B GIÁO D O I H C KINH T TP.HCM - - LÊ HUY N TRÂM CÁC NHÂN T C AH N KH N VAY I NGÂN HÀNG NÔNG NGHI P VÀ PHÁT TRI N NÔNG THÔN VI T NAM KHU V C THÀNH PH LU H CHÍ MINH C S KINH T TP H Chí Minh B GIÁO D O I H C KINH T TP.HCM - - LÊ HUY N TRÂM CÁC NHÂN T N KH C AH N VAY I NGÂN HÀNG NÔNG NGHI P VÀ PHÁT TRI N NÔNG THÔN VI T NAM KHU V C THÀNH PH H CHUYÊN NGÀNH: TÀI CHÍNH CHÍ MINH NGÂN HÀNG MÃ S : 60340201 LU C S KINH T ng d n khoa h c: PGS.TS TR M TH TP H Chí Minh L I CAM t qu c a trình h c t p, nghiên c u khoa h c l p nghiêm túc c a cá nhân Các s li u k t qu nghiên c u lu c, có ngu n g c rõ ràng, c trích d n phát tri n t tài li u, cơng trình nghiên c kh o t p chí chuyên ngành Tác gi Lê Huy n Trâm c công b , tham M CL C Trang ph bìa L M cl c Danh m c ch vi t t t Danh m c b ng bi u Danh m c bi L IM U LÝ LU N V KH H N VAY NGÂN HÀNG C A 1.1 Kh 1.1.1 n c ah Khái ni m h 1.1.2 1.1.3 mh Vai trò c a h 1.1.3.1 ng vào GDP t 1.1.3.2 Góp ph n chuy n d ch ng kinh t u kinh t 1.1.3.3 c 1.1.3.4 Góp ph n ph c h i phát tri n ngành ngh truy n th y m nh vi c ng d ng công ngh m i 1.1.3.5 T 1.1.4 Khái ni m kh c làm cho xã h i, gi m áp l c v t l th t nghi p n vay c a h .10 n vay c a h 1.2 S c n thi t phân tích nhân t n kh .11 n vay c a h gia 13 1.3 Các nhân t n kh n vay c a h 14 1.3.1 Nhân t thu c v ng 14 1.3.2 Nhân t thu c v khách hàng 16 1.3.3 Nhân t thu c v ngân hàng 17 1.3.4 1.4 Nhân t thu c v m s n ph m tín d ng 19 Các nghiên c u v nhân t n kh n vay c a h gia 20 1.4.1 Nghiên c u c a Deborah D Godwin 20 1.4.2 Nghiên c u c a Burcu Duygan 1.4.3 Nghiên c u c a C.A Wongnaa, D Awunyo-Vitor .21 1.4.4 Nghiên c u c a tác gi K t lu Bump Charles Grant 20 Huy n Thanh 23 26 N KH VAY H I NGÂN HÀNG NÔNG NGHI P VÀ PHÁT TRI N NÔNG THÔN VI T NAM KHU V C THÀNH PH 2.1 N Khái quát th c tr ng cho vay h H CHÍ MINH 27 i Agribank TPHCM 27 2.1.1 Khái quát v Agribank TPHCM 27 2.1.2 Ho ng cho vay h a Agribank TPHCM 29 2.1.2.1 Th c tr ng h 2.1.2.2 Th c tr ng ho 2.2 Các nhân t i TPHCM 29 ng cho vay h n kh 30 n vay c a h 37 2.2.1 Nhân t thu c v ng 37 2.2.2 Nhân t thu c v khách hàng 38 2.2.3 Nhân t thu c v ngân hàng 40 2.2.3.1 Nhân s 40 2.2.3.2 Quy trình c p tín d ng .41 2.2.3.3 2.2.4 2.3 n vay c a h Nhân t thu c v ng d ng vay c a h 2.3.1 2.3.2 43 m s n ph m 45 ng nhân t n kh n i Agribank TPHCM 46 tv 46 u .46 2.3.2.1 M c tiêu kh o sát nghiên c u 46 2.3.2.2 ng kh o sát nghiên c u 46 2.3.2.3 Ph m vi kh o sát nghiên c u 47 2.3.2.4 Tiêu chu n xây d ng mơ hình nghiên c u 47 2.3.2.5 pháp xây d ng mơ hình nghiên c u 47 2.3.3 ng c a nhân t n kh n vay c Agribank TPHCM 56 2.3.3.1 Nh m c a nh ng nhân t n kh n vay c a i Agribank TPHCM 56 2.3.3.2 Nh ng h n ch c a nh ng nhân t n kh n vay c t i Agribank TPHCM 57 2.3.3.3 Nguyên nhân c a nh ng h n ch .57 K t lu 58 N VAY C A H I NGÂN HÀNG NÔNG NGHI P VÀ PHÁT TRI N NÔNG THÔN VI T NAM KHU V C THÀNH PH 3.1 H CHÍ MINH 60 ng m c tiêu phát tri n c 60 3.1.1 ng, m c tiêu chung .60 3.1.2 ng, m c tiêu v phát tri n tín d ng h 3.2 Gi i pháp kh n vay c .61 i Agribank TPHCM 61 3.2.1 i v i ngân hàng .61 3.2.1.1 Nhân l c 61 3.2.1.2 Quy trình nghi p v tín d ng 64 3.2.1.3 Chính sách tín d ng 66 3.2.1.4 Ki m soát sau cho vay .67 3.2.2 i v i s n ph m 68 3.2.3 Ki n ngh .69 3.2.3.1 i v i Ngân hàng nông nghi p phát tri n nông thôn Vi t Nam .69 3.2.3.2 iv 3.2.3.3 i v i Chính Ph 71 K t lu c Vi t Nam 70 72 K T LU N 73 TÀI LI U THAM KH O PH L C PH L C PH L C DANH M C T VI T T T Agribank : Ngân hàng nông nghi p phát tri n nông thôn Vi t Nam Agribank TPHCM : Ngân hàng nông nghi p phát tri n nông thôn Vi t Nam khu v c Thành ph H Chí Minh CBTD : Cán b tín d ng CIC : Credit Information Center - Trung tâm thông tin tín d ng tr c thu c ngân hàng c Vi t Nam CP : Chính Ph KH : Khách hàng GDP : Gross Domestic Product - T ng s n ph m n :H a ng tín d ng :H IPCAS : Intra-Bank Payment and Customer Accounting System - H th ng toán n i b k toán khách hàng NH : Ngân hàng NHNN : NHTM : TPHCM : Thành ph H Chí Minh TCTD : T ch c tín d ng : Tài s c i mb o UBND : y ban nhân dân XHTD : X p h ng tín d ng , HÌNH B ng 1.1 M i quan h gi a kh n c a KH s ngày h n .13 B ng 1.2 Tóm t t nhân t n kh B ng 2.1: Ngu n v n c 25 ng Agribank TPHCM th i gian t 2012-2014 28 B Agribank TPHCM th i gian t 2012-2014 29 B phân theo th i gian vay 31 B m b o .32 B ng 2.5 N h n, n x u h 33 B h .33 B ng 2.7 x .34 B B n .35 un c ah 36 quy trình xét t c p tín d ng 42 ng kh B ng 2.10 Bi n c c gi i ngân 43 c l p s d ng nghiên c u 49 B ng 2.11 Phân tích m u d li u theo kh g tr n c 51 B ng 2.12 Phân b giá tr bi ng .52 B ng 2.13 T ng h p nhân t n kh n vay c .55 Hình 3.1 Thi t k quy trình ng d ng 64 Bi 2.1 Th ph n m Bi 2.2:Ngu n v i c a Agribank TPHCM .27 ng Agribank TPHCM th i gian t 2012-2014 .28 Bi Agribank TPHCM th i gian t 2012-2014 29 Bi i Agribank TPHCM th i gian t 2012-2014 .30 Bi h i gian vay .32 Tài li u ti ng Anh Al-Ghamdi S., Sohail M., & Al-Khaldi A.,2007 Measuring consumer satisfaction with consumer protection agencies: some insights from Saudi Arabia Journal of Consumer Marketing Asher, A., 1998 Going global: a new paradigm for consumer protection The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(2), 183-203 Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), 2005 Studies on the validation of internal rating systems Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 2006 International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards: a revised framework comprehensive version, Bank for International Settlements Burcu Duygan Bump and Charles Grant, 2008 Household debt repayment behavior: What role institutions play? C.A Wongnaa, D Awunyo-Vitor, 2013 Factors affecting loan repayment performance among yam farmers in the Sene District, Ghana Deborah D.Godwin Retail Banking Market, Maastricht University, Netherlands Ducan Ironmonger, 2000 Household production and the household economy 10 Haviland WA, 2003 Anthropology Wadsworth: Belmont, C.A 11 