–2019 are considered. These banks are grouped into three types: 5 stated-owned banks (SOBs), 8 joint-stock commercial banks (JSBs), and 13 city commercial banks. These “big five” state-owned banks are the Bank of China (BOC), China Construction Bank (CCB), Industry and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), Agricultural Bank of China (ABC), and Bank of Communications (BCM). The 8 joint-stock commercial banks are Shanghai Pudong Development Bank (SPDB), China Merchants Bank (CMB), Ping An Bank (PAB), China Minsheng Bank (CMBC), China CITIC Bank (CNCB), Huaxia Bank (HXB), Industrial Bank (IB), and China Everbright Bank (CEB). The 13 city commercial banks are Beijing Bank (BJB), Changsha Bank (CSB), Chengdu Bank (CDB), Qingdao Bank (QDB), Suzhou Bank (SZB), Xian Bank (XAB), Zhengzhou Bank (ZZB), Hangzhou Bank (HZB), Guiyang Bank (GYB), Jiangsu Bank (JSB), Ningbo Bank (NBB), Nanjing Bank (NJB), and Shanghai Bank (SHB).According to the banking risk supervision indicators released by the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the risk management indicators of commercial banks are divided into three levels: risk level, risk migration ability, and risk compensation ability. As mentioned earlier, commercial banks are high-risk enterprises and face various risks in their business activities. This paper selects three risks (i.e., liquidity risk, credit risk, and market risk) to measure the risk level of Chinese commercial banks. Among them, the indicator for measuring liquidity risk is the liquidity ratio, the indicator for measuring credit risk is the ratio of loans to the top ten customers and the concentration of loans to a single customer, and the indicator for measuring market risk is the provision coverage ratio and the loan-to-deposit ratio. The risk migration ability of a commercial bank refers to the ratio of the bank’s asset quality from the base period to the current period. It includes two indicators: the migration rate of normal loans and the migration rate of nonperforming loans. Risk offsetting ability measures banks of the ability to offset risk losses. This paper selects three indicators to measure the ability: capital adequacy ratio, cost-to-income ratio, and loan reserve for doubtful debts.In fact, commercial banks are a special kind of enterprise; their ultimate goal is to maximize profits and maximize shareholders’ equity. Therefore, this paper chooses three indicators as the output indicators of the commercial bank’s risk management process: operating income growth rate, net profit growth rate, and return on net assets (ROE). All data are obtained from the wind database and the annual reports of Chinese commercial banks. Table2 shows the input and output indicators of evaluating the Chinese commercial banks’ risk management performance.Table 2
The input and output indicators of risk management efficiency.
The types of DEA indicatorsThe name of the indicatorThe meaning of the indicatorInputsThe liquidity ratioTo measure liquidity riskThe ratio of loans to the top ten customersTo measure credit riskThe concentration of loans to a single customerThe provision coverage ratioTo measure market riskThe loan-to-deposit ratioThe migration rate of normal loansTo measure changes in the asset quality of commercial banksThe migration rate of nonperforming loansCapital adequacy ratioTo measure the capital adequacy of commercial banksCost-to-income ratioTo measure the profitability of commercial banksLoan reserve for doubtful debtsTo measure the adequacy of banks’ reservesOutputsOperating income growth rateTo measure the profitability of commercial banksNet profit growth rateReturn on net assetsTo measure the returns of shareholdersSince there are many input indicators used in the risk management efficiency evaluation in this paper, there may be different degrees of correlation between various indicators. If they are not dealt with correctly, the final result will be distorted. In order to eliminate the influence of multicollinearity, this paper adopts principal component analysis (PCA) to eliminate duplicate information among input indicators. By using this approach, we will obtain the total input value of the risk management investment scores of 26 commercial banks. Table3 shows the total value of the risk input of each commercial bank in each year.Table 3
The total value of the risk input of each commercial bank.
