Banks' consumer lending reaction to fintech and bigtech credit emergence in the context of soft versus hard credit information processing

Access to credit information and the ability to process this information effectively determine the conditions of competition in the credit market. Traditionally, local banks have had an advantage in relationship lending (based on soft credit information), whereas foreign banks are considered to base on hard credit information. With the advent of financial technology (or “fintech”) companies (or “fintechs”) and giant technology (or “bigtech”) companies (or “bigtechs”) providing alternative credit, the conditions of competition in the credit market have changed. In this empirical study, we shed light on the nature of the information advantages fintech and bigtech companies have compared to banks and how alternative lenders use them. We analyze competition in the consumer lending segment between banks and fintechs as well as bigtechs providing alternative lending. We used a database combining bank-level characteristics and country-level proxies for 72 countries from 2013 to 2018. We find that in developed markets, the relationships between fintech and bigtech credit providers and banks are similar and competitive in nature. However, banks' consumer lending grows simultaneously with fintech credit market development in emerging economies, but decreases in the aftermath of the emergence of bigtech credit. Fintech credit seems to penetrate market segments not serviced by banks; thus, it plays a complementary role, however only in emerging economies. Bigtech companies compete even more with banks and push some banking offers out of the market, both in emerging and developed economies. Furthermore, we show that domestic and privately-owned banks are more negatively affected by competition from technology-based lending, particularly bigtech, than foreign banks. Thus, bigtech lending may be treated as a serious competition for banks' relationship lending based on soft credit information processing, traditionally provisioned by local banks.     

Are Investment Banks Special Too? Evidence on Relationship‐Specific Capital in Investment Bank Services

The question of whether optimal provision of these services comes mainly from established relationships between banks and client firms or can result from arms'‐length market transactions has been the topic of considerable recent debate. This discussion has paralleled the debate in the commercial banking literature on the “specialness” of banks and whether lending can and should be relational or purely transactional. Whether the provision of investment bank services is relationship‐based or transactional is especially relevant now thanks to recent trends that have blurred the distinction between commercial and investment banks, and changed the competitive landscape for investment bank services. In their study summarized in this article, the authors examine whether investment bank‐client relationships create valuable relationship‐specific capital using stock market evidence from the period surrounding the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Specifically, they studied the effect of the Lehman collapse on companies that used Lehman for (1) underwriting equity offerings, (2) underwriting debt offerings, (3) advice on mergers and acquisitions, (4) analyst research services, and (5) market‐making services. The study addressed two specific questions. First, which investment bank services, if any, are associated with the creation of relationship‐specific capital; and second, what are the value drivers of this relationship capital? The authors report finding that companies that used Lehman as lead underwriter for public equity offerings experienced significantly negative abnormal stock returns in the days surrounding Lehman's bankruptcy announcement. By contrast, they find no significant reaction to the announcement for Lehman's debt underwriting clients or any of the other client categories they examine. While most of these investment bank services have at least the potential to create relationship‐specific capital, the authors' findings suggest that except for equity underwriting, all the other investment bank services appear to be transactional rather than relationship‐based, at least in the average case. Moreover, the authors report significant differences even among different groups of Lehman's equity underwriting clients. An equity underwriting relationship with Lehman appears to have been especially valuable for smaller, younger, and more financially constrained firms—those firms which presumably had a high degree of dependence on Lehman to access the capital market.     

RETHINKING BANK REGULATION: A REVIEW OF THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

