金融学专业外文翻译------客户角度下的最优选择：银行与保险公司联盟-金融财政(编辑修改稿)

金融学专业外文翻译------客户角度下的最优选择：银行与保险公司联盟-金融财政(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

eration of the partners. These categories were derived together with representatives of the executive management of Finnish banks and insurance panies. The categories in the increasing order of closeness of the partners were Crossselling agreements. The parties agree to sell each other’s products to their own customers. The crossselling is frequently onesided. Most often a bank sells an insurance pany’s products to its customers. In principle, it could be vice versa as well. The alliance category can still be divided into two subcategories depending on whether the parties’ service channels are overlapping or not. Nonoverlapping service channels can be achieved, for example, if the parties actively try to organize crossselling in such a way that there is no petition between the parties. Here a service channel can be a branch office work, but also a contact center, subside etc. Especially in the case of overlapping branch works one easily faces channel conflict: the alliance members do not cooperate effectively in the fear of losing their customers to the other party and consequently the sales provisions etc. Nonoverlapping service channels often means that the other party has no service channel at all. Thus the two different submodels are • Crossselling agreement, no overlapping service channels (abbreviated CSA1) • Crossselling agreement, overlapping service channels (CSA2) Alliance of independent partners. The alliance type is a special case of a crossselling agreement where the alliance is tightened by crossownership and/or joint ownership in third parties. Crossownership means a minority stake of the other party’s shares. If the ownership were onesided, it would probably be a sign of asymmetry and one party’s dominance of the alliance. An example of joint ownership is a mutual fund management pany owned jointly by a bank (banks) and an insurance pany (insurance panies).One could also think about crossownership/joint ownership without a crossselling agreement, but such a model seldom occurs in practice. The degree of overlapping is also used to divide this category into two different subgoals: • Alliance of independent partners, no overlapping service channels (AIP1) • Alliance of independent partners, overlapping service channels (AIP2) Control by ownership. In both the previous models, earnings and costs are divided. The third category means the model, where all the control is in the hand of one party: a bank can simply own (a control of) an insurance pany or vice versa, or a third party owns the both ones. This category is divided into two submodels depending on the controller: • Control by ownership, when a bank owns an insurance pany or vice versa (CBO1) • Control by ownership (financial conglomerate): a holding pany owns one or severalbanks and one or several insurance panies (FC) We can notice that the classification of the different alternatives is based on the closeness of the alliance and the degree of the overlapping of the service channels. Criteria. The alliance models were pared and eventually prioritized according to the following criteria (the choice of the criteria was also based on the management views). 1. Product development (maximize efficiency), 2. Onedoorprinciple (implement as effectively as possible), 3. Earnings logics (avoid conflicts), 4. Customer relationship management (maximize efficiency), 5. Cost and revenue synergies (maximize), 6. Channel conflicts (minimize), 7. Required solvency capital (optimize the balance), 8. Investor power (maximize), 9. Sales management (maximize efficiency). According to the interviews the overall importanc。