美国小型和大型商业银行的利润效率来源及差异[文献翻译].doc

本科毕业论文外文翻译外文题目：Profit efficiency sources and differences among small and Large U.S commercial banks 出 处： Journal of economic and finance (2005):289-299 作 者： Aigbe Akhigbe and James McNulty 原 文：IntroductionScale economies in banking have long been of interest to financial economists, and this interest has been heightened in recent years by two developments. The first is increased concern about the survivability of small community banks in an era of bank consolidation. This theme was the subject of a March 2003 conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and formed the basis for a special March 2004 issue of the Journal of Financial Services Research.The second development is recent academic research suggesting that small banks may have both an information advantage over large banks, as in Nakamura (1993), Mester, Nakamura, and Renault (2001), and Carter and McNulty (2004), and an incentive to use this information advantage in the lending process. Berger et al. (2002) provide evidence on the second point. They suggest that small banks may have a comparative advantage in developing and using the “soft” information often associated with small business lending. PROFEFF is an econometric financial performance measure that indicates how actual financial performance compares to a theoretical best-practice frontier. Considering differences in, and sources of, profit efficiency (PROFEFF) by bank size groups can help shed light on the issue of which banks use their capital more efficiently (provided profits are normalized by equity, which is the approach we take in this paper).Relevant Literature and Estimation IssuesMost studies done in the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that scale economies are slight or nonexistent beyond asset sizes of $50 to $100 million. Some early examples are Benston, Hanweck, and Humphrey (1982), Gilligan, Smirlock, and Marshall (1984), Clark (1984), Nelson (1985), and Berger, Hanweck, and Humphrey (1987). Using 1984 data, Berger and Humphrey (1991) find that economies of scale at the firm level are exhausted beyond $200 million in asset size. Since this influential study, which found that gains from reducing cost inefficiencies dominate gains from realizing scale economies, the focus of most studies has shifted to inefficiencies and hence away from optimum size. However, using cost efficiency, Berger and Mester (1997) conclude that scale economies are exhausted well before $10 billion in asset size.Since these studies estimate cost economies, they cannot directly address the possibility that revenues may be more than proportionately higher for larger banks. However, another related trend in this literature has been increased recognition that profit efficiency is a more appropriate technique to use in evaluating bank performance than cost efficiency since PROFEFF incorporates both revenues and costs. Recent profit efficiency studies include Altunbas, Evans, and Molyneux (2001), Akhigbe and McNulty (2003), Berger and Mester (1997, 2001), DeYoung and Hasan (1998), and DeYoung and Nolle (1996), among others. Other recent studies of U.S. banking efficiency include Barr, Kilgo, Siems, and Stiroh (2000), Zimmel (2002), Berger and DeYoung (2001), and Wheelock and Walker (1999, 2000).The keynote paper at the above-mentioned conference, by DeYoung, Hunter, and Udell (2004), argues that small banks and large banks have a different focus and a different business modelpersonalized service and customized financial services (e.g., small business loans) in the case of small banks and efficient distribution of relatively uniform types of financial services (e.g., credit cards and home equity loans) in the case of large banks. The business model of the small bank requires relatively high cost, while larger banks can keep cost