The debate over bank powers has taken on special urgency with the recent flurry of proposed mergers, such as the Citicorp-Travelers Group combination, that would break down the barriers between commercial and investment banking. After more than a decade of failed attempts to expand the scope of permissible bank activities, the House of Representatives recently voted for the first time in favor of a bill to end these Depression era limitations. The issue will be taken up by the Senate this fall. Most of the rationales for regulating banks fall into two broad categories: (1) the need to control potential conflicts of interest stemming from banks' multiple roles as deposit-takers, lenders, securities underwriters, and investment advisers; and (2) the perceived need to protect against the possibility of bank panics and widespread financial instability. In reviewing the historical evidence compiled by banking and finance scholars over the years, this article finds remarkably little cause for concern and suggests the regulatory cure may be far worse than the disease. On the first issue, the article cites a number of recent studies suggesting that market forces deal more effectively than regulation with conflicts of interests that can arise when commercial banks are engaged in securities underwriting. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, investors during the pre-Glass-Steagall era appear to have been better off when they purchased securities from commercial banks rather than investment banks. Moreover, to enhance their credibility in the market, many commercial banks during this period chose to put some distance between their lending and underwriting activities by establishing separate securities affiliates, thereby creating voluntary “firewalls.” In examining the issue of how the expansion of bank powers would affect economic stability, the second half of the article cites a large body of research–including studies of different historical periods and countries–attesting to the durability of commercial (and universal) banking systems. Indeed, one of the most important findings issuing from this research is that the regulatory safety net has often had the unfortunate impact of undermining rather than promoting financial stability.     

The Effect of Private-Debt-Underwriting Reputation on Bank Public-Debt Underwriting

We provide evidence that commercial banks extend their reputationin underwriting syndicated loans and private placements (privatedebt) to their bond-underwriting activities. In the absenceof bond market reputation, private-debt-market reputation enablescommercial banks to win underwriting mandates from their loanclients. Furthermore, it allows them to credibly commit to investorsagainst opportunistically using lending information and therebydeliver superior certification benefits in the form of higherissue prices relative to investment-bank underwriters. Thispricing benefit is not offset by higher underwriting fees andthus results in lower total issuance costs for borrowers.(JELG21, G28, L14, L15)     

Do Investment Banks Have Incentives to Help Clients Make Value‐Creating Acquisitions?

Many have long suspected that investment banks, when advising corporate clients on potential acquisitions, have strong incentives just to “get the deal done” with little if any motive for urging clients to walk away from “bad” deals. The incentive to complete deals comes from compensation arrangements in which the bulk of the bankers' fees depend upon completion of the deals. Several earlier studies have provided support for this suspicion by reporting findings that show banks' market shares of advisory services depending mainly on two variables—their previous market shares and their deal completion rate—with little if any connection to the value created (or destroyed) for their clients' shareholders. In their recently published study, the authors revisit that relationship and reach a number of different conclusions: (1) advisors in acquisitions that create more value for clients are more likely to be chosen for future deals; (2) the changes in bankers' advisory market shares are strongly related to the value created for prior clients; and (3) the changes in banks' market values are positively correlated with the value created for their acquirer clients. In sum, the findings suggest that banks have significant market‐related incentives to advise their clients to pursue value‐creating acquisitions and to avoid deals likely to reduce their market values.     

Which banks smooth and at what price?

By adjusting lending, banks can smooth the macroeconomic impact of deposit fluctuations. This may, however, lead to extended periods of disproportionately high lending relative to deposit intake and, under certain conditions, to the accumulation of risk in the banking system. Using bank-level data for 8477 banks in 129 countries for the period from 1992 to 2015, we examine how banks' market power and other characteristics may contribute to smoothing or amplification of shocks and the accumulation of risk. We find that the higher their market power the lower is the growth rate of lending relative to deposits. As a result, in periods of falling deposits higher market power for the average bank is associated with a greater fall in lending, consistent with amplification of adverse effects during relatively bad times. Strikingly, at very high levels of market power, there is a threshold past which the effect of market power on the growth rate of lending relative to deposits turns positive so that “superpower” banks may contribute to the smoothing of adverse effects when deposits are falling. In periods of rising deposits, however, such banks are more likely to lead to amplification and accumulation of risk in the economy.     

Deregulation,technological change,and the business-lending performance of large and small banks

According to DeYoung et al. [Journal of Financial Services Research, 2004] deregulation and technological change has divided the US banking industry into two primary size-based groups: very large banks, specializing in the use of “hard” information to make standardized loans and smaller banks, specializing in the use of “soft” information and relationship development to make non-standardized loans. We evaluate business-lending performance for small and large banks over the 1993–2001 period. Small business lending by small banks is characterized by relationship development and non-standardized loans. Consistent with DeYoung et al.'s model, we find that, after controlling for market concentration, cost of funds, and a variety of other factors that might influence yields, smaller banks perform better than larger banks in the small business lending market. However, larger banks appear to have the advantage in credit card lending, a market characterized by impersonal relationships and standardized loans. Interestingly, we find evidence that larger banks have been making inroads in the market for the smallest business loans, a result consistent with the use of credit scoring by large banks to make very small business loans [Berger et al., Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 2004].     

