Portfolio Theory, Transaction Costs, and the Demand for Time Deposits

Alan C Hess

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 1995, vol. 27, issue 4, 1015-32

Abstract: Households do not rebalance their deposit portfolios in response to 200-300 basis point changes in relative yields. Is it because the deposits are poor substitutes or because transaction costs make it nonoptimal to rebalance? This study uses efficient frontier techniques from portfolio theory and a transaction-cost model to address these questions. The major findings are that the transaction-cost model explains deposit shares but the portfolio model does not and the gains from rebalancing are minuscule because banks made large changes in relative yields on poor substitutes while maintaining fairly constant spreads on close substitutes. Copyright 1995 by Ohio State University Press.

Date: 1995
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2879%2819951 ... 0.CO%3B2-Z&origin=bc full text (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

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:mcb:jmoncb:v:27:y:1995:i:4:p:1015-32

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Money, Credit and Banking is currently edited by Robert deYoung, Paul Evans, Pok-Sang Lam and Kenneth D. West

More articles in Journal of Money, Credit and Banking from Blackwell Publishing
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing () and Christopher F. Baum ().