Bank201120122013201420152016201720182019BOC0.79080.60500.47110.68731.02740.65960.80030.84210.7168CCB0.76680.60570.73080.93791.61151.02571.12021.08880.7384ABC0.97600.76610.88251.27082.15831.14321.26171.50321.1257BCM0.29320.46230.58280.30850.49800.64220.56941.04620.9678ICBC0.85540.54050.56931.00951.48330.75770.97860.98310.9704SPDB0.24740.55460.25340.28680.07760.60310.10870.33850.1564CMB0.49400.63170.45460.56620.70590.88000.99380.86651.0556PAB0.39211.08380.09830.39250.68030.45660.12821.09440.8183CEB0.79260.49960.59010.63550.87250.39590.45950.62900.7669IB0.66130.64581.04851.14810.46570.91900.64980.68990.5805CITIC0.65290.49600.61630.23510.76660.56090.41560.50320.3236CMBC0.66700.44110.33370.10570.36040.15890.13970.12470.3704HXB1.02591.10580.86070.70760.64470.02920.48320.22040.3025BJB0.87110.66360.48521.31690.86201.01970.43230.97760.9563CSB2.06972.41682.25351.65110.92421.65651.68341.50810.9971CDB1.49561.41741.52991.61891.54831.75311.38061.60691.6263QDB1.76671.64041.94241.79121.59540.92781.79150.65001.8726SZB1.60661.89722.11180.95011.05321.40071.14470.81670.7895XAB2.84762.03111.53281.99622.07921.77711.03491.01691.4856ZZB1.21811.20611.11171.54010.91861.20381.58821.09841.2111HZB0.96660.81520.62920.66870.77160.58291.43011.55491.5682GYB1.16001.53171.44282.00731.62172.13421.31742.43351.9186JSB0.88091.05141.03660.50700.48740.69320.78830.34470.7410NBB0.81851.11291.45010.83290.40450.67952.05991.19360.6077NJB0.83690.87470.95061.37830.74981.53821.49031.49421.0821SHB0.57630.54930.75821.19201.12411.55871.26651.37442.2508The descriptive statistics of input and output indicators chosen for evaluating the risk management efficiency after the principal component analysis (PCA) are shown in Table4. Table 4 shows that the data vary greatly. For example, the score of risk inputs ranges from 0.0292 to 2.8476. Thus, the effect of scale on the risk management efficiency should be considered. The VRS assumption should be considered in the model.Table 4
Descriptive statistics of indicators of risk management.
IndicatorsNumberMaximumMinimumMeanStdvThe score of the risk input2342.84760.02921.00120.5271Net profit growth rate2340.6949−0.28530.15510.1439Operating income growth rate2340.6494−0.10890.17730.1379ROE2340.29480.08270.16980.4495


### 3.2. Empirical Results’ Analysis

By using MATLAB software to solve the BCC model, the technical efficiency (TE), pure technical efficiency (PTE), and scale efficiency (SE) of 26 Chinese commercial banks’ risk management from 2011 to 2019 can be obtained. The three types of Chinese commercial banks’ overall efficiencies of risk management and their changes from 2011 to 2019 are shown in Table5 and Figure 1.Table 5
The overall efficiency results of banks in China.
YearTechnical efficiencyTypes of Chinese commercial banksState-owned banksJoint-stock banksCity commercial banks2011TE0.40820.53180.2684Stdv0.21880.21290.01772012TE0.38060.49930.2913Stdv0.05680.19730.13202013TE0.26700.42370.1948Stdv0.05710.23300.09182014TE0.11350.34330.1458Stdv0.05340.20740.04672015TE0.03870.20420.1403Stdv0.02050.25580.09732016TE0.03210.18570.0762Stdv0.00490.31070.04992017TE0.07810.21510.1610Stdv0.02130.15780.11692018TE0.08500.28280.2057Stdv0.01100.15670.12102019TE0.16280.58750.3492Stdv0.02600.20250.2106From Table5, it could be found that the overall technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management was not high, and the average efficiency was less than 0.5 from 2011 to 2019. From the perspective of different types of banks, the joint-stock commercial banks have the highest technical efficiency of risk management with an average of 0.3637. The average technical efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management is 0.2036, while the technical efficiency of the state-owned commercial banks’ risk management is the lowest at 0.1740. The efficiency difference of the joint-stock commercial banks is large as the standard deviation is large. The difference in the efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management has been shrinking over time, while the difference in the efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management has shown a trend of increasing year by year. This shows that the gap in the risk management level between state-owned commercial banks is shrinking, and the gaps in the risk management level between joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks are expanding. However, it cannot be simply generalized and should be analyzed in detail based on the internal and external environmental factors.From Figure2, it could be seen that although the technical efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management is declining since 2012, it has improved from 0.5318 in 2011 to 0.5875 in 2019 with an increase of 10.47%. In the recent nine years, the technical efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management has changed the most, which is from 0.2684 in 2011 to 0.3492 in 2019 with an increase of 30.10%, while the technical efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management has shown a clear declining trend, which drops from 0.4082 in 2011 to 0.1628 in 2019 with a drop of 60.11%.Figure 2
The average overall efficiencies of three types of commercial banks.Pure technology efficiency refers to the production efficiency of the decision-making units which is affected by management and technology. According to the results of DEA window analysis, three types of Chinese commercial banks’ pure technology efficiency measurement results and efficiency changes from 2011 to 2019 in risk management are shown in Table6 and Figure 2.Table 6
Pure technology efficiency results of three types of commercial banks.