Isaac Dambula and Ephraim N.B Chibwana, 2004 Characterisstics of household and household members 12 John Duca and Stuart Rosenthal, 1993 Borrowing constraints, household debt and racial discrimination in loan markets 13 Johnson, G, Scholes, K and Whittington, R, 2005 Exploring corporate Strategy Text and Cases 7th Edition, Prentice Hall, London 14 ness Indicators, 2004 15 Timothy W.Koch, S Scott MacDonald, 2009 Bank management 16 Richard Swedberg, 2011 The household Economy: A complement or Alternative to the Market Economy? PH L C K t qu mơ hình nghiên c u th c nghi m liên quan kh hàng c a h Nghiên c u c a Deborah D Godwin Mô t d li u , kh o sát c i tiêu dùng tài t 1983-1989 (n = 1.479 ) Mean Std dev 46.99 16.15 Household income ($) $30,081 $ 48,579 Household size (number of 2.61 1.43 2.35 % Yes Demographic Characteristics in 1983 age (years) persons) marital 58.8 status (married) race (white) 79.3 employment 47.7 status (employed) Debt attitudes and behavior in 1983 Approval of various uses of credit (yes) Turned down for credit (yes) 16.1 Balked at applying for credit 8.9 (yes) Debt portfolio in 1983 Have credit card debt 40.5a $ 372 $ 812 Have mortgage debt 39.8 10,673 20,565 Have auto debt 33.4 1,227 2,687 Have durable goods debt 20.7 432 2,435 Have other debt 13.4 1,686 21,098 Have home improvement debt 4.7 221 1,774 Consumer debt 68.7 5,770 184,940 Total debt 75.5 33,994 229,823 Variable % Yes Mean Std dev 46.99 16.15 Household income ($) $30,081 $ 48,579 Household size (number of 2.61 1.43 Debt totals in 1983 Demographic Characteristics in 1983 age (years) persons) n vay ngân marital 58.8 status (married) race (white) 79.3 employment 47.7 status (employed) Debt attitudes and behavior in 1983 2.35 Approval of various uses of credit (yes) Turned down for credit (yes) 16.1 Balked at applying for credit 8.9 (yes) Debt portfolio in 1983 Have credit card debt 40.5a $ 372 $ 812 Have mortgage debt 39.8 10,673 20,565 Have auto debt 33.4 1,227 2,687 Have durable goods debt 20.7 432 2,435 Have other debt 13.4 1,686 21,098 Have home improvement debt 4.7 221 1,774 Consumer debt 68.7 5,770 184,940 Total debt 75.5 33,994 229,823 Debt totals in 1983 Nghiên c u c a C.A Wongnaa, D Awunyo Nghiên c u c a Burcu Duygan Vitor Bump Charles Grant Nghiên c u c a tác gi K t qu h n c a khách hàng Huy n Thanh (2006) ng nhân t ng n kh PH L C TH NG KÊ M U D LI U NGHIÊN C U Kha_nang_tra_no Valid Total Frequency 297 1455 1752 Percent 17.0 83.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 17.0 100.0 Valid Percent 17.0 83.0 100.0 Nam Valid 2012 2013 2014 Total Frequency 601 581 570 1752 Percent 34.3 33.2 32.