According to DeYoung et al. [Journal of Financial Services Research, 2004] deregulation and technological change has divided the US banking industry into two primary size-based groups: very large banks, specializing in the use of “hard” information to make standardized loans and smaller banks, specializing in the use of “soft” information and relationship development to make non-standardized loans. We evaluate business-lending performance for small and large banks over the 1993–2001 period. Small business lending by small banks is characterized by relationship development and non-standardized loans. Consistent with DeYoung et al.'s model, we find that, after controlling for market concentration, cost of funds, and a variety of other factors that might influence yields, smaller banks perform better than larger banks in the small business lending market. However, larger banks appear to have the advantage in credit card lending, a market characterized by impersonal relationships and standardized loans. Interestingly, we find evidence that larger banks have been making inroads in the market for the smallest business loans, a result consistent with the use of credit scoring by large banks to make very small business loans [Berger et al., Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 2004].

This study investigates the profit efficiency (PROFEFF) of small banks (those under $500 million in total assets) for 1990–96. Assuming that small banks and large banks use the same production technology, we find, consistent with Berger and Mester [J. Bank. Finance 21 (1997) 875], that small banks are more profit efficient than large banks. Small banks in non-metropolitan statistical areas (non-MSA) areas are consistently more profit efficient than small banks in MSAs. Cross-sectional analysis of the correlates of the PROFEFF estimates suggests that structure–performance factors, relationship–development factors, and expense-preference behavior play an important role in explaining the PROFEFF of small US commercial banks.

While the literature reports improved performance for privatizing firms, banking markets are different. Many privatizing financial services firms face unique problems such as an overhang of problem loans and weak credit cultures and legal systems. We investigate the returns to successful bidders in privatization acquisitions of financial services firms, examine short-horizon performance, and test whether such acquisitions result in a change in risk for the bidding firm. Our results show that the cumulative abnormal returns to shareholders of bidding firms are positive, perhaps reflecting initial optimism that the foreign firm acquiring the privatizing firm would share in the success associated with privatization. Bidders also experience an increase in their total risk following the acquisition.