low. Under this line of reasoning, both types of banks should have a role to play in the future financial services marketplace. Nonetheless, differences in PROFEFF are important because ultimately small and large banks compete for capital. For example, the decision of a smaller bank to join or not to join a large banking organization through a merger is ultimately a subjective decision about how its capital can be best employed. Given these considerations, two important questions raised by Berger and Mester (1997) must be considered before we proceed. The first is the appropriate variableassets or equityto use in normalizing profits in computing the PROFEFF measure. The second is the use of one frontier or several frontiers in comparing banks of different sizes. Because PROFEFF, when normalized by equity, measures how well a bank utilizes its financial capital, we choose to use this measure. Some earlier studies comparing large and small banks, such as Akhigbe and McNulty (2003), use assets and find small banks have higher PROFEFF. Use of equity can be expected to produce the opposite result since large banks use more leverage than small banks. In other words, the PROFEFF measure that we use is closer to return on equity, which should show greater PROFEFF for large banks. Normalizing by assets is likely to produce the opposite result.Since we want to consider the sources of the differences in PROFEFF, we use three different frontiers for small, medium, and large banks. This is consistent with the assumption that their focus, and their basic business model, is different. This procedure allows the PROFEFF measures to have maximum flexibilitysmall bank PROFEFF and its frontier are not constrained or affected in any way by the activities and balance-sheet structure of large banks, and vice versa. Thus, when we look at the determinants of PROFEFF for the three groups, if they are different, this will reflect real differences, and if they are the same, it will not be because the same frontier was imposed on all banks. We recognize the alternative argument that, in comparing the performance of different banks, one normally wants to use the same test, not two or three different tests.(We made this argument ourselves in an earlier paper.)Profit Efficiency Trends for Various Bank Size GroupsPROFEFF has declined sharply in recent years for small banks, from 0.778 in 1995 to 0.702 in 2001. We consider the hypothesis that this decline may reflect an increasing number of de novo banks in the small bank category. FDIC data indicate that between 1992 and 1994 only 74 new banks per year were chartered, which no doubt reflects the depressed state of the banking industry at that time. In contrast, in the six year period from 1995 to 2000, there were an average of 175 new bank charters per year. Many of these banks remain small for a number of years after being chartered. DeYoung and Hasan (1998) show that de novo banks are much less profit efficient than older, similarly sized banks. In Table 1 the percent of banks in the under $100 million dollar category that are de novos (age under 10 years) has increased from 11.4 percent to 13.5 percent. Moreover, DeYoung and Hasan (1998) show that the first three years of operations show particularly low PROFEFF for new banks. The greater dispersion of the data for small banks in recent years also supports this explanation. Thus, the hypothesis that at least part of the decline in small bank PROFEFF between 1995 and 2001 reflects the performance of the de novo banks in the sample appears reasonable.In contrast to the small banks, PROFEFF is relatively stable for medium-size and large banks when trends in both median and mean values are taken into account. For example, mean PROFEFF for medium size banks remains above 0.81 throughout the period and large bank PROFEFF remains