edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
Santomero & Eckles (2000), and
Berger et al. (2000), in recent papers,
discuss most of the questions above.
The alleged benefit of economies of
scale and scope is related to the
increased cost efficiency. The basic idea
is that the emergence of broad financial
firms enables costs to be lowered, if
scale or scope economies are relevant
and if the range of expansion is within
the band whereby they can be achieved.
If economies of scale and scope prevail,
increased size will help create systemic
financial efficiency and shareholder value to the firm. However, if
diseconomies prevail, both will be
destroyed. In an information – and
distribution-intensive industry with high
fixed costs such as financial services,
there should be an ample potential for
scale and scope economies.
Economies of scale exist when the
average cost decreases in scale over a
relevant range as output expands. If
this occurs, then larger institutions
may be more efficient. Some lines of
business benefit from scale while
others may be hampered by it.
Examples of potential gains of scale in
banking activity include physical
branch distribution network,
infrastructure software, and electronic
distribution systems. The literature
concerning economies of scale is inconclusive on the costs and benefits
of being big, since the results obtained
depend on the period studied or the
average size of the financial institution
in question.1 In general the findings
suggest few cost scale efficiency gain
from consolidation of large institutions
that normally are involved in
international activity. However, most
of the studies use da ...