Bank201120122013201420152016201720182019MeanSOB0.43720.41100.27640.13300.04320.03210.08650.09910.16700.1873JSB0.74640.61070.56520.54760.30650.22780.24810.38740.69700.4818CCB0.46930.45290.26530.35760.41150.27450.32700.48070.48990.3921From Table6, it can be seen that the average pure technology efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is not high. State-owned commercial banks’ pure technology efficiency is the lowest, which is only 0.1873.From Figure3, it could be seen that the pure technology efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management has shown a declining trend year by year since 2012. However, since 2017, its pure technology efficiency has increased again, but there is still a small margin compared with 2012. The pure technology efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management has changed relatively smoothly in the past nine years, but the pure technology efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management has shown a clear declining trend. In the past nine years, state-owned banks have been pure technology inefficient for many years. Its pure technology efficiency dropped from 0.4372 in 2011 to 0.1670 in 2019, with a drop of 61.80%.Figure 3
The average pure technology efficiencies of three types of commercial banks.Scale efficiency refers to the production efficiency affected by the size of the decision-making unit. Analyzing and evaluating the scale efficiency of the decision-making unit are beneficial to help the decision-making unit adjust the scale of inputs and outputs, thereby improving the production efficiency of the DMU. From 2011 to 2019, the scale efficiency results and their changes in Chinese commercial banks’ risk management are shown in Table7 and Figure 3.Table 7
Scale efficiency results of three types of commercial banks.
Bank201120122013201420152016201720182019MeanSOB0.92950.94250.96670.82670.87030.99930.89400.86740.97640.9192JSB0.73330.85150.74870.63460.69240.71170.89230.75920.83130.7617CCB0.67830.76110.74830.54020.53770.45300.69280.51020.74540.6297From Table7, it can be seen that the scale efficiency of stated-owned banks’ risk management is the largest, with an average of 0.9192, indicating that the overall scale of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management is relatively reasonable. In comparison, the scale efficiencies of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management and city commercial banks’ risk management are relatively low. The average scale efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management is 0.7617. The average scale efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management is the lowest, which is 0.6297. It indicates that joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks have certain irrationalities in the scale of risk management.From Figure4, it could be concluded that the scale efficiency of Chinese three types of commercial banks’ risk management has not changed much in the past nine years. However, compared with state-owned commercial banks and joint-stock commercial banks, city commercial banks have greater fluctuations in the scale efficiency of risk management.Figure 4
The average scale efficiencies of three types of commercial banks.Overall, it can be seen that the main reason for the low technical efficiency of Chinese state-owned commercial banks’ risk management is the low pure technology efficiency. The main reason for the low technical efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management and city commercial banks’ risk management is due to low scale efficiency.The technical efficiencies, pure technology efficiencies, scale efficiencies, the ranking of technical efficiencies, and the return to scale of 26 Chinese commercial banks’ risk management are documented in Table8. We show the technical efficiencies, pure technology efficiencies, and scale efficiencies in years 2011 and 2019 here as the space is limited. It should be noted that the ranking is based on the average of the technical efficiency in the past nine years. The technical efficiency is the product of pure technology efficiency and scale efficiency. The efficiency decomposition of a DMU is conducive to analyzing the reasons for the low or high efficiency from two aspects of technical factors and scale factors. This helps to maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses, which is conducive to promoting the future development of the DMU.Table 8
The efficiencies and efficiency rankings of 26 Chinese commercial banks.
BankRank20112019Return to scaleTEPTESETEPTESESPDB11.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000—CMBC20.51591.00000.51590.54960.71960.7638+HXB30.30780.45330.67910.77200.97370.7928+NBB40.28990.28991.00001.00001.00001.0000—CMB50.59300.94610.62680.39670.52930.7494+CNCB60.39780.49430.80470.69090.74310.9297+JSB70.34380.53000.64870.50361.00000.5036−CEB80.31680.32820.96540.40970.57060.7181−IB90.45320.74890.60510.42180.52820.7985+CMB100.84040.84041.00000.14930.14930.9998−PAB110.66981.00000.66980.45960.51170.8981−NJB120.33180.37210.89160.32140.47590.6753−ZZB130.27970.39730.70410.23240.33070.7029−HZB140.35170.47420.74160.38280.60250.6354−SHB150.36800.36801.00000.15220.15221.0000—BJB160.26760.26760.99990.21590.24170.8932−CDB170.19930.36990.53890.32250.32480.9931+GYB180.26970.53920.50030.18690.35990.5192+QDB190.22340.31640.70610.21920.47030.4660−BOC200.27330.27330.99990.18070.18070.9998−ICBC210.32510.41760.77840.15610.17380.8979+CCB220.34850.40100.86910.20160.20470.9848+SZB230.27511.00000.27510.37980.58270.6518−CSB240.17651.00000.17650.37990.58530.6490−ABC250.25380.25381.00000.12640.12640.9997−XAB260.11230.17680.63530.24280.24281.0000+Note. “----” means that the return to scale is unchanged; “−” means that the return to scale is decreasing; “+” means that the return to scale is increasing.From Table8, we can see that the technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management are not high (only one bank has a technical efficiency of 1). And about half of the commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies have decreasing returns to scale, indicating that most Chinese commercial banks do not make full use of risk management elements. Among the 26 commercial banks, SPDB, CNCB, HXB, NBB, and CMB have relatively high risk management efficiency, while the average risk management efficiency of CSB, ABC, and XAB is relatively low.


