Author
Abstract
Although many studies have investigated the relationship between market structure and the prices of bank services, most have been concerned with metropolitan areas. These studies generally have used bank balance sheet and income statement ratios as bank conduct proxies. Moreover, prior studies have approximated local banking markets with county or SMSA boundaries. ; This study develops a methodology for delineating the geographic boundaries of local banking markets through the use of secondary economic and demographic data. This methodology is utilized to delineate rural banking markets in the states of Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The relationship between those markets and rural bank conduct is investigated. Conduct is measured with explicit price and nonprice information generated by telephone survey. ; The market determination methodology is based on the assumption that people will bank where they live, work, or obtain goods and services. Using a classification system which categorizes communities according to variety and amount of retail business transactions, a gradient concept is developed which initially approximates market boundaries according to local minima in the gradient. ; The market determination methodology is based on the assumption that people will bank where they live, work, or obtain goods and services. Using a classification system which categorizes communities according to variety and amount of retail business transactions, a gradient concept is developed which initially approximates market boundaries according to local minima in the gradient. ; The natural banking markets determined for the entire state of Minnesota are compared with banking markets approximated by county or SMSA boundaries. The counties or SMSAs are allowed to underestimate or overestimate the natural market by as much as 30 percent of total deposits before being classified as unacceptable approximators. According to these criteria, 61 percent of the counties and SMSAs are found to be unacceptable approximators. When the criteria are tightened to permit only 10 percent underestimation or overestimation, 79 percent of the counties and SMSAs are rated unacceptable. This implies that researchers and policy makers should be cautious about approximating local banking markets with political boundaries. Additional methods for testing the procedure and making it operational are suggested. ; The methodology is used to delineate local banking markets in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Twenty-five rural markets are randomly selected from each state. A total of 333 banks from these markets forms the basis for the structure-conduct analysis. These banks are surveyed by telephone to determine explicit price and nonprice information. ; The methodology is used to delineate local banking markets in Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Twenty-five rural markets are randomly selected from each state. A total of 333 banks from these markets forms the basis for the structure-conduct analysis. These banks are surveyed by telephone to determine explicit price and nonprice information. ; Increases in concentration are significantly associated with increases in the rates rural banks charge on each type of loan included in the study. Moreover, increases in market share are significantly associated with increases in nonprice effort. Consequently, policy makers are confronted with selecting between: (1) higher prices and increased provision of ancillary banking services, or (2) lower prices and less service.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedmsr:11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kate Hansel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cfrbmus.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.