증권사의 수익구조가 증권사 가치에 미치는 영향: 자산관리 업무를 중심으로 = The Effect of the Securities Firm`s Profit Structure on Its Value: Focusing on Asset Management Business

국문 초록 (Abstract)

2009년 자본시장법 시행을 계기로 증권사는 다양한 수익구조를 갖게 될 것으로 기대되었지만 여전히 브로커리지 업무에 치중함으로써 수익성 악화를 겪게 되었다. 이에 본 연구는 국내 증권사의 수익구조를 분석하고 기업가치와의 관련성을 통해 다양한 업무 중 자산관리 업무의 중요성을 제시한다. 2010년 이후 상장 증권사를 대상으로 분석한 결과, 첫째, 브로커리지, 자산관리, 투자은행, 자기매매 업무 중 자산관리만이 기업가치(Tobin’s q)에 유의한 양(+)의 영향을 미치고, 자산관리업무는 시장상황이 활황(boom)일 때, 기업가치에 보다 큰 기여를 하는 것으로 나타난다. 둘째, 자산관리 세부업무 중 상품판매는 특화(수익비중)가, 랩(wrap)과 신탁 등 고객 자산관리 업무는 시장점유율이 시장상황과 무관하게 기업가치 측면에서 보다 중요하다는 것을 보여준다. 셋째, 자산관리 업무와 여타 업무 간 시너지를 분석한 결과, 투자은행 업무가 자산관리와의 시너지가 가장 큰 것으로 평가된다. 마지막으로 증권사를 독립 형태, 제조업 계열, 은행 계열로 구분하고 시너지를 분석한 결과, 자산관리 업무는 독립 형태에 비해 제조업 또는 은행 계열 증권사에서보다 큰 시너지를 누리는 것으로 나타난다. 국내 증권사의 자산관리 수익비중이 아직은 미미하고 저성장ㆍ저금리 시대가 고착화되고 있는 상황을 고려할 때, 본 연구의 결과는 증권산업에서 자산관리 업무가 차별화ㆍ활성화되어야 함을 시사하며 이를 위해 필요한 증권사의 성장전략과 정책적 시사점을 제시한다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The aging population with low growth and low interest rates is fast-paced in Korea. In this situation, investors`` behavior is expected to be changed into the direction that the demand on risky assets increases and this will make the movement of funds into the capital market actively happen. Profitability of domestic securities firms has continued to worsen and experts point out that they need to move away from traditional brokerage based business. Generally speaking, asset management business of securities firms is based on fee while other businesses are based on commission. Therefore, asset management service provides a more stable source of revenue for securities firms than other businesses. In these internal and external environment surrounding securities firms, if they strategically specialize and differentiate asset management services, It will provide benefits to both customers and themselves. However, it is true that the domestic securities firms have focused on simply selling funds or derivatives-linked securities rather than managing customers`` wealth as the real sense of asset management service. This study aims at understanding the importance of asset management service through a relationship between the various businesses of securities firms and their value. In general, the businesses of securities firms are classified as brokerage, asset management, investment banking, principal investment. Brokerage is the securities brokerage for customers, asset management means wrap accounts, trusts, and sales of financial products. Investment banking is securities underwriting and M&A advisory services, principal investment refers to directly trading of stocks, bonds, funds, and derivatives. The sample of this paper is domestic listed securities firms from 2010 until 2014. The first task is to disassemble the profit structure of four businesses as mentioned above and calculate the profit ratio (specialization) and market share of each business. After calculating these measures, this paper investigates the effects of them on securities firms`` value. This paper``s main results are as follows. First, only asset management unlike other businesses has consistently a positive impact on the firm value. This raises the need to activate asset management business in securities industry when considering the current situation that the market size and the profit ratio of this business is the smallest among other businesses. Second, when breaking down asset management business, sales business of funds or derivatives-linked securities shows a comparative advantage of specialization strategy, while customers`` wealth management service such as wrap, trusts enjoys a comparative advantage of market share maximization strategy in terms of firm value. The former implies that sales business requires the existence of funds or asset management affiliated company with good reputation. The existence of a reputable asset management affiliated company enables securities firms to easily specialize in sales business of funds. The latter means that customers`` wealth management business requires abundant capital to retain skilled advisory workforce and wide branch-network as key factors, and the abundant capital tends to increase the market share. Third, asset management business creates the highest synergy when combined with investment banking (IB) business among others. This is because IB is based on the corporate customers while asset management is based on retail customers. For example, structured products, private equity, corporate bonds designed in the process of IB and high-quality advisory services based on IB research can be provided for asset management customers in demand. Fourth, commercial bank-affiliated or group-affiliated securities firms enjoy a synergy in asset management business while independent securities firms do not. Commercial bank-affiliated securities firms can make the best use of bank``s wide branch-network for asset management customers. Group-affiliated securities firms can share highly reputable brand name value of group. In a nutshell, asset management is a key business to determine the value of securities firms under the recent environment. This is why securities firms need to cut back brokerage-based business and develope asset management business. Strategies of securities firms that this paper suggests to develope asset management business are as follows. First, securities firms need to reorganize their business to focus on asset management and pursue a comprehensive wealth management strategy beyond fund-sales or simple portfolio management through setting up a core customer base that meets their capabilities. Second, they need to provide customers with one-stop service through recently introduced branch-in-branch and enhance the professionalism and efficiency in terms of their own operations. Third, small independent securities firms need to differentiate their main customer base, pursue asset management strategy based on IT and low fee. When considering their insufficient capital and human resources, the core of their asset management strategy is a price competitiveness over large securities firms. For example, successful online asset management companies in the U.S., such as Betterment, Wealthfront, and Market Riders, deal only with ETF based on low commission strategy. In the institutional side, the compensation system in asset management business and the fee plan for advisory services need to be established to meet changing asset management environment. The compensation system in asset management should be in accordance with customers`` performance or satisfaction from service. Currently, advisory service of securities firms is free of charge. This is becoming an obstacle to the introduction of independent financial advisor (IFA), so that guidelines for setting up the appropriate advisory service fee are also required in Korean securities industry. Finally, assuming that asset management market expands in the near future, a conflict of interest problem may grow. This raises a need that the financial authority should complement the current regulatory framework to control the problem.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 박헌준, "한국기업의 대리인 비용과 기업가치: 외국인 지분의 역할" 한국경영학회 33 (33): 655-682, 2004

2 한동호, "증권회사의 X-비효율성과 최적 범위의 경제에 대한 실증분석" 24 : 129-167, 1999

3 박수남, "증권산업구조와 경영효율성, 증권회사의 성과" 한국증권학회 38 (38): 479-505, 2009

4 박경서, "증권산업과 주식시장의 효율성에 대한 연구: 제4장 증권산업의 규모와 범위의경제성 분석" 한국금융연구원 99-157, 1994

5 채준, "증권사의 자산관리업무 활성화를 위한 연구" 금융투자협회 2015

6 김인기, "은행시장의 경쟁구조가 성과에 미치는 효과에 관한 연구" 7 (7): 83-115, 1993

7 이원흠, "우리나라 증권업에 있어서 규모의 경제성과 범위의 경제성에 대한 연구" 14 : 179-219, 1992

8 정운찬, "우리나라 증권산업의 효율성 분석: Fourier Flexible 비용함수의 분석을 중심으로" 5 (5): 145-185, 2000

9 김인철, "방향성 생산거리함수를 이용한 은행산업의 효율성 분석" 한국경제연구학회 17 : 199-299, 2006

10 신보성, "금융투자업의 시장구조에 대한 분석 및 시사점" 자본시장연구원 2011

11 양동현, "글로벌 금융위기 전후(2003-2013) 은행산업의 효율성과 생산성 변화 분석: 순차적 맘퀴스트 루엔버거 생산성지수 적용" 한국경영학회 44 (44): 55-80, 2015

12 박용린, "국내 증권회사의 환경변화와 대응방안: 2020증권산업 비전과 전망" 자본시장연구원 2013

13 Johnson, W. C., "Universal banking, asset management, and stock underwriting" 15 : 703-732, 2009

14 Jensen, M, "Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure" 3 : 305-360, 1976

15 Hirtle, B. J., "The return to retail and the performance of US banks" 31 : 1101-1133, 2007

16 Benston, G. J, "Scale Economies in Banking: A Restructuring and Reassessment" 14 : 435-457, 1982

17 Heckman, J. J, "Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error" 47 : 53-161, 1979

18 Pilloff, S. J, "Performance Changes and Shareholder Wealth Creation Associated with Mergers of Publicly Traded Banking Institutions" 28 : 294-310, 1996

19 Puri, M, "On the importance of retail banking relationships" 89 : 253-267, 2008

20 Aiken, L. S., "Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions" Sage 1991

21 Morck, R., "Management Ownership and Market Valuation:An Empirical Analysis" 20 : 293-315, 1988

22 Lopez, L. E., "First-mover advantages in regimes of weak appropriability:the case of financial services innovations" 55 : 997-1005, 2002

23 Tufano, P, "Financial innovation and first-mover advantages" 25 : 213-240, 1989

24 Smirlock, M., "Evidence on the (Non)Relationship between Concentration and Profitability in Banking" 17 : 69-83, 1985

25 Berger, A. N, "Entry into Banking Markets and the Early-Mover Advantage" 39 : 775-807, 2007

26 Koutsomanoli-Fillppaki, A., "Efficiency and Productivity Growth in the Banking Industry of Central and Eastern Europe" 33 : 557-567, 2009

27 Goldberg, L. H., "Economies of scale and scope in the securities industry" 15 : 91-107, 1991

28 Peristiani, S, "Do Mergers Improve the X-efficiency and Scale Efficiency of U.S. Banks? Evidence from the 1980s" 29 : 326-338, 1997

29 Cornett, M., "Changes in Corporate Performance Associated with Bank Acquisitions" 31 : 211-234, 1992

30 Gilbert, R. A., "Bank Market Structure and Competition" 16 : 617-645, 1984

31 Gilligan T. W, "An Empirical Study of Joint Production and Scale Economies in Commercial Banking" 8 : 67-78, 1984

32 Gropper, D, "An Empirical Investigation of Changes in Scale Economies for the Commercial Banking Firm: 1979-1986" 23 : 718-727, 1991

33 Park, K. H., "A note Efficiency and Productivity Growth in the Korean Banking Industry, 1992-2002" 30 : 2371-2386, 2006