Great expectations: Banks as equity underwriters

We examine the in-roads commercial banks have made into equity underwriting over 1990–2002. While banks end the period handling upwards of 25% of equity underwriting, this increase results almost exclusively from acquisitions of investment banks with an already established market share of equity underwriting. We find a significant decline in the market share of equity underwriting that banks acquired in the post-merger period, a decline that is larger than that experienced by independent investment banks of comparable reputation. Banks lose market share because they originate fewer IPOs and their IPOs have a lower incidence of follow-on SEOs compared to independent investment banks. Following the merger, banks experience a large fall off in their ability to retain follow-on SEOs and are less successful in winning SEO mandates when an issuer switches from its IPO underwriter. Overall, the findings suggest it has been difficult for banks to achieve scope economies in equity underwriting.     

Economic Consequences of Transparency Regulation: Evidence from Bank Mortgage Lending

We examine the economic consequences of a rule designed to improve consumers' understanding of mortgage information. The 2015 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosures rule (TRID) simplifies the mortgage disclosures provided to consumers. As a consequence, TRID-affected mortgages become a less attractive investment opportunity to banks. Our main results document that mortgage applications affected by TRID are less likely to be approved following the rule's effective date. We find evidence consistent with both a decrease in consumers' information processing costs and an increase in banks' secondary market frictions, providing insight into the potential channels through which this reduction in mortgage credit operates. We also find that banks partially compensate for reduced mortgage lending by increasing small business lending, and that fintechs absorb mortgage demand in areas with reduced mortgage lending by banks. Our study documents real actions that firms take in response to disclosure transparency regulation and contributes to the literature on the economic consequences of such regulation.     

The Rise of Accelerated Seasoned Equity Underwritings

Seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) executed through accelerated underwritings have recently seen significant increases in global market share, and now account for a majority of the proceeds from both U.S. and European SEOs. Based on their study of over 30,000 global SEOs during the period 1991‐2004, the authors conclude that accelerated offerings occur more rapidly (as their name suggests), raise more capital, and require fewer underwriters than conventional fully marketed SEOs. Accelerated transactions also typically involve larger, better‐known companies that tend to be selling substantial amounts of secondary as well as primary secondary shares (whereas traditional SEOs consist almost entirely of primary shares). Besides speed of execution, the growing popularity of accelerated deals is also attributed to lower spreads, the reduced price risk for issuers resulting from the brief underwriting period, and “market‐impact” costs that are no larger than those that accompany traditional SEOs. Indeed, according to the authors' estimates, accelerated deals reduce the total issuance costs of U.S. issuers—in the form of lower spreads, market‐impact costs, and underpricing—by 250 basis points, on average, while the cost reduction for European sellers is said to be close to 400 basis points. The authors also present an analysis of SEO investment banking syndicates that illustrates that accelerated deals yield much smaller, more capital‐intensive, and presumably riskier underwriting syndicates that generate comparable revenues over much shorter transactions periods. In so doing, they enable larger, more reputable banks to “buy” market share and league table rankings. The authors' findings underscore three major trends that are shaping global investment banking. First, the fact that accelerated deals are marketed almost exclusively to institutional investors, and that these underwriting methods are gaining market share, suggests the declining importance of retail investors in equity markets everywhere. Second, the rise of accelerated deals both promotes and reflects increasing concentration in the investment banking industry, since only the largest banks have the capital base and risk tolerance required to buy large share blocks outright and assume all or most of the price risk of later resale. Finally, the increasing use of accelerated underwritings for SEOs provides another case of the “commoditization” of financial transactions characterized by relatively low asymmetric information. Since ATs can be employed for shares of only large and well‐known companies, these offerings are executed very quickly and cheaply—in much the same way plain vanilla corporate bonds are sold—and with minimal need for the placement and marketing services that investment banks use for IPOs and other non‐transparent security offerings.     

Branching,lending and competition in Italian banking

With the liberalization of legal barriers to the opening of bank branches in 1990, both market structure and competitive conditions in Italy changed profoundly as banks expanded their branching networks. This paper provides novel empirical evidence on how changes of the branch network structure at the province level affect the performance and lending activity of banks across the period 1993–2011. In particular, we adopt two modes of analysis. The first focuses on the impact of diversification strategies on performance, lending and funding strategies at the province level. The second one examines how the increase of big banks' local presence affects single-market bank performance and lending strategies. Our results show that geographical diversification strategies can reduce performance, the adjusted Lerner Index of banks and lending activities, but increase the Lerner Index in deposit markets. Furthermore, we find that the expansion of branches by large-medium sized banks in concentrated markets can reduce the Lerner Index for the deposit market and the amount of loans offered by single-market banks.     

SOME EVIDENCE THAT BANKS USE INTERNAL CAPITAL MARKETS TO LOWER CAPITAL COSTS

To the extent raising external capital is especially costly for banks (as the preceding article suggests), bank managers have incentives to manage their internal cash flow in ways that minimize their need to raise external equity. One way to accomplish this is to establish bank holding companies that set up internal capital markets for the purpose of allocating scarce capital across their various subsidiaries. By “internal capital market” the authors mean a capital budgeting process in which all the lending and investment opportunities of the different subsidiaries are ranked according to their risk-adjusted returns; and all internal capital available for investment is then allocated to the highestranked opportunities until either the capital is exhausted or returns fall below the cost of capital, whichever comes first. As evidence of the operation of internal capital markets in bank holding companies, the authors report the following set of findings from their own recent studies:

• ? For large publicly traded bank holding companies, growth rates in lending are closely tied to the banks' internal cash flow and regulatory capital position.
• ? For the subsidiaries of bank holding companies, what matters most is the capital position and earnings of the holding companies and not of the subsidiaries themselves.
• ? The lending activity of banks affiliated with multiple bank holding companies appears to be less dependent on their own earnings and capital than the lending of unaffiliated banks.

The authors also report that, after being acquired, previously unaffiliated banks increase their lending in local markets. This finding suggests that, contrary to the concerns of critics of bank consolidation, geographic consolidation may make banks more responsive to local lending opportunities.     

Universal Banking Under Bilateral Information Asymmetry

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley (GLB) Act of 1999 repealed many provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act that curtailed competition between banks and commercial firms. Significantly, however, the GLB Act did not repeal the constraint on banks from owning equity in commercial firms (“universal banking”). Should banks be allowed to hold equity in corporate borrowers? If allowed, would banks optimally choose to do so? Despite its relevance from a policy perspective, there are surprisingly few theoretical analyses of this issue of “universal banking”. We develop a model in which the bank's advisory role as an “inside” shareholder hinges on its equity stake. The optimal capital structure and the bank's and entrepreneur's equity stakes are endogenously determined in a world with potential double-sided moral hazard. In certain scenarios, the bank may prefer not to hold any equity. Our analysis indicates that allowing optimal bank equity participation may foster improved corporate performance. This benefit of universal banking should be considered in policy debates.     

The market structure effects of commercial bank entry into underwriting: Evidence from the league tables

This study investigates the market structure effects of the deregulation of the US underwriting industry that allowed commercial banks to expand into investment banking activities. Specifically, it analyses the gains of commercial banks in market rankings and market share, the market position of the traditional top-ranked firms and changes in market concentration. The overall evidence suggests that (a) commercial banks were successful in gaining market share in underwriting, especially in debt offerings; (b) the commercial bank entry into underwriting eroded the dominance of bulge-bracket firms in debt underwriting, but not in equity offerings, where their dominance intensified; and (c) the commercial bank entry helped reduce market concentration in debt but not in equity underwriting. Finally, the study finds that the market share of commercial banks in equity offerings increases when equity underwriting volume rises, whereas market concentration in debt offerings increases when debt underwriting volume falls.     