### 3.3. Implications of Empirical Results

According to the empirical analysis in Section3.2, some conclusions could be drawn as follows:(1)
The technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is low, and the differences among three different types of banks are large. It can be seen that the technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is low, and there is more space for improvement in the future. From the perspective of different types of commercial banks, joint-stock commercial banks have the highest risk management efficiency. The main reason is that the pure technology efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks is the highest compared to the other two types of commercial banks. The overall efficiency of the risk management of city commercial banks ranks second. It is because that city commercial banks have relatively high pure technology efficiency in risk management. Due to their low pure technology efficiency, state-owned commercial banks have the lowest overall efficiency. Therefore, for three different types of commercial banks, to improve the efficiency of risk management, the basic idea is as follows: joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks need to adjust the scale of risk management investment while improving the pure technology efficiency of risk management. As for state-owned commercial banks, efforts should be made to improve the pure technology efficiency of risk management while maintaining the existing scale efficiency.(2)
The pure technology inefficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management has become a key factor restricting the improvement of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management level. From 2011 to 2019, the average of pure technology efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management was 0.1873, which was less than 0.2. The risk management efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks was relatively high, being 0.4818 and 0.3921, respectively, but still less than 0.5. The average scale efficiency of the aforementioned 26 commercial banks’ risk management is 0.7702, which is far greater than their pure technology efficiency. This shows that the main reason for the low efficiency of risk management is the low pure technology efficiency of each bank’s risk management.(3)
Chinese commercial banks’ risk management faces a serious problem which is economies of scale. About 50%–60% of Chinese commercial banks have diminishing returns to scale in risk management, which shows that large amounts of Chinese commercial banks have a scale economy problem, and the utilization of risk management inputs is not high. There is a lot of redundancy and waste in inputs.(4)
The technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management fluctuate greatly during years 2011 to 2019, and management capabilities need to be enhanced urgently. This shows that Chinese commercial banks have poor risk management capabilities. The internal and external environmental changes have insufficient responsiveness and coping ability. Therefore, it is urgent to strengthen the risk management of commercial banks.


## 3.1. Data and Variables

In this paper, 26 stock-listed Chinese Commercial banks over periods of 2011–2019 are considered. These banks are grouped into three types: 5 stated-owned banks (SOBs), 8 joint-stock commercial banks (JSBs), and 13 city commercial banks. These “big five” state-owned banks are the Bank of China (BOC), China Construction Bank (CCB), Industry and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), Agricultural Bank of China (ABC), and Bank of Communications (BCM). The 8 joint-stock commercial banks are Shanghai Pudong Development Bank (SPDB), China Merchants Bank (CMB), Ping An Bank (PAB), China Minsheng Bank (CMBC), China CITIC Bank (CNCB), Huaxia Bank (HXB), Industrial Bank (IB), and China Everbright Bank (CEB). The 13 city commercial banks are Beijing Bank (BJB), Changsha Bank (CSB), Chengdu Bank (CDB), Qingdao Bank (QDB), Suzhou Bank (SZB), Xian Bank (XAB), Zhengzhou Bank (ZZB), Hangzhou Bank (HZB), Guiyang Bank (GYB), Jiangsu Bank (JSB), Ningbo Bank (NBB), Nanjing Bank (NJB), and Shanghai Bank (SHB).According to the banking risk supervision indicators released by the China Banking Regulatory Commission, the risk management indicators of commercial banks are divided into three levels: risk level, risk migration ability, and risk compensation ability. As mentioned earlier, commercial banks are high-risk enterprises and face various risks in their business activities. This paper selects three risks (i.e., liquidity risk, credit risk, and market risk) to measure the risk level of Chinese commercial banks. Among them, the indicator for measuring liquidity risk is the liquidity ratio, the indicator for measuring credit risk is the ratio of loans to the top ten customers and the concentration of loans to a single customer, and the indicator for measuring market risk is the provision coverage ratio and the loan-to-deposit ratio. The risk migration ability of a commercial bank refers to the ratio of the bank’s asset quality from the base period to the current period. It includes two indicators: the migration rate of normal loans and the migration rate of nonperforming loans. Risk offsetting ability measures banks of the ability to offset risk losses. This paper selects three indicators to measure the ability: capital adequacy ratio, cost-to-income ratio, and loan reserve for doubtful debts.In fact, commercial banks are a special kind of enterprise; their ultimate goal is to maximize profits and maximize shareholders’ equity. Therefore, this paper chooses three indicators as the output indicators of the commercial bank’s risk management process: operating income growth rate, net profit growth rate, and return on net assets (ROE). All data are obtained from the wind database and the annual reports of Chinese commercial banks. Table2 shows the input and output indicators of evaluating the Chinese commercial banks’ risk management performance.Table 2
The input and output indicators of risk management efficiency.
The types of DEA indicatorsThe name of the indicatorThe meaning of the indicatorInputsThe liquidity ratioTo measure liquidity riskThe ratio of loans to the top ten customersTo measure credit riskThe concentration of loans to a single customerThe provision coverage ratioTo measure market riskThe loan-to-deposit ratioThe migration rate of normal loansTo measure changes in the asset quality of commercial banksThe migration rate of nonperforming loansCapital adequacy ratioTo measure the capital adequacy of commercial banksCost-to-income ratioTo measure the profitability of commercial banksLoan reserve for doubtful debtsTo measure the adequacy of banks’ reservesOutputsOperating income growth rateTo measure the profitability of commercial banksNet profit growth rateReturn on net assetsTo measure the returns of shareholdersSince there are many input indicators used in the risk management efficiency evaluation in this paper, there may be different degrees of correlation between various indicators. If they are not dealt with correctly, the final result will be distorted. In order to eliminate the influence of multicollinearity, this paper adopts principal component analysis (PCA) to eliminate duplicate information among input indicators. By using this approach, we will obtain the total input value of the risk management investment scores of 26 commercial banks. Table3 shows the total value of the risk input of each commercial bank in each year.Table 3
The total value of the risk input of each commercial bank.
Bank201120122013201420152016201720182019BOC0.79080.60500.47110.68731.02740.65960.80030.84210.7168CCB0.76680.60570.73080.93791.61151.02571.12021.08880.7384ABC0.97600.76610.88251.27082.15831.14321.26171.50321.1257BCM0.29320.46230.58280.30850.49800.64220.56941.04620.9678ICBC0.85540.54050.56931.00951.48330.75770.97860.98310.9704SPDB0.24740.55460.25340.28680.07760.60310.10870.33850.1564CMB0.49400.63170.45460.56620.70590.88000.99380.86651.0556PAB0.39211.08380.09830.39250.68030.45660.12821.09440.8183CEB0.79260.49960.59010.63550.87250.39590.45950.62900.7669IB0.66130.64581.04851.14810.46570.91900.64980.68990.5805CITIC0.65290.49600.61630.23510.76660.56090.41560.50320.3236CMBC0.66700.44110.33370.10570.36040.15890.13970.12470.3704HXB1.02591.10580.86070.70760.64470.02920.48320.22040.3025BJB0.87110.66360.48521.31690.86201.01970.43230.97760.9563CSB2.06972.41682.25351.65110.92421.65651.68341.50810.9971CDB1.49561.41741.52991.61891.54831.75311.38061.60691.6263QDB1.76671.64041.94241.79121.59540.92781.79150.65001.8726SZB1.60661.89722.11180.95011.05321.40071.14470.81670.7895XAB2.84762.03111.53281.99622.07921.77711.03491.01691.4856ZZB1.21811.20611.11171.54010.91861.20381.58821.09841.2111HZB0.96660.81520.62920.66870.77160.58291.43011.55491.5682GYB1.16001.53171.44282.00731.62172.13421.31742.43351.9186JSB0.88091.05141.03660.50700.48740.69320.78830.34470.7410NBB0.81851.11291.45010.83290.40450.67952.05991.19360.6077NJB0.83690.87470.95061.37830.74981.53821.49031.49421.0821SHB0.57630.54930.75821.19201.12411.55871.26651.37442.2508The descriptive statistics of input and output indicators chosen for evaluating the risk management efficiency after the principal component analysis (PCA) are shown in Table4. Table 4 shows that the data vary greatly. For example, the score of risk inputs ranges from 0.0292 to 2.8476. Thus, the effect of scale on the risk management efficiency should be considered. The VRS assumption should be considered in the model.Table 4
Descriptive statistics of indicators of risk management.
