自2014年開始美國隨著景氣逐漸復甦，升息議題持續受到關注，聯邦基準利率的調整將對其房地產景氣造成影響；再者，繼次級房貸危機過後，多數研究聚焦於「房地產市場」與「銀行體質穩定性」之間的關聯性，本研究建構在此兩種情境之下，基於美國商業銀行不動產放款金額佔總放款約44.8%(統計至2014年底；2013年底：46.3%；2012年底：49.1%)，試圖探討銀行提列呆帳準備(LLP,Loan Loss Provision)的政策除了對總體景氣、盈餘管理以及資本管理之外，更著重觀察與房地產景氣之間的預測效果。

本研究使用2004年至2013年(共10年)美國納斯達克交易所上交易之247家商業銀行以及考量資產規模的不同下將247家商業銀行區分成前、後段銀行作為統計樣本，透過走勢圖、基本敘述性統計以及迴歸分析(GMM模型)後，得到以下幾個結論：(1)在房地產景氣預測效果方面，實證結果發現在整體以及前、後段三組銀行樣本之下，皆支持LLP對於房地產景氣具有預測能力。 (2)盈餘管理方面，實證發現在全部以及前段兩組銀行樣本之下，支持「沖大澡假說」，即盈餘增減與LLP呈現負相關。 (3)資本管理方面，實證結果發現在整體以及前、後段三組樣本銀行之下，與LLP皆呈現不顯著關係。(4)經濟景氣方面，實證結果發現在整體以及前、後段三組樣本銀行之下，皆不支持逆景氣循環效果，即提列政策未針對「預先損失」做準備，不具前瞻性(Forward-looking)。

Since 2014 the prosperity of the U.S. has recovered gradually, it has led to the attention of interest raising issues and had further effect on the real estate due to the adjustment of Fed Fund Rates. More studies have concentrated on the connection between the market of real estate and the stability of banking firms after the crisis of subprime loan. This research constructs under two different circumstances, and it overlooks the prediction of the effect towards US commercial bank real estate loan amount on the basis of 44.8% and the result at the end of 2012 (49.1%) and 2013 (46.3%), and tries to focus on observing the prediction on real estate market.

This research has used overall 247 commercial banks from 2004 to 2013, which have been differentiated into upper-tier and lower-tier based on NASDAQ data, as the research samples and retrieved the following conclusions: (1) It is supportive that Loan Loss Provision (LLP) provides further prediction to real estate market based on the the comparison among overall, upper-tier and lower-tier sample banks. (2) The theory of "Take a Big Bath" is supported by overall and upper-tier samples. The result indicates that there is negative relationship between the increase and decrease in surplus and LLP in surplus management based on different comparisons in different level of banks.(3) In capital management, comparing overall, upper-tier and lower-tier banks, it is found out that there is no significant relationship between banks and LLP. (4) In the perspective of business cycle, the result indicates that the bank comparisons do not have influential effect on counter cycle effect.

1.王健安與沈中華,2011,銀行對住宅抵押放款的呆帳準備費用之提撥, 可以
用來預測未來 (總體經濟或不動產) 景氣之變化嗎? 來自台灣獨特揭露資
料的實證與政策涵意,台灣金融財務季刊, 12(4), 1-41.
2.沈中華與謝孟芬,2009,金融業提列備抵呆帳與景氣循環, 法規之關聯性分
析—以 49 個國家為例,臺大管理論叢, 20(1), 131-156.
3.Bikker, J. A., & Metzemakers, P. A. (2005). Bank
provisioning behaviour and procyclicality. Journal of
International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money,
15(2), 141-157.
4.Cavallo, M., & Majnoni, G. (2002). Do banks provision for
bad loans in good times? Empirical evidence and policy
implications: Springer.
5.Docking, D. S., Hirschey, M., & Jones, E. (1997).
Information and contagion effects of bank loan-loss reserve
announcements. Journal of Financial Economics, 43(2), 219-
239. doi: Doi 10.1016/S0304-405x(96)00895-1
6.El Sood, H. A. (2012). Loan loss provisioning and income
smoothing in US banks pre and post the financial crisis.
International Review of Financial Analysis, 25, 64-72.
7.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory -
Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-
291. doi: Doi 10.2307/1914185
8.Kanagaretnam, K., Lobo, G. J., & YANG, D. H. (2004). Joint
Tests of Signaling and Income Smoothing through Bank Loan
Loss Provisions*. Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(4),
843-884.
9.Koetter, M., & Poghosyan, T. (2010). Real estate prices and
bank stability. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(6), 1129-
1138.
10.Laeven, L., & Majnoni, G. (2003). Loan loss provisioning
and economic slowdowns: too much, too late? Journal of
financial intermediation, 12(2), 178-197.
11.Liu, C. C., Ryan, S. G., & Wahlen, J. M. (1997).
Differential valuation implications of loan loss provisions
across banks and fiscal quarters. Accounting Review, 72(1),
133-146.
12.Moyer, S. E. (1990). Capital adequacy ratio regulations and
accounting choices in commercial banks. Journal of
Accounting and Economics, 13(2), 123-154.
13.Pan, H., & Wang, C. (2013). House prices, bank instability,
and economic growth: Evidence from the threshold model.
Journal of Banking & Finance, 37(5), 1720-1732.