Suchergebnisse

Julia Gentgen stellt ein integriertes Entscheidungsmodell für deutsche Banken vor, das zur Behandlung von Problemkrediten sowohl die Kosteneffizienz der jeweiligen Transaktionsform als auch die erforderlichen Kompetenzen zur Bearbeitung berücksichtigt. Dieses Modell kann Banken als Entscheidungshilfe dienen und differenzierte Strategien für verschiedene Problemkreditportfolios in der Frage nach der optimalen Gestaltung des Managements ableiten. Bis Ende 2004 sammelte sich ein großes Volumen an Problemkrediten in den Bilanzen deutscher Banken an. Ökonomische und rechtliche Parameter veranlassen die Banken seitdem zur aktiveren Auseinandersetzung mit ihren Problemkrediten. Speziell für immobilienbesicherte Kredite stellt sich die Frage, ob die Banken intern über die erforderlichen Kompetenzen zur Bearbeitung verfügen sollten oder ob das Problemkredit-Management extern durch Outsourcing der Bearbeitung oder Verkauf der Problemkredite vorgenommen werden sollte. Der Inhalt Transaktionskostentheoretische und kompetenzorientierte Analyse, ein theoretisches Entscheidungsmodell und die empirische Untersuchung der Integration oder Desintegration des Problemkredit-Managements immobilienbesicherter Kredite Die Zielgruppen Dozierende und Studierende der Betriebswirtschaft mit den Schwerpunkten Kreditmanagement und Immobilieninvestment Fach- und Führungskräfte in Banken im Bereich Problemkreditmanagement Die Autorin Dr. Julia Gentgen promovierte am Real Estate Management Institute (REMI) der EBS European Business School

PurposeThe German banking sector has recently been facing high real estate loan default rates resulting in the accumulation of a high volume of distressed real estate debt in the banks' balance sheets. As a consequence, German banks are confronted with the workout of their non‐ and sub‐performing real estate loans to proactively solve the problem. When doing so, banks have to decide whether they want to conduct the loan workout in their own workout departments (integrative approach) or whether they prefer to outsource the workout to a third party servicer or even sell their bad loan exposure to an external investor (disintegrative approach). This paper aims to investigate this issue.Design/methodology/approachA bank's decision to employ an integrative or a disintegrative approach can be transferred into a make‐or buy‐decision as described by the transaction cost economics. The transaction between the bank and the workout manager is analysed by the transaction characteristics of the transaction cost economics. The specificity of the human capital required for the loan workout of real estate loans is a key consideration for answering the question of integration or disintegration. Assuming highly specific investments for both, the workout manager and the bank, a formal model compares the aggregated pay offs for the bank and the workout manager to determine the optimal control structure for the specific assets.FindingsFollowing the assumptions of the transaction cost economics, the specificity of the investment of the workout manager (and also the bank) is crucial for the decision of integrating or disintegrating the workout of real estate loans. The degree of specificity required to perform the workout tasks depends on the status of underlying credit engagement and the characteristics of the collateral (the real estate). The formal analysis shows that the bank and the workout manager both under‐invest in integration and disintegration scenarios. However, if the degree of specificity of the investments is equal, nonintegration is superior to integration. Forward integration is superior to nonintegration, if the bank's investment is more specific than the workout manager's investment.Originality/valueThis research paper approaches the problematic from an academic stand point, integrating both the banking and the real estate perspective and aims to provide a recommendation for banks on the integration or disintegration of the workout unit for a certain real estate secured loan portfolio.