IndicatorsNumberMaximumMinimumMeanStdvThe score of the risk input2342.84760.02921.00120.5271Net profit growth rate2340.6949−0.28530.15510.1439Operating income growth rate2340.6494−0.10890.17730.1379ROE2340.29480.08270.16980.4495


## 3.2. Empirical Results’ Analysis

By using MATLAB software to solve the BCC model, the technical efficiency (TE), pure technical efficiency (PTE), and scale efficiency (SE) of 26 Chinese commercial banks’ risk management from 2011 to 2019 can be obtained. The three types of Chinese commercial banks’ overall efficiencies of risk management and their changes from 2011 to 2019 are shown in Table5 and Figure 1.Table 5
The overall efficiency results of banks in China.
YearTechnical efficiencyTypes of Chinese commercial banksState-owned banksJoint-stock banksCity commercial banks2011TE0.40820.53180.2684Stdv0.21880.21290.01772012TE0.38060.49930.2913Stdv0.05680.19730.13202013TE0.26700.42370.1948Stdv0.05710.23300.09182014TE0.11350.34330.1458Stdv0.05340.20740.04672015TE0.03870.20420.1403Stdv0.02050.25580.09732016TE0.03210.18570.0762Stdv0.00490.31070.04992017TE0.07810.21510.1610Stdv0.02130.15780.11692018TE0.08500.28280.2057Stdv0.01100.15670.12102019TE0.16280.58750.3492Stdv0.02600.20250.2106From Table5, it could be found that the overall technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management was not high, and the average efficiency was less than 0.5 from 2011 to 2019. From the perspective of different types of banks, the joint-stock commercial banks have the highest technical efficiency of risk management with an average of 0.3637. The average technical efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management is 0.2036, while the technical efficiency of the state-owned commercial banks’ risk management is the lowest at 0.1740. The efficiency difference of the joint-stock commercial banks is large as the standard deviation is large. The difference in the efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management has been shrinking over time, while the difference in the efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management has shown a trend of increasing year by year. This shows that the gap in the risk management level between state-owned commercial banks is shrinking, and the gaps in the risk management level between joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks are expanding. However, it cannot be simply generalized and should be analyzed in detail based on the internal and external environmental factors.From Figure2, it could be seen that although the technical efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management is declining since 2012, it has improved from 0.5318 in 2011 to 0.5875 in 2019 with an increase of 10.47%. In the recent nine years, the technical efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management has changed the most, which is from 0.2684 in 2011 to 0.3492 in 2019 with an increase of 30.10%, while the technical efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management has shown a clear declining trend, which drops from 0.4082 in 2011 to 0.1628 in 2019 with a drop of 60.11%.Figure 2
The average overall efficiencies of three types of commercial banks.Pure technology efficiency refers to the production efficiency of the decision-making units which is affected by management and technology. According to the results of DEA window analysis, three types of Chinese commercial banks’ pure technology efficiency measurement results and efficiency changes from 2011 to 2019 in risk management are shown in Table6 and Figure 2.Table 6
Pure technology efficiency results of three types of commercial banks.
Bank201120122013201420152016201720182019MeanSOB0.43720.41100.27640.13300.04320.03210.08650.09910.16700.1873JSB0.74640.61070.56520.54760.30650.22780.24810.38740.69700.4818CCB0.46930.45290.26530.35760.41150.27450.32700.48070.48990.3921From Table6, it can be seen that the average pure technology efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is not high. State-owned commercial banks’ pure technology efficiency is the lowest, which is only 0.1873.From Figure3, it could be seen that the pure technology efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management has shown a declining trend year by year since 2012. However, since 2017, its pure technology efficiency has increased again, but there is still a small margin compared with 2012. The pure technology efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management has changed relatively smoothly in the past nine years, but the pure technology efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management has shown a clear declining trend. In the past nine years, state-owned banks have been pure technology inefficient for many years. Its pure technology efficiency dropped from 0.4372 in 2011 to 0.1670 in 2019, with a drop of 61.80%.Figure 3
The average pure technology efficiencies of three types of commercial banks.Scale efficiency refers to the production efficiency affected by the size of the decision-making unit. Analyzing and evaluating the scale efficiency of the decision-making unit are beneficial to help the decision-making unit adjust the scale of inputs and outputs, thereby improving the production efficiency of the DMU. From 2011 to 2019, the scale efficiency results and their changes in Chinese commercial banks’ risk management are shown in Table7 and Figure 3.Table 7
Scale efficiency results of three types of commercial banks.