above 0.84. Nonetheless, some decline is evident in the estimates, which probably reflects in part the fact that banks in all size groups are using less leverage because of pressures from regulators to increase the amount of equity capital on their balance sheet.Results of the Regression Analysis of the Correlates of Profit EfficiencyAs noted, we consider differences in the significance of the correlates among the size groups as an indication that banks of different sizes have different ways of achieving high profitability. The equity/assets ratio (EQUITY) is negative (as expected) and significant at medium and large banks. This indicates that, within these size groups, the more profit-efficient banks, ceteris paribus, use more leverage (less equity) than the other banks in the same size group. Age is positive and significant forsmall and medium-size banks but not for large ones. This would be consistent with the notion that the establishment of a strong credit culture is an important element in small and medium-size bank profitability. Overlapping generations of loan officers (each generation training the next in the art of making loans in the local community) and relationship development are important elements in developing such a culture. Successful implementation of these strategies would require that the bank be in existence for a considerable period of time. This is the “learning by doing” discussed by Berger and Mester (1997) and mentioned above.The marketplace nonperforming loan ratio (MKTNPL) is significant with the expected negative sign for small and medium-sized banks but is actually positive for large banks. This ratio is not particularly relevant for larger banks since it only considers nonperforming loans in the county where the home office of the bank is located; most large banks have offices and loans in more than one county. Membership in a multibank holding company (MBHC) is negative and significant for small and medium-size banks but not for large ones. Apparently the most successful small and mediumsized banks are independent. It also suggests that large banks that are members of holding companies are less likely to be affected by developments at the holding company level than are the smaller and medium-sized holding company members. The relative nonperforming loan ratio (RELNPL) is significant and negative but only for medium-size banks.Differences in fee revenue (FEEREV) are an important source of differences in profitability at small and medium-size banks (note the very high significance levels) but not at larger ones. The most likely explanation for this is that virtually all large banks depend on fee revenue rather than that fee revenue is unimportant for these banks. See Table 1. The year dummy variables are also significant for small and medium-size banks only. This suggests that larger banks have more consistent profitability over time than the other banks. Competitive conditions matter but only for the two smaller size groups. Differences in PROFEFF among small banks are positively related to the HHI. In other words, ceteris paribus, PROFEFF is higher in more concentrated markets, which is exactly what we would expect. The same relationship holds for medium-size banks but not for large ones. Berger and Mester (1997) and Akhigbe and McNulty (2003) also find a positive relationship between PROFEFF and the HHI. In addition, most of the coefficients of the other correlates are consistent with the findings of Akhigbe and McNulty (2003). The fact that banks of different size attain high (or low) profit efficiency through different means is consistent with the above-mentioned recent analysis of DeYoung, Hunter, and Udell (2004) that suggests that banks of different sizes have different business models.Summary and ConclusionsWe examine the differences in profit