The Evaluation of the Relationship between Cost Efficiency and Competition in Iran’s Banking Industry

اقتصاد پولی مالی

Article 8, Volume 25, Issue 15, May 2018, Pages 81-104   

Document Type: پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/pm.v25i16.63947

Authors

sohrab delangizan¹; younes goli^{* 2}

¹Razi university

²razi university

Abstract

1-Introduction
One of the main goals of all countries is economic growth. This purpose can be accessible through having strong financial sector that provides finance for real sector. One of the main problems of the Iranian economy is the high share of the banking sector in financing economic activities. According to the evidence of statistical center of Iran, the share of the banking sector to finance economic activities is over 90 percent. Therefore, considering the importance of banking sector in economy, studying bank performance is very important. One of the criteria for banking performance is cost efficiency. Higher cost efficiency leads to an increase in the flexibility of banking sector to negative shocks. In the last year, the number of banks in Iran has increased; therefore, competition between banks will increase to gain higher share of the market. The banks' reactions to the increase competition cause changes in the financial structure of banks. This study tries to investigate if competition can have any effect on cost efficiency.
2- Theoretical Framework
Theoretical literature on the relationship between competition and bank efficiency can be explained as follows. The Quiet Life Hypothesis (QLH) was first suggested by Hicks (1935). Based on QLH, market power allows firms to enjoy a quiet life, but such a life reduces firm managers’ effort to maximize their firm efficiency. In other words, managers can exercise market power of banks to gain supernormal profit without making efforts to work or control costs toward increasing bank efficiency. Thus, increased monopoly power results in a decrease in efficiency whereas competition fosters bank efficiency. 
Demsetz (1973) in his Efficient-Structure Hypothesis (ESH) suggests that an efficient firm can lower costs of production and thus gain both higher profits and larger market shares. Thus, as the market becomes more concentrated and banks can exploit greater market power, they face less competition. As a result, the ESH posits a positive causality running from efficiency to market power.
The Information Generation Hypothesis (IGH) theorizes a negative relationship between competition and efficiency. IGH is based on the view that banks are special intermediaries because they have access to borrowers’ information to collect and analyze internal/personal information. Thus, they are able to reduce their adverse borrower selection to a minimum level due to the ability to generate superior information compared to their peers (Koetter, Kolari & Spierdijk, 2008). To summarize, competition among banks leads to a decline in their information-gathering capacities, and eventually results in a higher probability of adverse borrower selection and thus higher bank inefficiency.
6- Methodology
In this study, parametric Stochastic Frontier Approach (SFA) is used to measure the cost efficiency of 18 Iranian commercial banks. The SFA is a stochastic method because it allows banks to be distant both from the frontier and randomness. It differs from Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) which supposes that to be far from the frontier is entirely due to inefficiency. We then use these measures to examine whether bank competition enhances or impedes bank cost efficiency by employing generalized method of moment approach.  
7- Results and Discussion
The results of cost inefficiency show that, the entire mean cost inefficiency of 18 Iranian commercial banks is 0.146 in 2006 and increases over the sample period to 0.265 in 2014. The cost inefficiency of Melli banks is the highest while that of Sina bank is the lowest. Cost inefficiency of privately-owned banks are relatively higher than stat-owned banks. The results of Granger-Causality indicated that there is bidirectional causality between competition and cost efficiency. Also, the results of GMM estimation show that higher inflation, low growth rate and higher competition have positive effect on cost inefficiency. Therefore, information generation hypothesis in Iran banking industry is verified because increasing competition leads to a decline in their information-gathering capacities, and eventually results in a higher probability of adverse borrower selection and thus higher bank inefficiency. These effects have been proved for loan and deposit market.
The results of factors affecting competition indicated that increasing inflation, growth rate, size of the banks and cost inefficiency have positive effect on competition. Therefore, the efficient-structure hypothesis can be confirmed, and higher cost inefficiency leads to increasing in competition.
8- Conclusions and Suggestions
One of main goals of this study is to find out the relationship between competition and cost inefficiency in banking industry over 2006-2014. The results of study show that macro-level variable is the most important in determining cost inefficiency. Therefore, creating economic stability and increasing economic growth can lead to an increase in cost efficiency. Moreover, the Central Bank’s supervision should increase over commercial banks and controlling entry of new banks for increasing the quality of banking system and increasing the quality of borrowers by strong screening process.
9- Key Words: Cost efficiency, Banking industry, Translog cost function, Competition, Boon index.
JEL Classification: E47, E58, D61.
References (in Farsi)
Issa Zadeh, S., & Shaeri, Z. (2012). [The effect of macroeconomic stability on the efficiency of the banking system (Case study of the Middle East and North Africa)]. Monetary, Financial Economics, 3(19), 53-86. (in Persian)
Kodadkashi, F., & Hajian, M. (2013). [Evaluating cost-efficiency of Iran's banking industry: 2001-2007]. The Journal of Planning and Budgeting, 18(1), 3-24. (in Persian)
Najarzadeh, R., Ezati, M., & Mirnejad, H. (2012). [A study of the competitiveness of the Iran’s banking system using Panzar-Rosse model]. Iranian Journal of Economic Research, 17(51), 157-179. (in Persian)

Keywords

cost efficiency; Banking industry; Translog cost function; Competition; Boon index

References

[1] Al-Gasaymeh, A. (2016). Bank efficiency determinant: Evidence from the gulf cooperation council countries. Research in International Business and Finance, 38, 214-223.