Bank201120122013201420152016201720182019MeanSOB0.92950.94250.96670.82670.87030.99930.89400.86740.97640.9192JSB0.73330.85150.74870.63460.69240.71170.89230.75920.83130.7617CCB0.67830.76110.74830.54020.53770.45300.69280.51020.74540.6297From Table7, it can be seen that the scale efficiency of stated-owned banks’ risk management is the largest, with an average of 0.9192, indicating that the overall scale of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management is relatively reasonable. In comparison, the scale efficiencies of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management and city commercial banks’ risk management are relatively low. The average scale efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management is 0.7617. The average scale efficiency of city commercial banks’ risk management is the lowest, which is 0.6297. It indicates that joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks have certain irrationalities in the scale of risk management.From Figure4, it could be concluded that the scale efficiency of Chinese three types of commercial banks’ risk management has not changed much in the past nine years. However, compared with state-owned commercial banks and joint-stock commercial banks, city commercial banks have greater fluctuations in the scale efficiency of risk management.Figure 4
The average scale efficiencies of three types of commercial banks.Overall, it can be seen that the main reason for the low technical efficiency of Chinese state-owned commercial banks’ risk management is the low pure technology efficiency. The main reason for the low technical efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks’ risk management and city commercial banks’ risk management is due to low scale efficiency.The technical efficiencies, pure technology efficiencies, scale efficiencies, the ranking of technical efficiencies, and the return to scale of 26 Chinese commercial banks’ risk management are documented in Table8. We show the technical efficiencies, pure technology efficiencies, and scale efficiencies in years 2011 and 2019 here as the space is limited. It should be noted that the ranking is based on the average of the technical efficiency in the past nine years. The technical efficiency is the product of pure technology efficiency and scale efficiency. The efficiency decomposition of a DMU is conducive to analyzing the reasons for the low or high efficiency from two aspects of technical factors and scale factors. This helps to maximize its strengths and minimize its weaknesses, which is conducive to promoting the future development of the DMU.Table 8
The efficiencies and efficiency rankings of 26 Chinese commercial banks.
BankRank20112019Return to scaleTEPTESETEPTESESPDB11.00001.00001.00001.00001.00001.0000—CMBC20.51591.00000.51590.54960.71960.7638+HXB30.30780.45330.67910.77200.97370.7928+NBB40.28990.28991.00001.00001.00001.0000—CMB50.59300.94610.62680.39670.52930.7494+CNCB60.39780.49430.80470.69090.74310.9297+JSB70.34380.53000.64870.50361.00000.5036−CEB80.31680.32820.96540.40970.57060.7181−IB90.45320.74890.60510.42180.52820.7985+CMB100.84040.84041.00000.14930.14930.9998−PAB110.66981.00000.66980.45960.51170.8981−NJB120.33180.37210.89160.32140.47590.6753−ZZB130.27970.39730.70410.23240.33070.7029−HZB140.35170.47420.74160.38280.60250.6354−SHB150.36800.36801.00000.15220.15221.0000—BJB160.26760.26760.99990.21590.24170.8932−CDB170.19930.36990.53890.32250.32480.9931+GYB180.26970.53920.50030.18690.35990.5192+QDB190.22340.31640.70610.21920.47030.4660−BOC200.27330.27330.99990.18070.18070.9998−ICBC210.32510.41760.77840.15610.17380.8979+CCB220.34850.40100.86910.20160.20470.9848+SZB230.27511.00000.27510.37980.58270.6518−CSB240.17651.00000.17650.37990.58530.6490−ABC250.25380.25381.00000.12640.12640.9997−XAB260.11230.17680.63530.24280.24281.0000+Note. “----” means that the return to scale is unchanged; “−” means that the return to scale is decreasing; “+” means that the return to scale is increasing.From Table8, we can see that the technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management are not high (only one bank has a technical efficiency of 1). And about half of the commercial banks’ risk management efficiencies have decreasing returns to scale, indicating that most Chinese commercial banks do not make full use of risk management elements. Among the 26 commercial banks, SPDB, CNCB, HXB, NBB, and CMB have relatively high risk management efficiency, while the average risk management efficiency of CSB, ABC, and XAB is relatively low.