efficiency at small (under $100 million in assets), medium size ($100 million to $1 billion) and large (more than $1 billion) banks for the period 1995 to 2001, and we also examine the sources of these differences. Since we calculate PROFEFF normalized by equity, it is not surprising that large banks rank highest. However, the differences are quite large. For the period as a whole, average PROFEFF is 0.752 for the small banks, 0.823 for the medium-size banks, and 0.856 for the large banks. In other words, the difference between small and large is more than 10 basis points, which is economically (and statistically) quite significant. Small banks can attain high PROFEFF by being older, by operating in markets with low default rates, by being independent of a holding company, by generating high fee income, by operating in a concentrated market, and by having more of their assets in loans as opposed to securities. Large banks that have high PROFEFF do so primarily by using more leverage since none of the other variables are significant.DeYoung, Hunter, and Udell (2004) argue that different types of banks have different business models. The business model of the small bank is customized and personalized service but at high cost, while larger banks aim to deliver relatively uniform financial services to large groups of customers at lower cost. Our analysis is consistent with this notion that different types of banks attain high profitability in different ways.译 文：美国小型和大型商业银行的利润效率来源及差异简介金融经济学家一直对银行的规模经济很感兴趣，近几年，由于两次发展而对银行规模经济的这个兴趣进一步的加深。首先是增加对银行合并时代的小型社区银行的关注。这个主题是在2003年3月的一个美国芝加哥联邦储蓄银行会议的主题，形成了一个2004年3月的特殊的金融服务研究杂志的基础。第二个发展是最近的学术研究，表明了小银行可能比大银行更有信息的优势（1993），同在中村，美斯特，中村，雷诺（2001），卡特和麦克纳尔蒂（2004年），鼓励使用贷款过程中的这种信息优势。柏格等（2002）提供了第二点证据，他们认为，小型银行在发展和利用“软”信息时可能具有的一个比较优势往往与小企业贷款相关。利润效率是指示如何比较实际财务业绩和最佳实践前沿理论的计量财务绩效的衡量。考虑到差异以及来源，银行规模组的盈利效率可以帮助解决银行更有效的使用他们的资本的这个问题（提供的利润归一股权，这是我们在本文采取的方法）。相关的文献和估计问题在80年代和90年代初所做的大多数研究表明，资产规模在5000万美元至1亿美元的规模经济是轻微的或是不存在。利用1984年的数据，伯杰和汉弗莱（1991）发现资产规模在2亿美元以上的规模经济在企业层面已经枯竭。由于这个有影响力的研究，从而发现从降低成本的低效率的收益来主宰实现规模经济的收益。大多数研究的焦点已经转移到低效率，从而远离了最佳规模。但是，使用成本效益，伯杰和美斯特（1997）的结论是规模经济用尽之前的资产规模是100亿美元。由于成本经济的估计研究，他们不能直接解决大型银行可能有比例较高的收入问题的可能性。然而，这些文献中的另一个相关趋势已进一步的认识到，利润效率使用在银行业绩评价中比成本效益更合适，因为利润效率既包含收入又包含费用。近期的利润效率研究包括Altunbas,Evans,和Molyneux(2001),Akhigbe和McNulty(2003),Berger和Mester(1997,2001)DeYoung和Hasan(1998)和DeYoung和Nolle(1996)等。最近其他的美国银行效率的研究包括了Barr，Kilgo，Siems和Stiroh（2000），Zimmel（2002），Berger和DeYoung（2001）和Wheelock和Walker（1999,2000）.DeYoung, Hunter和Udell（2004）在上述会议主题文件中认为，小型银行和大型银行有着不同的重点和不同的商业模式小银行的情况是个性化服务和客制化的金融服务（例如，小企业贷款），而相对于大型银行来说则是分布比较均匀类型的高效金融服务（例如，信用卡和房屋净值贷款）。小型银行的业务模式需要的成本相对较高，而大银行可以保持低成本。根据这种推论，这两种类型的银行在未来金融服务市场上都有一个发挥的角色。然而，在利润效率中的差异是很重要的，因为最终小型银行和大型银行竞争的是资本。例如，一个较小的银行决定通过合并加入或者不加入一个大型的银行机构，最终是关于它们的资本如何能最好使用的主观决定。鉴于这些因素，由美斯特和伯杰（1997）提出的两个重要问题在我们开始之前必须考虑。第一个是相应的变量资产或权益使用正常化利润计算利润效率的措施。第二个则是利用一个或者几个前沿领域比较不同规模的银行。由于利润效率，股权归一时，一个银行如何利用好它们的金融资本的措施，我们选择使用这项措施。一些早期的研究利用资产比较大型和小型银行的，例如Akhigbe和McNulty（2003），发现小银行具有较高的利润效率。利用股权可预期产生相反的结果，因为大型银行比小银行有更好的杠杆作用。换句话说，我们使用的利润效率的措施更接近净资产收益率，这表现出大型银行有更大的利润效率。资产正常化可能产生相反的结果。由于我们要考虑利润效率差异的来源，我们使用小型，中型和大型银行的三个不同的领域。这与假设一致，它们的焦点，它们的基本经营模式是不同的。这个程序允许利润效率措施有最大的灵活性小银行的利润效率不受大银行的活动和资产负债表结构的任何约束或影响，反之亦然。因此，当我们看到这三个群体的利润效率的决定因素，如果它们是不同的，这将反应真正的差别，如果它们是相同的，所有的银行将不会因为相同的前沿被制裁。我们认识到的另一类说法是，在比较不同银行的业绩时，人们通常想要使用相同的测试，而不是两个或者三个不同的测试。（先前的文章中我们自己讨论过这个论点）各种规模的团体银行的利润效率趋势近几年来，小型银行的利润效率急剧下降，从1995年的0.778下降到2001年的0.702。我们认为这种下降的假设可能反映了在小银行类别中的从头银行数量的增加。联邦存款保险公司的数据表明，在1992年和1994年之间，每年只有74家特许的新银行，这无疑反映了当时银行业的低迷状态。与此相反，在从1995年至2000年的六年时间里，平均每年有175家特许成立的银行。许多银行在特许成立之后的很多年规模仍然很小。DeYoung和Hasan（1998）表明，从头银行的利润效率比老的，相同规模的银行的利润效率少得多。表1中在一亿美元以下的银行类别的百分比中从头银行（未满10年）已经从百分之11.4上升到百分之13.5。此外，DeYoung和Hasan（1998）指出，新银行前三年的经营显示出的利润效率特别低。近几年，数据更加分散的小银行也支持这个解释。因此，在1995年至2001年的小型银行至少部分利润效率下降的假设反映了从头银行在样本中出现的合理性。与小型银行相反，当把中位数和均值的趋势都考虑在内时，中型银行和大型银行的利润效率相对稳定。举例来说，意味着在整个期间内中型银行的利润效率高于0.81而大型银行的利润效率仍高于