以金融機構的角度而言，獲利主要來源是依靠風險的承擔，所以金融機構運用資本以創造獲利的同時，也面臨著虧損的風險，這意味著績效評估指標必須加入風險因素的考量，才能正確反應經營績效的優劣，於是本研究對於國內金融控股公司的績效評估，不同於以往相關文獻純粹從財務面切入加以探討；而是結合報酬與風險因素的考量，以風險調整資本報酬率(RAROC)，來進行金融控股公司績效評估。
本研究以參數法、GARCH法及歷史模擬法，以此來估算出各模型的風險值後，再引用至風險調整資本報酬率績效評估指標，最終目的為進行國內金融控股公司在金融風暴前、後的績效評估加以比較並進一步將樣本分為贏家與輸家時發現的研究結果分別敘述如下：
一、在會計上ROA的衡量指標方面
1.在整體金控ROA平均值上金融風暴後為0.5653%，是比金融風暴前的0.7130%為低。表示金融風暴對金控業整體的ROA是有負面影響的。
2.在ROA指標方面—在金融風暴前表現比較好排名在前四名的公司，在金融風暴後表現有75%仍能保持在前四名。

二、在財務上RETURN的衡量指標方面
1.金融風暴前後整體大盤的Return分別是0.0556%、0.1291%，金控平均的Return分別是0.0182%、0.1280%，不論是金融風暴前或後大盤在Return的表現上都優於金控的平均值。但比較金融風暴前後大盤與金控平均的差距已從0.0374%縮小為0.0011%，顯示在金融風暴後金控整體表現成長的幅度有優於大盤的成長幅度。
2.但不論是在金融風暴前、後在Return的排名上，金控公司並無明顯的關連性。

三、在風險(VaR)管理上
1.整體金控的VaR平均值，金融風暴後為0.06438，是比金融風暴前的0.04743為高，表示:金融風暴後的風險值是比較高的。
2.在風險管理上在金融風暴前比較好(排名在前四名)的金控公司在金融風暴後仍有75%仍能維持良好的風險管理能力，而且是以公營金控公司居多。在金融風暴前風險管理能力比較差(排名在後四名)的金控公司在金融風暴後仍然有50%公司仍舊保持在較差的排名，而且是以民營金控公司居多。

四、在經風險調整後資本報酬率(RAROC)上
1.金融風暴前後整體金控的平均RAROC分別是-0.00836、-0.00013，金融風暴後的RAROC有較風暴前增加。但不論風暴前後金控整體的RAROC都輸給了大盤。金融風暴前只有一家元大金有打敗大盤，風暴後則有國票金、台新金、玉山金、兆豐金及開發金打敗大盤。
2.但不論是在金融風暴前或金融風暴後RAROC的排名，各金控公司並無明顯的關連性。

In the perspective of financial institutions, the main source of profit is assumed to rely on risk, so financial institutions use capital to create profitable, while also facing the risk of loss, which means adding performance evaluation indicators must consider the risk factors, the correct response to the operating performance of the pros and cons, so the study of domestic financial holding company for performance evaluation, different from the previous literature to explore from a purely financial side; but the combination of return and risk factors considered in the risk-adjusted return on capital (RAROC), to evaluate the performance of a financial holding company.
We used parametric, GARCH, and historical simulation methods with a confidence level of 99% during the day, to arrive at a risk value for each institution. We then looked at the risk-adjusted returns on capital , The ultimate goal is to compare the performance of domestic financial holding companies before and after the crisis. We further divided the sample into winners and losers..
In this study, we evaluated the Taiwan financial holding companies for their performances before and after the financial crisis of 2008. The companies’ overall return and risk factors were compared and divided into two groups: winners and losers. Looking at ROA and VaR, we found that 75% of the companies who were doing well prior to crisis were still doing well after the crisis. . But in terms of RETURN and RAROC, there was not much difference in performance before and after .

參 考 文 獻
一、 中文部份
沈中華(2002) ，「金控公司的銀行與獨立銀行 CAMEL 比較」。台灣金融財務季刊 第三輯第二期。
李並光(2003) ，「金融控股公司合併綜效之研究~以台灣的個案為例」。國立台灣大學財務金融學研究所，碩士論文。
周大慶、沈大白、張大成、敬永康、柯瓊鳳合著(2002)。風險管理新標竿。台北市：智勝文化。
周政義(2006)。「RAROOC、VaR及極值理論應用於金融控股公司績效評估」。國立中山大學財務管理研究所，碩士論文。
林炳文(2002)。「台灣地區商業銀行合併效率性之分析:資料包絡分析法的應用」。臺灣管理學刊第1卷第2期：頁341-353。
邱臙珍、莊益源(2005)。「亞洲地區風險值模型之績效分析」。風險管理學報第七卷第一期：頁 5-28。
陳佳怡(2003)。「金融控股公司經營績效之探討－財務面因素評估研究」。國立中山大學財務管理研究所，碩士論文。
郭貞伶(2002)。「金融控股公司經營績效評估之研究」。國立中山大學財務管理研究所，碩士論文。
楊佳寧(2003)。「風險值及 RAROC 於基金績效評估之應用」。貨幣觀測與信用評等。
劉科（2005）。「從金融監理角度論我國證券商風險管理制度之建立」。國立政治大學經營管理研究所，碩士論文。
鄭瑞真(2002)。「成立金融控股公司之投資效率與風險評估-以我國銀行為例」。國立中央大學財務管理研究所，碩士論文。
歐陽遠芬、陳碧琇(2002)。「銀行的購併與經營績效─規模經濟、範疇經濟與效率之分析」。臺灣銀行季刊第52卷第3期：頁1-18。
二、 英文部份
Allen, L., and Jagtiani, J.(2000). The risk effects of combining banking, securities,and insurance activities. Journal of Economics and Business, 52, p485-p497.
Boyd, J. H.(1993). Bank holding company mergers with nonbank financial firms:Effects on the risk of failure. Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, 43-63.
Culp, C. L.(2001). The risk management process: Business strategy and tactics.New York: Wiley.
Dowd, K.(2002). Measuring market risk. John Wiley.
Hendricks D (1996) Evaluation of value-at-risk models using historical data. Econ Policy Rev 2:39–69
James C (1996) RAROC based capital budgeting and performance evaluation: a case study of bank capital allocation. Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers No. 96-40,Wharton Financial Institutions Center, University of Pennsylvania
Jorion P (2000) Value at risk: the new benchmark for controlling market risk, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, Chicago
Jorion, P.(2001). Value at risk. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Judy Hsu • Kuo-An Li (2012) Performance assessments of Taiwan’s financial holding companies. Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012.
Kupiec P (1995) Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk management models. J Deriv 3:pp73–84
Laderman, E. S.（1999）, “The Potential Diversification and Failure Reduction Benefits of Bank Expansion into Nonbanking Activities,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Papers, October 1999.
McKinsey and Company, Inc., Copeland, T., Koller, T., and Murrin, J.(2000). Valuation: Measuring and managing the value of companies. 3rd ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Prokopczuk, M., S.T. Rachev, G. Schindlmayr and S. Trück (2005), “Quantifying Risk in the Electricity Business: A RAROC-based Approach,” Preprintsubmitted to Elsevier Science, Vol. 9, pp. 1-25.

Shearer, A. T., Forest Jr., and Lawrence, R.(1998). Improving quantification of risk-adjusted performance within financial institutions. Commercial Lending Review, 13(3).
Wonsik Sul, Jook Seok Oh, “Are German-Type universal banks superior in performance to other types of universal banks?”,Journal of Financial Management and Analysis, 1999, VOL.12,pp.18-29.
Yu, P. Y., and Luu, B. V.(2003). Banking mergers: The impact of financial liberalization on Taiwanese banking industry. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 20, 385-413.
Zaik, E., Walter, J., Kelling, G., and James, C.(1996). RAROC at bank of America: From theory to practice. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 9, p83-p93.