Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T14:18:55.380Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk, Return, and the Morphology of Commercial Banking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

John T. Emery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To assure that the commercial banking industry's performance serves the “convenience and needs” of the public, bank supervisory authorities have been vested with broad powers to alter the competitive environment in bank markets. While several criteria have been used to evaluate the effects of entry, merger, branching, and other changes in the allocation of bank resources, the results have been largely inconclusive. Since the regulatory authorities have pursued somewhat conflicting objectives in seeking a “failure-proof” system that is also “efficient,” there may be no single criterion for evaluation of bank behavior that is wholly consistent with the behavior predicted by the neoclassical theory of the firm.

Type
Financial Institutions
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , March 1971 , pp. 763 - 776
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Moore, Basil J., An Introduction to the Theory of Finance (New York: The Free Press, 1968), p. 179.Google Scholar

2 Shull, Bernard, “Commercial Banks as Multiple-Product Price-Discriminating Firms,” in Carson, Dean, ed., Banking and Monetary Studies (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963), pp. 351–368.Google Scholar

3 von Neumann, John and Morgenstern, Oskar, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953).Google Scholar

4 Fama, Eugene F., “Multi-period Consumption-Investment Decisions,” American Economic Review, LX (March 1970), pp. 163–174.Google Scholar

5 Richter, Marcel K., “Cardinal Utility, Portfolio Selection and Taxation,” Review of Economic Studies, XXVII (June 1960), pp. 152–166).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Lancaster, Kevin J., “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, LXXIV (April 1966), pp. 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Markowitz, Harry M., “Portfolio Selection,” Journal of Finance, VII (March 1952), pp. 77–91Google Scholar; Tobin, James, “Liquidity Preference as Behavior Towards Risk,” Review of Economic Studies (February 1958), pp. 65–86.Google Scholar

8 While criteria for efficiency were expressed in terms of risk and return, the utility function was expressed in terms of consumption and terminal wealth. A von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function, however, is unique up to a linear transformation. This means that expressing the returns on the portfolio as

is consistent with the specified utility function. Because rate of return is more convenient and avoids problems of scale, the convention has been to prefer it over changes in terminal wealth.

9 Tobin, “Liquidity Preference”; Sharpe, William F., “Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium Under Conditions of Risk,” Journal of Finance (September 1964), pp. 425–442Google Scholar; Lintner, John, “The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets,” Review of Economics and Statistics, XLVII (February 1965), pp. 13–37Google Scholar; Mossin, Jan, “Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market,” Econometrica XXXIV (October 1966), pp. 768–783.Google Scholar

10 Fama, Eugene, “Risk, Return and Equilibrium; Some Clarifying Comments,” Journal of Finance, XXXIII (March 1968), p. 33.Google Scholar

11 Sharpe, “Capital Asset Prices.”

12 Peltzman, Sam, “Entry in Commercial Banking,” Journal of Law and Economics VIII (October 1965), pp. 11–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Reserve Bulletin, XLIX (September 1963), p. 1195.Google Scholar

14 It should be noted that this definition of the rate of return is 1 + r, if r is defined as the standard “rate of return” found in the literature. The standard “rate of return” was not used because of the fact that the logarithm of a negative number is undefined.

15 For an explanation of these conditions see Sharpe, William F., Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets (New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 288–291.Google Scholar