A Two-step Analysis of Standardized Versus Relationship Bank Lending to Small Firms

Polly Hardee

The Office of Advocacy Small Business Working Papers from U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy

Abstract: Using the 1998 Survey of Small Business Finances and banking data to produce a bank-firm match, the author tests for evidence of standardized versus relationship lending methods in both total bank credit and credit emanating from the firm’s most important source of financial services, its primary bank. The author employs a two-step Heckman procedure to test the likelihood a small firm has bank debt, then, conditional upon having debt, the level of credit outstanding. By comparing the determinants of bank and firm characteristics of primary bank credit with credit from all bank sources, she finds that relationship lending is inherent within the primary bank, whereas competing bank sources tend to employ standardized lending techniques such as credit scoring. With respect to credit availability, however, no clear dominance of one method over the other prevails.

Pages: 36 pages
Date: 2007
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ban and nep-ent
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs305tot.pdf (application/pdf)
Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 404 Not Found (http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs305tot.pdf [301 Moved Permanently]--> https://www.sba.gov/advo/research/rs305tot.pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sba:wpaper:07ph

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in The Office of Advocacy Small Business Working Papers from U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Victoria Williams () and Rob Kleinsteuber ( this e-mail address is bad, please contact ).