The universal bank model: Synergy or vulnerability?
In this paper, we examine the costs and benefits of diversification and expansion into non-traditional activities on the bank level. Using detailed information on the US banking sector over the period 2002–2012, we investigate whether or not banks’ involvement in various business lines has been associated with higher risks and returns. Using cross-sectional analysis, we find evidence that banks’ expansion into non-traditional activities has lacked revenue and diversification benefits: The overall risks of non-traditional banks have been higher, while returns were not. A higher degree of diversification across traditional and certain non-traditional activities, on the contrary, has been associated with higher returns and risk-reduction benefits. The results thus indicate that diversification prior to the financial crisis proved effective in the crisis environment, whereas too high involvement in non-traditional businesses did not. These results hold for small and large banks, banks of different tax status and various profitability and risk measures.
KeywordsBanking Diversification Non-traditional activities Risk Profitability
We would like to thank the Editor Professor Singh, an anonymous referee, Michel Boutillier, Elena Dumitrescu, Adam Gersl, Bertand Groslambert, Mathias Lé, Matthias Köhler, Laurence Scialom, Alfredo Schclarek, Tatiana Yongoua and the participants of the 5th International Conference of the Financial Engineering and Banking Society, 32nd International Symposium on Money, Banking and Finance, and the Financial Intermediation Seminar at University Paris Nanterre for valuable and helpful comments. All remaining errors are ours.
- 2.Bech, M., and Keister, T. 2013. Liquidity regulation and the implementation of monetary policy. Bank for International Settlements Working Paper No. 432.Google Scholar
- 3.Bernanke, B. 2013. Stress testing banks: What have we learned? Speech in: “Maintaining Financial Stability: Holding a Tiger by the Tail” financial markets conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Stone Mountain, Georgia, 8 April.Google Scholar
- 4.Gambacorta, L., and van Rixtel, A. 2013. Structural bank regulation initiatives: Approaches and implications. Bank for International Settlements Working Paper No. 412.Google Scholar
- 6.Wall, L.D., and R.A. Eisenbeis. 1984. Risk considerations in reregulating bank activities. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Economic Review 69: 6–19.Google Scholar
- 7.FSB—Financial Stability Board. 2014. Structural banking reforms: Cross-border consistencies and global financial stability implications. Report to G20 Leaders for the November 2014 Summit.Google Scholar
- 17.Boot, A., and Ratnovski, L. 2012. Banking and trading. IMF Working Paper, WP/12/238.Google Scholar
- 20.DeYoung, R., and T. Rice. 2004. How do banks make money? The fallacies of fee income. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Economic Perspectives 28(4): 34–51.Google Scholar
- 28.Dewatripont, M., and J. Mitchell. 2005. Risk-taking in financial conglomerates. Brussels: ECARES, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Mimeo).Google Scholar
- 30.Boyd, J.H., and M. Gertler. 1994. Are banks dead? Or are the reports greatly exaggerated? Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 18(3): 2–23.Google Scholar
- 32.Calomiris, C.W. 1995. The costs of rejecting universal banking: American finance in the German mirror: 1870–1914. In Coordination and information: Historical perspectives on the organization of enterprise, ed. N.R. Lamoreaux and D.M. Raff, 257–322. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 33.Breton, R., and L. Clerc. 2015. Reforming the structures of the EU banking sector: Risks and challenges. Bankers, Markets and Investors 135: 37–48.Google Scholar
- 34.Furlong, F. 2000. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act and financial integration. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Economic Letter 2000–2010.Google Scholar
- 35.Avraham, D., P. Selvaggi, and J. Vickery. 2012. A structural view of U.S. bank holding companies. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review 18(2): 65–81.Google Scholar
- 37.De Nicolo, G. 2001. Size, charter value and risk in banking: An international perspective. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Finance Discussion Paper No. 689.Google Scholar
- 44.Jensen, M.C. 1986. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review 76(2): 323–329.Google Scholar
- 46.Gilbert, R.A., and D.C. Wheelock. 2007. Measuring commercial bank profitability: Proceed with caution. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis 89(6): 515–532.Google Scholar
- 47.FSB—Financial Stability Board. 2011. Thematic Review on Compensation. Peer Review Report. http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/r_111011a.pdf. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.