IPO underwriting and subsequent lending

This study investigates the relation between IPO underwriting and subsequent lending. We find that when a bank underwrites a firm’s IPO, the bank is more likely to provide the issuer with future loans at a lower cost, compared to banks without an IPO underwriting relationship. The evidence also suggests that the underwriting banks share information surplus with the IPO firms in the post-IPO loans, supporting the cost-saving hypothesis. Overall, the evidence for the relation between prior IPO underwriting and subsequent lending supports the notion that firms can derive value from investment bank relationships.     

Global Banks and Synthetic Funding: The Benefits of Foreign Relatives

This paper examines the effect of dislocations in foreign currency (FX) swap markets (“CIP deviations”) on bank lending. Using data from UK banks we show that when the cost of obtaining swap-based funds in a particular foreign currency increases, banks reduce the supply of cross-border credit in that currency. This effect is increasing in the degree of banks' reliance on swap-based FX funding. Access to foreign relatives matters as banks employ internal capital markets to shield their cross-border FX lending supply from the described channel. Partial substitution occurs from banks outside the UK not affected by changes in synthetic funding costs.     

Bank and Nonbank Lenders and the Commercial Mortgage Market

This paper develops an equilibrium model of the commercial mortgage market that includes the sequence from commitment to origination and allows testing for differences by type of lender. From borrowers, loan demand is based on the income yield, capital gains, and expectations about return distributions. Lenders use prices such as mortgage rates and their distributions, and quantities in underwriting standards. There are separate equilibria in the markets for loan commitments and originations. Bank and nonbank lenders are not restricted to the same lending technology, nor to the weights placed on mortgage rates as opposed to underwriting standards. Empirical results for the United States commercial mortgage market indicate that banks use interest rates in allocating credit while nonbanks rely on underwriting standards, notably the loan-to-value ratio. A consequence is that nonbanks have a clientele incentive towards making low cap rate loans compensated by low loan-to-value ratios.     

The role of securitization in bank liquidity and funding management

This paper studies the role of securitization in bank management. I propose a new index of “bank loan portfolio liquidity” which can be thought of as a weighted average of the potential to securitize loans of a given type, where the weights reflect the composition of a bank loan portfolio. I use this new index to show that by allowing banks to convert illiquid loans into liquid funds, securitization reduces banks' holdings of liquid securities and increases their lending ability. Furthermore, securitization provides banks with an additional source of funding and makes bank lending less sensitive to cost of funds shocks. By extension, the securitization weakens the ability of the monetary authority to affect banks' lending activity but makes banks more susceptible to liquidity and funding crisis when the securitization market is shut down.     

Monitoring and bank loan pricing

In this paper, we examine the influence of contract costs on the pricing of bank loans. We find that the loan spread depends on a bank's screening and monitoring incentives, which varies across differentially regulated classes of banks. This leads to significant price disparities in the loan market. In particular, the US branches of Japanese banks participate in syndicated lending to US firms that charge significantly higher spreads compared to syndicated loans to US firms without Japanese participation. This pricing disparity is primarily due to regulatory differences. We also find that as specialized intermediaries, banks price loans based primarily on their own monitoring.     

A Look Back at Merton Miller's “Financial Markets and Economic Growth”

The author begins by agreeing with Miller's characterization of the fragility of U.S. banks and of the shortcomings of the Asian model of bank finance‐driven growth. The article also expresses “emphatic agreement” with Miller's arguments that the protection of banks through deposit insurance, regulatory forbearance, and other forms of “bailout” have created costly moral‐hazard problems that encourage excessive risk‐taking. And the author endorses, at least in principle, Miller's main argument that the development of capital markets that do not require the direct involvement of banks should make economies if not less prone to financial crises, then at least more resilient in recovering from them. But having acknowledged the limitations of bank‐centered systems and the value of developing non‐bank alternatives for savers and corporate borrowers, the author goes on to point to the surprising durability of some banking systems outside the U.S.—notably Canada's, which has not experienced major problems since the 1830s. And even more important, the author views banks and capital markets not as “substitutes” for one another, but as mutually dependent “complements” whose interdependencies and interactions must be recognized by market participants and regulators alike.