## 3.3. Implications of Empirical Results

According to the empirical analysis in Section3.2, some conclusions could be drawn as follows:(1)
The technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is low, and the differences among three different types of banks are large. It can be seen that the technical efficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management is low, and there is more space for improvement in the future. From the perspective of different types of commercial banks, joint-stock commercial banks have the highest risk management efficiency. The main reason is that the pure technology efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks is the highest compared to the other two types of commercial banks. The overall efficiency of the risk management of city commercial banks ranks second. It is because that city commercial banks have relatively high pure technology efficiency in risk management. Due to their low pure technology efficiency, state-owned commercial banks have the lowest overall efficiency. Therefore, for three different types of commercial banks, to improve the efficiency of risk management, the basic idea is as follows: joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks need to adjust the scale of risk management investment while improving the pure technology efficiency of risk management. As for state-owned commercial banks, efforts should be made to improve the pure technology efficiency of risk management while maintaining the existing scale efficiency.(2)
The pure technology inefficiency of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management has become a key factor restricting the improvement of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management level. From 2011 to 2019, the average of pure technology efficiency of state-owned commercial banks’ risk management was 0.1873, which was less than 0.2. The risk management efficiency of joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks was relatively high, being 0.4818 and 0.3921, respectively, but still less than 0.5. The average scale efficiency of the aforementioned 26 commercial banks’ risk management is 0.7702, which is far greater than their pure technology efficiency. This shows that the main reason for the low efficiency of risk management is the low pure technology efficiency of each bank’s risk management.(3)
Chinese commercial banks’ risk management faces a serious problem which is economies of scale. About 50%–60% of Chinese commercial banks have diminishing returns to scale in risk management, which shows that large amounts of Chinese commercial banks have a scale economy problem, and the utilization of risk management inputs is not high. There is a lot of redundancy and waste in inputs.(4)
The technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management fluctuate greatly during years 2011 to 2019, and management capabilities need to be enhanced urgently. This shows that Chinese commercial banks have poor risk management capabilities. The internal and external environmental changes have insufficient responsiveness and coping ability. Therefore, it is urgent to strengthen the risk management of commercial banks.


## 4. Conclusions

In this paper, we evaluate the technical efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks’ risk management by the DEA-BCC model with window analysis to come up with some recommendations for policy makers. The technical efficiency is then decomposed into pure technology efficiency and scale efficiency. According to the banking risk supervision indicators released by the China Banking Regulatory Commission, we choose the indicators of 26 commercial banks’ risk management during the period of 2011 to 2019. Principal component analysis (PCA) is applied to delete redundant input indicators. The paper gives a dynamic evaluation of technology efficiency, pure technology efficiency, and scale efficiency.The empirical results can serve as a practical tool for policy makers to make polices on Chinese commercial banks’ risk management. Several suggestions can be given for improving the efficiencies of Chinese commercial banks as follows:(1)
Increase investment in science and technology, encourage financial innovation, promote bank transformation and upgrading, and comprehensively improve the risk management capabilities of commercial banks. Chinese banking industry can refer to the requirements of Basel III and learn from advanced risk management technologies from developed countries to build a scientific and systematic risk management system and comprehensively improve the risk management capabilities of commercial banks.(2)
Strictly control the risk level in Chinese commercial banks’ operation process and strengthen the risk control and management system. To establish a good risk control and management system, banks need to start from the following aspects: firstly, they must strengthen the awareness of risk management and form a corporate culture that focuses on risk control. Secondly, it is necessary to further improve the organizational structure of risk management. A perfect organizational structure is the guarantee for risk control and management. Finally, it is important to establish a scientific reward and punishment mechanism of risk management to strengthen the risk management awareness of all employees.(3)
Strengthen the cooperation and exchanges of different types of commercial banks, learn from each other, and make progress together.Different types of commercial banks have their own advantages in risk management technology. State-owned commercial banks have a long history of development, with sufficient risk management experience and resources compared to joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks. Therefore, all types of banks should increase communication and collaboration to make up for their own shortcomings and achieve common development, so as to improve the risk management level and operating performance of the entire banking industry.(4)
Adjust the scale of risk management according to the actual situation and make full use of risk management inputs. As mentioned earlier, the problem of diminishing returns to scale generally exists in the risk management of commercial banks in China. This shows that the efficiency of bank risk management is not surely positively correlated with the scale of investment. Therefore, each commercial bank should choose a scale of operation that suits its own conditions and capabilities in order to maximize its own interests.In reality, environmental factors (e.g., the scale of bank and culture environment) may have an impact on bank risk management efficiency. So, developing new techniques to incorporate the environmental factors into the DEA model would be a promising future study. In addition, we only selected 26 Chinese commercial banks for efficiency evaluation. In the future, some foreign banks or rural commercial banks may be included in efficiency analysis to find out the risk management level gap between domestic banks and put forward more targeted suggestions for different types of banks .



---

*Source: 7306322-2021-10-27.xml*