[2] Andrieş, A. M., & Căpraru, B. (2014). The nexus between competition and efficiency: The European banking industries experience. International Business Review, 23(3), 566-579.

[3] Ariss, R. T. (2010). On the implications of market power in banking: Evidence from developing countries. Journal of banking & Finance, 34(4), 765-775.

[4] Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1995). A model for technical inefficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical economics, 20(2), 325-332.

[5] Berger, A. N. (1995). The profit-structure relationship in banking--tests of market-power and efficient-structure hypotheses. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 27(2), 404-431.

[6] Berger, A. N., & Hannan, T. H. (1998). The efficiency cost of market power in the banking industry: A test of the “quiet life” and related hypotheses. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(3), 454-465.

[7] Boone, J. (2008). A new way to measure competition. The Economic Journal, 118(531), 1245-1261.

[8] Boot, A., & Schmeits, A. (2006). The competitive challenge in banking. Advances in Corporate Finance and Asset Pricing, 133-160.

[9] Casu, B., & Girardone, C. (2009). Does competition lead to efficiency? The case of EU commercial banks.

[10] Chen, C. (2009). Bank efficiency in Sub-Saharan African middle income countries (No. 9-14). International Monetary Fund.

[11] Chen, X. (2007). Banking deregulation and credit risk: Evidence from the EU. Journal of Financial Stability, 2(4), 356-390.

[12] Claessens, S., & Laeven, L. (2005). Financial dependence, banking sector competition, and economic growth. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(1), 179-207.

[13] Claeys, S., & Vander Vennet, R. (2008). Determinants of bank interest margins in Central and Eastern Europe: A comparison with the West. Economic Systems, 32(2), 197-216.

[14] Debreu, G. (1951). The coefficient of resource utilization. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 273-292.

[15] Demsetz, H. (1973). Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. The Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1), 1-9.

[16] Dick, A. A., & Lehnert, A. (2010). Personal bankruptcy and credit market competition. The Journal of Finance, 65(2), 655-686.

[17] Evanoff, D. D., & Ors, E. (2002). Local market consolidation and bank productive efficiency.

[18] Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 120(3), 253-290.

[19] Goldberg, L. G., & Rai, A. (1996). The structure-performance relationship for European banking. Journal of Banking & Finance, 20(4), 745-771.

[20] Hicks, J. R. (1935). Annual survey of economic theory: the theory of monopoly. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 1-20.

[21] Issa Zadeh, S., & Shaeri, z. (2012). The Effect of Macroeconomic Stability on the Efficiency of the Banking System (Case Study of Middle East and North Africa). Monetary, Financial Economics, 3(19), 53-86. (in Persian)

[22] Kasman, A., & Carvallo, O. (2014). Financial stability, competition and efficiency in Latin American and Caribbean banking. Journal of Applied Economics, 17(2), 301-324.

[23] Kodadkashi, F., & Hajian, M. (2013). Evaluating Cost-Efficiency of Iran's Banking Industry: 2001-2007. The Journal of Planning and Budgeting. 18 (1), 3-24. (in Persian)

[24] Koetter, M., Kolari, J. W., & Spierdijk, L. (2012). Enjoying the quiet life under deregulation? Evidence from adjusted Lerner indices for US banks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(2), 462-480.

[25] Koetter, M., Kolari, J., & Spierdijk, L. (2008, February). Efficient competition? Testing the quiet life of US banks with adjusted Lerner indices. In Proceedings 44th Bank Structure and Competition Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (pp. 234-252).

[26] Koopmans, T. C. (1951). Efficient allocation of resources. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 455-465.

[27] Marquez, R. (2002). Competition, adverse selection, and information dispersion in the banking industry. The Review of Financial Studies, 15(3), 901-926.

[28] Najarzadeh, R., Ezati, M., Mirnejad, H.(2012). A Study of the Competitiveness of the Iran’s Banking System using Panzar-Rosse Model. Iranian Journal of Economic research, 17(51), 157-179. (in Persian)

[29] Phan, H. T. M., Daly, K., & Akhter, S. (2016). Bank efficiency in emerging Asian countries. Research in International Business and Finance, 38, 517-530.

[30] Pruteanu-Podpiera, A., Weill, L., & Schobert, F. (2008). Banking competition and efficiency: A micro-data analysis on the Czech banking industry. Comparative Economic Studies, 50(2), 253-273.

[31] Smirlock, M. (1985). Evidence on the (non) relationship between concentration and profitability in banking. Journal of money, credit and Banking, 17(1), 69-83.

[32] Tan, Y., & Floros, C. (2013). Risk, capital and efficiency in Chinese banking. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 26, 378-393.

[33] Weill, L. (2004). On the relationship between competition and efficiency in the EU banking sectors. Kredit und Kapital, 329-352.

[34] Williams, J. (2012). Efficiency and market power in Latin American banking. Journal of Financial Stability, 8(4), 263-276.

[35] Zarutskie, R. (2013). Competition, financial innovation and commercial bank loan portfolios. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(3), 373-396.

[36] Zhao, H., & Kang, S. (2015). Cost efficiency of Chinese commercial banks. International Journal of Finance and Accounting, 4(3), 180-186.