Skip to main content

Community Banks and Lending Technologies: Evidence from the Italian Retail Market

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Institutional Diversity in Banking

Abstract

Using data from the Survey on Italian Household Income and Wealth (SHIW) gathered by the Bank of Italy, I test the effect of community banks on the probability of households becoming insolvent during the crisis. I find that a higher presence of community banks in local markets increases bankruptcies. This outcome is mainly driven by households living in small towns, where the competitive pressure from medium–large banks is lower. However, a higher use of transactional lending could mitigate the lower efficiency of community banks in screening and monitoring processes, while relationship lending does not seem to help community banks in loan underwriting procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the first part of the 1990s state-owned banks had around 70 % of the market in terms of total assets, while more recently the share has been close to zero.

  2. 2.

    In accordance with the Bank of Italy’s definition of small and very small banks, I consider community banks to be those institutions with total assets of up to €9 billion (the Federal Reserve’s definition is based on a threshold of $10 billion).

  3. 3.

    Data and statistics described and analyzed in this chapter, when referring to individual characteristics, relate to those of the householder, that is the person earning the highest income.

  4. 4.

    SHIW weights are constructed to account for imperfect coverage, for eligibility and for attrition because of households being interviewed in previous surveys (panel units).

  5. 5.

    It should be noted that pastdue is not affected by a sample-censored bias, as, for example, in the case of Norden and Weber (2010) and Puri et al. (2011).

  6. 6.

    Correlations between exogenous variables do not signal matters of colinearity.

References

  • Agarwal, S., & Hauswald, R. (2007). Distance and information asymmetries in lending decisions. Proceedings from Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, No. 1052.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, S., Chomsisengphet, S., Liu, C., & Souleles, N. (2008). Benefits of relationship banking: Evidence from consumer credit markets. Proceedings from Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, No. 1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (2006). A more complete conceptual framework for SME finance. Journal of Banking and Finance, 30(11), 2945–2966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. N., Miller, N. H., Petersen, M. A., Rajan, M. G., & Stein, J. C. (2005). Does function follow organizational form? Evidence from the lending practices of large and small banks. Journal of Financial Economics, 76(2), 237–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi Di Patti, E., Gobbi, G., & Mistrulli, P. E. (2004). The interaction between face-to-face and electronic delivery: The case of the Italian banking industry. Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area, No. 508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bongini, P., Di Battista, M. L., & Zavarrone, E. (2007). The value of relationship lending: Small banks in an era of consolidation. Economic Notes, 36(3), 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boot, A. W. (2000). Relationship banking: What do we know? Journal of Financial Intermediation, 9(1), 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, J. H., De Nicolo, G., & Loukoianova, E. (2009). Banking crises and crisis dating: Theory and evidence. IMF Working Papers, 141, 1–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breevort, K. P., & Wolken, J. D. (2009). Does distance matter in banking? In A. Zazzaro, M. Fratianni, & P. Alessandrini (Eds.), The changing geography of banking and finance (pp. 27–56). New York: Springer US.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Degryse, H., & Ongena, S. (2005). Distance, lending relationships, and competition. Journal of Finance, 60(1), 231–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deyoung, R., Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2008). Borrower–lender distance, credit scoring, and the performance of small business loans. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17, 113–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EBA (European Banking Authority). (2013). EBA final draft implementing technical standards. On supervisory reporting on forbearance and non-performing exposures under article 99(4) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobbi, G., & Sette, E. (2012). Relationship lending in a financial turmoil. Rome: Money and Finance Research Group, Working paper, (59).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, D. B., & Souleles, N. S. (2002). An empirical analysis of personal bankruptcy and delinquency. Review of Financial Studies, 15(1), 319–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauswald, R., & Marquez, R. (2006). Competition and strategic information acquisition in credit markets. Review of Financial Studies, 19(3), 967–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masera, R. (2013). US Basel III final rule on banks’ capital requirements: A different-size-fits-all approach. PSL Quarterly Review, 66(267), 387–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milani, C. (2014). Borrower–lender distance and loan default rates: Macro evidence from the Italian local markets. Journal of Economics and Business, 71, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norden, L., & Weber, M. (2010). Credit line usage, checking account activity, and default risk of bank borrowers. Review of Financial Studies, 23(10), 3665–3699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panetta, F. (2015). The transition towards a more stable financial system. Address by the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M., & Rajan, R. (2002). Does distance still matter? The information revolution in small business lending. Journal of Finance, 57, 2533–2570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puri, M., Rocholl, J., & Steffen, S. (2011). On the importance of prior relationships in bank loans to retail customers. European Central Bank, Working paper series, no. 1395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, J. C. (2002). Information production and capital allocation: Decentralized versus hierarchical firms. The Journal of Finance, 57(5), 1891–1921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlo Milani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Milani, C. (2017). Community Banks and Lending Technologies: Evidence from the Italian Retail Market. In: Miklaszewska, E. (eds) Institutional Diversity in Banking. Palgrave Macmillan Studies in Banking and Financial Institutions. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42073-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42073-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42072-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42073-8

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics