Small Business Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 717–732

Bank loan terms and conditions for Eurozone SMEs

Article

Abstract

The evolution of bank loan price and non-price terms and conditions (T&Cs) for the 2009–2011 period are investigated using firm-level survey data for a sample of Eurozone small and medium-sized enterprises. The raw firm responses, which are of a discrete nature denoting tightening or easing of the T&Cs, or no change at all, are modeled by a bivariate ordered probit model. According to the results obtained, there are sizeable differences between countries, with the protagonists of the sovereign debt crisis (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain) exhibiting predicted probabilities of tightening that are considerably above the Eurozone average. In addition, price T&Cs exhibit a substantial tightening over time. Finally, firms’ net interest expenses and profitability emerge as important determinants in explaining the cross-sectional variation in bank loan T&Cs that they face.

Keywords

Bank loan Bivariate ordered probit Terms and conditions Small and medium enterprises 

JEL Classifications

C25 G21 L26 

References

  1. Audretsch, D., & Elston, J. (2002). Does firm size matters?: Evidence on the impact of liquidity constraints on firm investment. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, A., Klapper, L., & Udell, G. (2001). The ability of banks to lend to informationally opaque small businesses. Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 2127–2167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, A., & Udell, G. (1990). Collateral, loan quality, and bank risk. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 8, 839–856.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, A., & Udell, G. (1995). Relationship lending and lines of credit in small business finance. Journal of Business, 68(3), 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin, M., & Loeys, J. (1988). Bond covenants and delegated monitoring. Journal of Finance, 43(2), 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berlin, M., & Mester, L. (1992). Debt covenants and renegotiation. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 2, 95–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boocock, G., & Woods, M. (1997). The evaluation criteria used by venture capitalists: Evidence from a UK venture fund. International Small Business Journal, 16, 36–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brick, I., & Palia, D. (2007). Evidence of jointness in the terms of relationship lending. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 16, 452–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chamberlain, G. (1984). Panel data. In S. Griliches & M. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (pp. 1247–1318). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  10. Cressy, R. (1996). Are business startups credit rationed? Economic Journal, 106, 1253–1270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cressy, R., & Toivanen, O. (2001). Is there adverse selection in the credit market? Venture Capital, 3(3), 215–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diamond, D. (1984). Financial intermediation and delegated monitoring. Review of Economic Studies, 51, 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond, D. (1991). Monitoring and reputation: The choice between bank loans and directly placed debt. Journal of Political Economy, 99, 688–721.Google Scholar
  14. Eurostat Pocketbooks. (2011). Key figures on European business with a special feature on SMEs. Eurostat, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  15. Gertler, M., & Gilchrist, S. (1994). Monetary policy, business cycles and the behavior of small manufacturing firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 309–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilchrist, S., & Himmelberg, D. (1995). Evidence on the role of cash flow for investment. Journal of Monetary Economics, 36, 541–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hu, X., & Schiantarelli, F. (1994). Investment and financing constraints: A switching regression approach using US firm panel data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 466–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jensen, J., & McGuckin, R. (1997). Firm performance and evolution: Empirical regularities in the US microdata. Industrial and Corporate Change, 6, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merton, R. (1974). On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates. Journal of Finance, 29(2), 449–470.Google Scholar
  20. Mundlack, Y. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross-section data. Econometrica, 46(1), 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oliner, S., & Rudebusch, G. (1992). Sources of the financing hierarchy for business investment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(2), 643–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petersen, M., & Rajan, R. (1994). The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data. Journal of Finance, 49, 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Posey, R., & Reichert, A. (2011). Terms of lending for small business lines of credit: The role of loan guarantees. International Journal of Business and Finance Research, 5(1), 91–102.Google Scholar
  24. Sajaia, Z. (2008). Maximum likelihood estimation of a bivariate ordered probit model: Implementation and Monte Carlo simulations. The Stata Journal, 2,1–18.Google Scholar
  25. Strahan, P. (1999). “Borrower risk and the price and nonprice terms of bank loans”, Staff Report 90. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Google Scholar
  26. Vijverberg, C. (2004). An empirical financial accelerator model: Small firms’ investment and credit rationing. Journal of Macroeconomics, 26, 101–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Watanabe, W. (2005). How are loans by their main bank priced? Bank effects, information and non-price terms of contract. The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) Discussion Paper Series 05-E-028. RIETI, Tokyo. Available at: http://www.rieti.go.jp/en

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and FinanceAthens University of Economics and BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations