自Merton(1977)以來，對存款保險費率之研究均將存保契約視為一歐式 賣權。在契約到期時，金融機構被認定無償債能力時(insolvency)該契約即終止。 因此要保機構會執行其賣權並要求存保公司出面理賠、清算或改組之。但實際上 金融主管當局之監管能力往往是有限的，很可能無法即時察覺要保機構償債能力 之喪失或已察覺但受種種因素之限制而無法即時關閉要保機構，此時存保契約就 不再是一個單純的歐式賣權。在此情形下，存保契約不僅是一期的賣權同時也提 供了要保機構在未來幾期中續約的權利，如此存保契約就變成了一個其有複合特 徵的選擇權契約。本研究即以我國銀行為樣本，在考慮金融監管能力受限的情況 下，將銀行之存保契約依複合選擇權的模型和公式估計其合理的費率，並同時以 傳統一期歐式賣權模型估計之以做為比較。

　　　　　Since Merton (1977) first suggested using put options to value depositinsurance, there has been a long tradition of modeling deposit insurance asa one period European put option. In most of these research, the put optionformula was derived under the implicit assumption that at the end of the period the put is exercised if the insured institution is found to be insolvent.However, regulatory constraints and incentive-incompatibility depositinsurance scheme prevented regulators from timely enforcement and termination of term deposit insurance contracts In this case, deposit insurancecontract actually provides the holder with renewal options for severalperiods. This paper adopts the compound option pricing approach suggested in Geske and Johnson (1984) to estimate deposit insurance premiumfor banks in Taiwan. Estimates of one period European put are also provided for comparison.