IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org
 

IDEAS/RePEc search

Found 92 results for '"Banks and banking - Costs"', showing 1-10
IDEAS search now includes synonyms. If you feel that some synonyms are missing, you are welcome to suggest them for inclusion

  1. William C. Hunter & Stephen G. Timme (1989): Does multiproduct production in large banks reduce costs?
    No abstract is available for this item.
    RePEc:fip:fedaer:y:1989:i:may:p:2-11  Save to MyIDEAS
  2. David B. Humphrey & Lawrence B. Pulley (1991): Scope economies: fixed costs, complementarity, and functional form
    Bank scope economies have been derived from either the standard or generalized (Box-Cox) multiproduct translog (or other logarithmic) functional form. ... Scope economies are shown to exist for large U.S. banks in 1988 and to depend on the number of banking outputs specified. The scope estimates are also separated into their two sources - fixed-cost and cost-complementarity effects.
    RePEc:fip:fedrwp:91-03  Save to MyIDEAS
  3. Joseph P. Hughes & William W. Lang & Loretta J. Mester & Choon-Geol Moon (1995): Recovering banking technologies when managers are not risk-neutral
    No abstract is available for this item.
    RePEc:fip:fedhpr:464  Save to MyIDEAS
  4. William C. Hunter & Stephen G. Timme & Won Keun Yang (1989): An examination of cost subadditivity and multiproduct production in large U.S. banks
    No abstract is available for this item.
    RePEc:fip:fedawp:89-3  Save to MyIDEAS
  5. William C. Hunter & Stephen G. Timme (1988): Technological change in large U.S. commercial banks
    No abstract is available for this item.
    RePEc:fip:fedawp:88-6  Save to MyIDEAS
  6. Robert A. Eisenbeis & Simon H. Kwan (1996): An analysis of inefficiencies in banking: a stochastic cost frontier approach
    This paper examines the properties of X-inefficiency and the relations of X-inefficiency with risk-taking and stock returns for U.S. banking firms. After controlling for scale differences, the average small size banking firm is found to be relatively less efficient than the average large firm. ... Furthermore, less efficient banking firms are found to be associated with higher risk-taking, and firm-specific X-inefficiencies are significantly correlated with individual stock returns for smaller banking firms.
    RePEc:fip:fedfer:y:1996:p:16-26:n:2  Save to MyIDEAS
  7. Joseph P. Hughes (1998): Measuring efficiency when market prices are subject to adverse selection
    In the case of banking production, quality is linked to risk because prices are linked to credit quality. ; The problem of efficiency measurement is complicated by the additional role because quality varies with price and price is a decision variable of firms operating in these markets. ... Hence, they identify the most efficient pricing strategies as well as the most efficient production plans. ; These two alternative models for measuring efficiency are employed to study the efficiency of highest level bank holding companies in the United States in 1994. The contractural interest rates these banks obtain on their loans and other assets are shown to influence their expected profit, profit risk, market value, and efficiency.
    RePEc:fip:fedpwp:98-3  Save to MyIDEAS
  8. Loretta J. Mester (1996): Measuring efficiency at U.S. banks: accounting for heterogeneity is important
    Estimates of bank cost efficiency can be biased if bank heterogeneity is ignored. The author compares X-inefficiency measures derived from a model that constrains the cost frontier to be the same for all banks in the nation and a model that allows the cost functions and error terms to differ across Federal Reserve Districts. The author finds that the data reject the single cost function model; X-inefficiency measures based on the single cost function model are, on average, higher than those based on the separate cost functions model; the distributions of the one-sided error terms on which X-inefficiency measures are based are wider for the single cost function model than for the separate cost functions models; and the ranking of Districts by the level of X-inefficiency differs in the two models. The differences in efficiency across Districts reflect more than just differences in bank size, geographic size, or population of the Districts. These results suggest that it is important when studying X-inefficiency to account for differences across the markets in which banks are operating and, more generally, that since X-inefficiency is, by construction, a residual, it will be particularly sensitive to omissions in the basic model.
    RePEc:fip:fedpwp:96-11  Save to MyIDEAS
  9. Sherrill Shaffer (1997): Functional forms and declining average costs
    No abstract is available for this item.
    RePEc:fip:fedpwp:95-13:x:1  Save to MyIDEAS
  10. Douglas D. Evanoff (1998): Assessing the impact of regulation on bank cost efficiency
    The author finds that the bank production process was significantly distorted during a period typically associated with heavy industry regulation. As deregulation occurred, banks fully exploited the cost advantages associated with size and reaped significant gains from technological change.
    RePEc:fip:fedhep:y:1998:i:qii:p:21-32:n:v.22no.2  Save to MyIDEAS
IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
;