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 34.3 67.5 100.0 Valid Percent 34.3 33.2 32.5 100.0 San_pham Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent Ngan han 1416 80.8 80.8 80.8 Trung han 336 19.2 19.2 100.0 1752 100.0 100.0 Total Thoi_gian_vay Valid 12 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 30 34 35 36 40 48 60 Total Frequency 74 369 972 134 1 22 4 15 135 3 1752 Percent 4.2 21.1 55.5 7.6 1 1.3 2 7.7 2 100.0 Valid Percent 4.2 21.1 55.5 7.6 1 1.3 2 7.7 2 100.0 Cumulative Percent 4.2 25.3 25.3 80.8 81.2 88.9 88.9 89.2 89.3 89.3 90.6 90.8 91.0 91.9 99.6 99.7 99.8 100.0 Lai_suat Valid 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 14 15 15 15 16 16 18 19 19 19 20 20 21 Total Frequency 1 18 18 17 13 38 1168 388 35 23 1752 Percent 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 66.7 22.1 2.0 1.3 100.0 Valid Percent 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.2 66.7 22.1 2.0 1.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 5 1.6 2.1 2.2 3.2 4.2 4.9 5.0 7.1 7.2 7.4 74.0 96.2 96.2 98.2 98.3 98.7 100.0 So_lan_kiem_tra_sau_cho_vay Cumulative Frequency Valid Percent Valid Percent Percent 74 4.2 4.2 4.2 366 20.9 20.9 25.1 3 25.4 966 55.1 55.1 80.5 1 80.6 148 8.4 8.4 89.0 3 89.4 26 1.5 1.5 90.9 10 2 91.1 11 2 91.3 12 148 8.4 8.4 99.8 16 1 99.8 20 2 100.0 1752 100.0 100.0 Total So_nguoi_phu_thuoc Valid 1-2 nguoi -4 nguoi >= nguoi Total Frequency 1590 119 43 1752 Percent 90.8 6.8 2.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.8 97.5 100.0 Valid Percent 90.8 6.8 2.5 100.0 Hon_nhan Valid Chua ket hon Da ket hon Total Frequency 1584 168 1752 Percent 90.4 9.6 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.4 100.0 Valid Percent 90.4 9.6 100.0 Hoc_van Valid That hoc Trung hoc >=Cao dang Total Frequency 1578 87 87 1752 Percent 90.1 5.0 5.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 90.1 95.0 100.0 Valid Percent 90.1 5.0 5.0 100.0 Nha_o Cumulative Frequency Valid So huu Percent Valid Percent Percent 1684 96.1 96.1 96.1 Thanh vien khac 40 2.3 2.3 98.4 Dong so huu 13 7 99.1 Thue 15 9 100.0 Total 1752 100.0 100.0 Nhom_nganh Cumulative Frequency Valid Nong nghiep Percent Valid Percent Percent 1602 91.4 91.4 91.4 Ban buon 46 2.6 2.6 94.1 Det may 51 2.9 2.9 97.0 Dich vu 33 1.9 1.9 98.9 Khac 20 1.1 1.1 100.0 Total 1752 100.0 100.0 Kinh_nghiem Valid 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 26 28 30 36 37 38 48 52 60 62 65 Total Frequency 158 76 25 39 121 72 34 252 1 197 25 58 46 60 188 46 22 169 23 32 17 67 15 1752 Percent 1 9.0 4.3 1.4 2.2 6.9 4.1 1.9 14.4 1 11.2 1.4 3.3 2.6 3.4 10.7 2.6 1.3 9.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 3.8 100.0 Valid Percent 1 9.0 4.3 1.4 2.2 6.9 4.1 1.9 14.4 1 11.2 1.4 3.3 2.6 3.4 10.7 2.6 1.3 9.6 1.3 1.8 1.0 3.8 100.0 Cumulative Percent 9.2 13.5 15.0 17.2 24.1 28.2 30.1 44.5 44.6 44.6 55.9 57.3 60.6 63.2 66.7 77.4 80.0 81.3 81.3 91.0 92.3 94.1 95.1 95.3 99.1 99.9 100.0 Ho_tro Valid Khong ho tro Co ho tro Total Frequency 1137 615 1752 Percent 64.9 35.1 100.0 Valid Percent 64.9 35.1 100.0 Cumulative Percent 64.9 100.0 Correlations Du_no Du_no Thoi_gian_vay Lai_suat So_lan_kiem_tra_sau_cho_vay Thu_nhap_ho_thang So_nguoi_phu_thuoc Gia_tri_TSDB Ty_le_TSBD 428 441** ** -.082** 925** -.012 Lai_suat So_lan_kiem_tra _sau_cho_vay Thu_nhap_ho_ thang So_nguoi_phu _thuoc Gia_tri_TSD B Ty_le_TSBD ** 159** 441** 667** -.082** 925** -.012 ** 977 ** ** 017 ** 428 ** 159** 667 Thoi_gia n_vay 167 -.230 406 -.107 ** 167 ** 168** 027 -.091** 152** -.006 977 ** 168** -.225** -.001 420** -.034 -.230 ** 027 ** ** 640 ** 023 017 -.091** -.001 -.139** -.097** -.070** 406 ** 152** 420** 640** -.097** 001 -.107 ** -.006 -.034 023 -.070** 001 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed -.225 -.139 Coefficients c lo i b bi n Thoi_gian_vay Gia_tri_TSDB) Sig VIF (Constant) 010 Du_no 000 12.228 San_pham 320 3.492 Thoi_gian_vay 933 24.156 Lai_suat 032 1.070 So_lan_kiem_tra_sau_cho_vay 041 24.611 Thu_nhap_ho_thang 000 5.489 So_nguoi_phu_thuoc 018 1.118 Hon_nhan 025 1.118 Hoc_van 462 1.080 Nha_o 472 1.137 Gia_tri_TSDB 542 9.010 Ty_le_TSBD 369 1.598 Nhom_nganh 211 1.113 Kinh_nghiem 148 1.012 Ho_tro 000 1.917 Dependent Variable: Kha_nang_tra_no Coefficients (sau lo i b bi n Thoi_gian_vay Gia_tri_TSDB) Sig VIF (Constant) 009 Du_no 000 5.939 San_pham 352 3.219 Lai_suat 031 1.069 So_lan_kiem_tra_sau_cho_vay 000 4.449 Thu_nhap_ho_thang 000 5.226 So_nguoi_phu_thuoc 018 1.109 Hon_nhan 026 1.113 Hoc_van 347 1.079 Nha_o 391 1.134 Ty_le_TSBD 213 1.343 Nhom_nganh 217 1.112 Kinh_nghiem 153 1.011 Ho_tro 000 1.900 Dependent Variable: Kha_nang_tra_no PH L C NG KH N VAY C A H Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients Chi-square Step df Sig 19 000 162.098 19 000 Model 162.098 19 000 -1.454 483 Block 159.179 14 000 Model a 162.098 Block Step Step 159.179 14 000 Step a A negative Chi-squares value indicates that the Chisquares value has decreased from the previous step Model Summary Step Cox & Snell R Nagelkerke R Square Square -2 Log likelihood 1432.661 a 088 748 1435.580 a 087 745 a Estimation terminated at iteration number because parameter estimates changed by less than 001 Hosmer and Lemeshow Test Step Chi-square df Sig 18.492 018 14.141 078 Classification Table a Observed Predicted Kha_nang_tra_no Step Kha_nang_tra_no Percentage Correct a The cut value is 500 259 38 87.2 Overall Percentage 1448 99.5 84.8 Variables in the Equation B Step a S.E Wald df Sig Exp(B) Du_no -.005 001 28.981 000 995 San_pham_trungdaihan -.324 344 889 346 1.383 Lai_suat -.100 045 4.897 027 1.106 So_lan_kiem_tra_sau_cho_vay 195 063 9.593 002 1.216 Thu_nhap_ho_thang 087 013 45.245 000 1.090 So_nguoi_phu_thuoc -.312 165 3.581 058 732 Hon_nhan_dakethon -.313 227 1.903 168 731 062 036 2.997 083 940 9.549 049 Ty_le_TSBD Nhom_nganh_nongnghiep (Base) Nhom_nganh_banbuon 142 434 107 744 1.152 Nhom_nganh_detmay -.651 369 3.116 078 522 Nhom_nganh_dichvu -.859 419 4.209 040 424 Nhom_nganh_khac 1.659 1.092 2.307 129 5.252 008 006 2.233 135 1.008 1.364 220 38.292 000 3.912 - 892 3.327 068 196 Kinh_nghiem Ho_tro Constant 1.627 a Variable(s) removed on step 2: Nha_o b Variable(s) removed on step 3: Hoc_van