We use panel data from nine countries over the period 1996–2008 to test how revenue diversification affects bank value. Relying on a comprehensive framework for bank performance measurement, we find robust evidence against a conglomerate discount, unlike studies concerned with industrial firms. Rather, diversification increases bank profitability and, as a consequence also market valuations. This indirect performance effect does not depend on whether diversification was achieved through organic growth or through M&A activity. We further demonstrate that previous results in the literature on the impact of diversification on bank value presumably differ due to the way diversification is measured, and the negligence of the indirect value effect via bank profitability. Our evidence against a conglomerate discount in banking remains robust also during the sub-prime crisis.

We use two data sets, one from a large brokerage and another from a major bank, to ask: (i) whether financial advisors are more likely to be matched with poorer, uninformed investors or with richer and experienced investors; (ii) how advised accounts actually perform relative to self-managed accounts; (iii) whether the contribution of independent and bank advisors is similar. We find that advised accounts offer on average lower net returns and inferior risk-return tradeoffs (Sharpe ratios). Trading costs contribute to outcomes, as advised accounts feature higher turnover, consistent with commissions being the main source of advisor income. Results are robust to controlling for investor and local area characteristics. The results apply with stronger force to bank advisors than to independent financial advisors, consistent with greater limitations on bank advisory services.