在过去十年中,纯互联网银行是否赶上了传统银行和混合银行

Q4 Economics, Econometrics and Finance International Journal of Electronic Finance Pub Date : 2020-10-05 DOI:10.1504/ijef.2020.10032632
Yu Zhang, Charles E. Teague, Randall Hucks, KaylaRose Robison
{"title":"在过去十年中,纯互联网银行是否赶上了传统银行和混合银行","authors":"Yu Zhang, Charles E. Teague, Randall Hucks, KaylaRose Robison","doi":"10.1504/ijef.2020.10032632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the performance of pure-play internet (PPI) banks compared to their traditional and hybrid counterparts over the past 18 years. All 11 surviving PPI banks were hand screened and matched with 110 control banks randomly selected based on total assets from the FDIC website. Our pooled OLS regressions with robust errors show that PPI banks have lower profitability and are less cost efficient than their counterparts. This may be because PPI banks still need time to accumulate experience and scale effects. PPI banks also do not attract more deposits or invest more in securities than traditional and hybrid banks. However, they do have less risk in terms of bad loans than traditional and hybrid comparables.","PeriodicalId":38015,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Electronic Finance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Have pure-play internet banks caught up with traditional and hybrid banks over the past decade\",\"authors\":\"Yu Zhang, Charles E. Teague, Randall Hucks, KaylaRose Robison\",\"doi\":\"10.1504/ijef.2020.10032632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper investigates the performance of pure-play internet (PPI) banks compared to their traditional and hybrid counterparts over the past 18 years. All 11 surviving PPI banks were hand screened and matched with 110 control banks randomly selected based on total assets from the FDIC website. Our pooled OLS regressions with robust errors show that PPI banks have lower profitability and are less cost efficient than their counterparts. This may be because PPI banks still need time to accumulate experience and scale effects. PPI banks also do not attract more deposits or invest more in securities than traditional and hybrid banks. However, they do have less risk in terms of bad loans than traditional and hybrid comparables.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Electronic Finance\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Electronic Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijef.2020.10032632\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Electronic Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/ijef.2020.10032632","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文调查了过去18年来,与传统和混合型银行相比,纯互联网银行的表现。所有11家幸存的PPI银行都经过了手工筛选,并根据FDIC网站上的总资产随机选择了110家对照银行。我们的带有稳健误差的OLS回归表明,PPI银行的盈利能力较低,成本效益也低于同行。这可能是因为PPI银行仍需要时间来积累经验和规模效应。PPI银行也没有比传统银行和混合银行吸引更多的存款或更多的证券投资。然而,就不良贷款而言,它们确实比传统和混合可比产品的风险更小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Have pure-play internet banks caught up with traditional and hybrid banks over the past decade
This paper investigates the performance of pure-play internet (PPI) banks compared to their traditional and hybrid counterparts over the past 18 years. All 11 surviving PPI banks were hand screened and matched with 110 control banks randomly selected based on total assets from the FDIC website. Our pooled OLS regressions with robust errors show that PPI banks have lower profitability and are less cost efficient than their counterparts. This may be because PPI banks still need time to accumulate experience and scale effects. PPI banks also do not attract more deposits or invest more in securities than traditional and hybrid banks. However, they do have less risk in terms of bad loans than traditional and hybrid comparables.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Electronic Finance
International Journal of Electronic Finance Business, Management and Accounting-Management of Technology and Innovation
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: IJEF publishes articles that present current practice and research in the area of e-finance. It is dedicated to design, development, management, implementation, technology, and application issues in e-finance. Topics covered include: -E-business and IT/IS investment -E-banking/m-banking strategy/implementation -Digitisation in financial supply chain -[E-]auditing, e-taxation, e-cash flow -Customer channel management -Data mining/warehousing -E-lending/e-payment/e-procurement -Cultural/social/political issues -E-trading/online auctions -Knowledge management -Business intelligence -E-government regulation -Security/privacy/trust -IT risk analysis -Human-computer interaction
期刊最新文献
Growth of Mobile Applications and The Rise of Privacy Issues FINTECH EMERGENCE - AN OPPORTUNITY OR THREAT TO BANKING Innovation Performance Through Interaction and Importance of Cross Performance Appraisals Financial Determinants of Equity Share Pricing: Evidence from BSE 100 Index Company online presence and its effect on stock returns
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1