Explore the vast range of titles available.

An exogenous expansion in mortgage credit has significant effects on house prices. This finding is established using US branching deregulations between 1994 and 2005 as instruments for credit. Credit increases for deregulated banks, but not in placebo samples. Such differential responses rule out demand-based explanations, and identify an exogenous credit supply shock. Because of geographic diversification, treated banks expand credit: housing demand increases, house prices rise, but to a lesser extent in areas with elastic housing supply, where the housing stock increases instead. In an instrumental variable sense, house prices are well explained by the credit expansion induced by deregulation.

We use a new identification strategy to assess whether an intensification of competition among banks increases or decreases the provision of a key banking service: liquidity creation. Although theory offers conflicting predictions about the impact of competition on liquidity creation, we find that regulatory-induced competition reduces liquidity creation. Consistent with a subset of models emphasizing that banks pushed toward insolvency reduce risk-taking activities, we discover that regulatory-induced competition reduces liquidity creation more among banks with less risk-absorbing capacity (e.g., less profitable banks).

We use the relaxation of interstate branching restrictions under the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (IBBEA) to examine how increases in competition affect incumbents’ voluntary disclosure choices. States implemented the IBBEA over several years and to varying degrees, allowing us to identify the effect of increased competition on the voluntary disclosure decisions of both public and private banks. We find that increases in competition are associated with an increase in press releases. Overall, press releases become more negative in tone as entry barriers decrease. However, disclosures by public banks and by banks issuing equity become incrementally positive in tone when entry barriers decrease. Thus, the increase in disclosure is consistent with a dominant incentive to deter entry via negative information, which is mitigated by an incentive to communicate positive information to investors.

By integrating staggered interstate banking deregulation into a gravity model following Goetz, Laeven, and Levine (2013), (2016), we construct a time-varying, bank-specific instrument for geographic diversification and investigate its causal effect on corporate innovation via the lending channel. We find that bank geographic diversification spurs corporate innovation and enhances the economic value of innovation. We identify relaxing debt covenants and alleviating borrowers’ financial constraints as the two underlying mechanisms explaining the documented effects. Moreover, by offering lenient covenants, geographically diversified banks provide greater financial and operational flexibility to borrowing firms, enabling them to engage in future mergers and acquisitions.

Exploiting differential interstate-branching deregulation across contiguous counties of adjacent states, we investigate the effect of entry threat on incumbent banks’ loan-loss provisions. Incumbents exposed to entry threat have offsetting incentives; lower provisions make their loan-underwriting quality appear better, deterring entry, but make local economic conditions appear better, encouraging entry. We find that the incentive to increase apparent loan-underwriting quality dominates on average. We further find that this incentive is stronger in counties with a higher proportion of heterogeneous loans, while the other incentive dominates in counties with both low heterogeneous loans and highly volatile economic conditions.

We examine the relationship between US national banks’ local market shares and the economic fragility of the counties in which they operate. We find that counties with national banks that have large local market shares experience a greater fluctuation in their income growth in the subsequent year. Further, an increase in income growth is more pronounced during normal times but declines significantly in a distressed market. We further find that the national banks create greater liquidity during normal times and lower liquidity in distressed times. Overall, our results indicate that national banks may expose local economies to macro-level distress.

We use recently developed difference-in-differences methodologies and a panel of US states over the period 1960–2015 to examine how bank branching deregulation impacted state-level income inequality. Existing research relying on traditional two-way fixed effects estimates and event studies provide mixed results. However, these results potentially suffer from biases due to treatment effect heterogeneity and the failure to account for multiple related treatments. Using bias-corrected difference-in-differences procedures and properly accounting for the timing of treatment, we find evidence that the combined effect of intrastate and interstate banking deregulation increased the income share of the top 10%, 5%, and 1% of income earners, respectively. Conversely, we find no evidence that intrastate branching deregulation in isolation impacted income inequality.

Publicly listed firms respond to capital supply conditions shaped by local investing preferences. Public firms headquartered in areas with higher proportions of senior citizens and women use more debt financing. These demographics are associated with conservative investing, leading to a higher and more stable local supply of debt capital. The demographics–leverage relation is more pronounced for firms that cannot easily tap public bond markets, which is the majority of public firms. Changes in firms’ financing activities around exogenous shocks to credit supplies, including interstate banking deregulation and the 2008–2009 financial crisis, support the local capital supply hypothesis.

Bank profitability in the USA was extremely high in the pre-crisis period, yet this did not prevent the current crisis. It has become clear that these profits were on shaky grounds and also that bank profits were not used to buttress banks’ capital bases. This paper analyses the effects of structure on profitability from 1994 to 2005. Bank-level panel data are used to test the effects of concentration, market power, bank size and operational efficiency on profitability. Efficiency is not found to be a strong determinant of profitability, suggesting that banks’ high profits during this period were not ‘earned’ through efficient performance. Robust evidence is found that concentration increases bank profitability. This holds even when the largest banks are excluded from the sample, suggesting that the relationship between concentration and profitability acts in a generalised structural way and that the higher profits arising from concentration are at the expense of the rest of the economy. The analysis points to various policy implications relevant to the current crisis, in particular in terms of the legitimacy of expectations of the restoration of pre-crisis profit rates and the need for much stronger regulation of the banking sector, especially in terms of the structure of the sector, pricing behaviour and use of profits.

PurposeThis study explores how the firm’s proprietary information has an impact on the bank loan contracts. It explains the propensity of using the competitive bid option (CBO) in the syndicate loans to solicit the best bid for innovative firms and how it changes based on industry competition and the degree of innovations. This research also examines how the interstate banking deregulation (Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act) in 1994 affected the private loan contracts for innovative borrowers.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses various econometric analyses. First, it uses the propensity score matching analysis to see the impact of patents on pricing terms. Second, it uses the two-stage least square (2SLS) analysis by implementing the litigation and non-NYSE variables. Finally, it studies the impact of the policy change of the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 on the bank loan contracts.FindingsFirms with more proprietary information pays more annual facility fees but less other fees. The patents are the primary determinants of the usage of CBO in the syndicate loans to solicit the best bid. While innovative firms can have better contract conditions by the CBO, firms with more proprietary information will less likely to use the CBO option to minimize the leakage of private information and the severe monitoring from the banks. Finally, more proprietary information lowered the loan spread for firms dependent on the external capital after the interstate banking deregulation.Originality/valueThe findings of this research will help senior executives with responsibility for financing their innovative projects. In addition, these findings should prove helpful for the lawmakers to boost economies.