Search

In the first part (in the previous issue of Economic Review) of this two-part study, the authors identified a number of possible benefits from combining banking and commerce, including portfolio diversification, the creation of internal capital markets, and economies of scale and scope. This second part of the study analyzes the one source of possible gains--portfolio diversification--that can be estimated with existing data. Using methodologies from previous studies, the authors combine ten financial and nonfinancial industries into hypothetical portfolios using industry-level profitability data calculated from corporate tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service between 1994 and 2004. The analysis demonstrates that pairwise combinations of banks with construction firms or with retail firms would have produced substantially higher returns on equity with less risk during the sample period. Efficient portfolios combining banks with several other industries showed even higher levels of returns relative to risk, although banks were not necessarily a dominant part of some combinations. These findings suggest that portfolio diversification could be an important benefit from combining banks with some types of nonbank firms. The authors stress that bank management contemplating diversification into the commercial sector must be selective about which specific industries they choose, while corporate management interested in moving into banking might need to settle for somewhat lower returns to achieve a substantial reduction in risk. JEL classification: G21, G34, G28 Key words: banking and commerce, portfolio diversification, The limits on the affiliation of commercial banks with domestic nonbank firms have varied through time (see Haubrich and Santos 2003). Most of the barriers separating commercial banks from nonbank [...]

The policy debate on whether to strengthen or to remove the legal barriers between banking and commerce has paid little attention to what the practical effects of removing the barriers would be. To help answer this question, this article, the first part of a two-part study, provides an overview of the potential gains of integrating banking and commerce. Economic theory, the authors note, suggests that joint corporate ownership of banks and commercial firms has several potential benefits, including economies of scale and scope, increased internal capital markets, and diversification. Commercial firms could also enjoy a significant reduction in funding costs if affiliation with a bank extended the federal safety net for banks to cover the commercial firms' liabilities. But some benefits are already available without common ownership. Moreover, common ownership may also result in some disadvantages, such as significant diseconomies of scale and scope. Actual experience provides better insight than theory can about the relative magnitudes of the benefits and costs of cross-industry combinations. U.S. experience with limited openings between banking and nonbank activities suggests that the most common combinations were banks with nonbank financial firms, relationships that were authorized by a 1999 reform act. Foreign experience and U.S. conglomerates of nonbank firms in different industries fail to provide compelling evidence for large-scale combinations of banking and commercial firms. JEL classification: G21, G34, G28 Keywords: banking and commerce, The application by Wal-Mart in 2005 to acquire a type of bank called an industrial loan company (ILC) sparked a renewed interest in the issue of mixing banking and commerce. [...]

ABSTRACT Conservation subdivision design, or open space design, is an alternative means of possibly enhancing the quality of life in residential areas in an efficient and cost-effective manner. This study [...]

AbstractThis paper examines the merit of bank diversification using a sample of listed Chinese national banks during 2003–2012. We find that income source diversity positively affects profitability but negatively affects operating efficiency and market valuation. By exploiting an exogenous change in the regulatory attitude toward diversification in 2008, we find that the positive diversification-profitability relation before 2008 changes to negative afterwards; meanwhile, the diversification discount turns to premium. We conjecture that the source of discount captures changes in the diversification-induced agency costs. Finally, we find that governance matters as it enhances the positive diversification-profitability relation and mitigates diversification discount.