Page 322 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 4
P. 322

CPS2245 Azrie Tamjis
                           Table 1: Average SFA Cost Efficiency Scores, 2000–2011
                                                    Standard
                       Year      Count    Mean      Deviation    Minimum    Maximum
                       2000       24      0.8760     0.1519      0.2600       0.9721
                       2001       26      0.8614     0.1537      0.2698       0.9787
                       2002       24      0.8523     0.1524      0.3253       0.9725
                       2003       24      0.8103     0.1528      0.3731       0.9582
                       2004       25      0.7596     0.1734      0.2404       0.9270
                       2005       26      0.7913     0.1554      0.2088       0.9418
                       2006       29      0.7450     0.2095      0.2033       0.9317
                       2007       31      0.7648     0.1440      0.2704       0.9402
                       2008       36      0.7098     0.1783      0.0509       0.9324
                       2009       37      0.7025     0.1877      0.0296       0.9271
                       2010       37      0.7065     0.1884      0.0738       0.9478
                       2011       35      0.7177     0.2157      0.0848       0.9702
                      2000-2003    98     0.8502     0.1523      0.2600       0.9787
                      2004-2007    111    0.7647     0.1707      0.2033       0.9418
                      2008-2011    145    0.7090     0.1909      0.0296       0.9702
                      2000-2011    354    0.7655     0.1834      0.0296       0.9787

                   From Figure 1, based on the three different phases of the FSMP for the
               years 2000–2003, 2004–2007 and 20082011, the cost efficiency average scores
               were 85.0%, 76.5% and 70.9% respectively. From the result, the overall trend
               of the cost efficiency for the years 2000 to 2011 was on a declining trend. From
               previous  literature,  many  found  that  deregulation  of  the  banking  sector
               resulted  in  greater  efficiency  (e.g  Tortosa-Austina,  2003;  Cuesta  and  Orea,
               2002). On the other hand, deregulation of the banking sector could also result
               in lower efficiency as evidenced from past studies. For instance, Berger and
               Humphrey (1992) found that financial liberalisation forces banks to cut costs
               substantially in a very short period of time. However, this has not been the
               case  as  the  banks  displayed  a  higher  level  of  cost  inefficiency  and  a  slow
               response  in  adjusting  to  changes  to  minimise  their  costs);  and,  based  on
               observations  by  Humphrey  and  Pulley  (1997),  they  suggested  that  banks’
               adjustments following deregulation can take up to four years to complete.
               Additionally, Girardone et al. (2004) state that banks may not be efficient when
               deregulatory  initiatives  take  place  at  the  same  time  as  a  macroeconomic
               downturn. During this period, Malaysian banks exhibited lower cost efficiency
               during the third phase of the FSMP as a result of the global credit crisis.
















                                                                  311 | I S I   W S C   2 0 1 9
   317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327