Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Modelling Credit Risk for Innovative SMEs: the Role of Innovation Measures

  • Published:
Journal of Financial Services Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Small-medium enterprises (SMEs) encounter financial constraints when they try to obtain credit from banks. These constraints are particularly severe for innovative SMEs. Thus, developing models for innovative SMEs that provide reliable estimates of their probabilities of default (PD) is important because the PDs can also serve as ratings. We examine the role of innovative assets such as patents in credit risk modelling due to their signaling value. Specifically, we add to a logit model two innovation-related variables in order to account for both the dimension and the value of the patent portfolio. Based on a unique data set of innovative SMEs with default years of 2005–2008, we show that, although the value of the patent portfolio always reduces the PD, its dimension reduces the firm’s riskiness only if coupled with an appropriate equity level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Both the PATSTAT and BULLETIN database are available to any user under the request of the EPO. The data have been managed by with SQL and STATA software toolboxes. For more details on this task see Thoma et al.(2010).

  2. Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of April 3, 1996, updated in 2003/361/EC of May 6, 2003. See http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/n26026.htm.

  3. This implies for the intermediary a reduction in capital requirement proportional to the firm’s size The reduction applies to the capital function through the correlation, which is reduced by a maximum of 0.04 for the smallest firms. This correction is justified by the assumption that defaults of small firms are less correlated and therefore less risky on the whole for the portfolio.

  4. The turnover is given by the sum of sales and net stocks of the reference year. In the present analysis, we use turnover and not sales because AMADEUS does not report information on sales for some countries such as the UK, Ireland, and Denmark.

  5. Linear probability models are not normally used in this literature given that the estimated coefficients may imply probabilities outside the unit interval. For a discussion of the appropriateness of the logit model for default prediction studies, also vs. the probit one, see Altman and Sabato (2007). A number of papers, among which Lennox (1999) and Altman and Sabato (2007), show that probit and logit models outperform DA model in default prediction.

  6. To guarantee a reasonable level of precision, we use the number of eight-digit IPC classification codes reported in the patent document.

  7. We follow the technology grouping proposed by the Observatoire des sciences et des techniques (OST). In particular there are 30 categories: 1 electrical devices - electrical engineering; 2 audiovisual technology; 3 telecommunications; 4 information technology; 5 semiconductors; 6 optics; 7 analysis, measurement, control; 8 medical engineering; 9 nuclear engineering; 10 organic fine chemicals; 11 macromolecular chemistry, polymers; 12 basic chemical processing, petrol; 13 surfaces, coatings; 14 materials, metallurgy; 15 biotechnology; 16 pharmaceuticals, cosmetics; 17 agriculture, food; 18 general processes; 19 handling, printing; 20 material processing; 21 agriculture & food machinery; 22 environment, pollution; 23 mechanical tools; 24 engines, pumps, turbines; 25 thermal techniques; 26 mechanical elements; 27 transport; 28 space technology, weapons; 29 consumer goods & equipment; and 30 civil engineering, building, mining.

  8. See Stein (2007) for the selection of the out-of-sample data set.

  9. Although the patent-value variable per se reduces the PD, for the sake of completeness we also try the interaction between this innovation variable and equity. As expected, the interaction term (not reported in the table) is not significant thus confirming that the patent’s value reduces firm riskiness independently of the equity level.

  10. To be noted that the variance inflation factor is low for each of the explanatory variables: this level indicates that there are no problems with multicollinearity.

  11. Overall, the size of the balance-sheet variables’ coefficients is stable and robust across all specifications.

References

  • Altman EI (1968) Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. J Finance 13:589–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman EI, Hotchkiss E (2006) Corporate financial distress and bankruptcy: Predict and avoid bankruptcy, analyze and invest in distressed debt, 3rd edn. Wiley Finance, New Jersey, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Altman EI, Sabato G (2005) Effects of the New Basel Capital Accord on bank capital requirements for SMEs. J Financ Serv Res 28:15–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman EI, Sabato G (2007) Modelling credit risk for SMEs: Evidence from the US market. Abacus 43(3):332–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora A, Fosfuri A, Gambardella A (2001) Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1975) Vertical integration and communication. Bell J Econ 6:173–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), (2006) International convergence of capital measurement and capital standards: A revised framework - comprehensive version, Bank for International Settlements

  • Beaver V (1966) Financial ratios as predictors of failure. J Acc Res 5:71–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck T, Demirguc-Kunt A, Martinez Peria MS (2011) Bank financing for SMEs: Evidence across countries and bank ownership types. J Financ Serv Res 39:35–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behr P, Güttler A (2007) Credit risk assessment and relationship lending: An empirical analysis of German small and medium-sized enterprises. J Small Bus Manag 45:194–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger AN, Cowan AM, Frame WS (2011) The surprising use of credit scoring in small business lending by community banks and the attendant effects on credit availability, risk, and profitability. J Financ Serv Res 39:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JR, Fazzari SM, Petersen BC (2009) Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity and the 1990s R&D boom. J Finance 64(1):151–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buddelmeyer H, Jensen P, Wesbster E (2010) Innovation and the determinants of company survival. Oxford Econ Papers 62(2):261–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter RE, Petersen BC (2002) Capital market imperfections, high-tech investment, and new equity financing. Econ J 112:54–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denis D (2004) Entrepreneurial finance: An overview of the issues and evidence. J Corp Finance 10:301–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIB (2009) R&D and the financing of innovation in Europe. Eur Invest Bank 14:2

    Google Scholar 

  • Fantazzini D, Figini S (2009) Default forecasting for small-medium enterprises: Does heterogeneity matters? Inter J Risk Assess Manag 11:38–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidrmuc J, Heinz C (2009) Default rates in the loan market for SMEs: Evidence from Slovakia. University of Munich, IFO Working Paper N 72

  • Gambardella A, Harhoff D, Verspagen B (2008) The value of European patents. Eur Manag Rev 5(2):69–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J Econ Lit 28:1661–1707

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert J, Norden L, Weber M (2005) The role of non-financial factors in internal credit ratings. J Bank Finance 29(2):509–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec D, de la Potterie Van Pottelsberghe B (2000) Applications, grants, and the value of patents. Econ Letters 69(1):109–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec D, de la Potterie van Pottelsberghe B (2007) The economics of the European patent system: IP policy for innovation and competition. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH (2002) The financing of research and development, NBER Working Paper No. 8773

  • Hall BH (2005) Measuring the returns to R&D: The depreciation problem. Ann Econ Stat 79(80):341–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH, Lerner J (2010) Financing R&D and innovation. In: Hall BH, Rosenberg N (eds) The Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 610–638

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights, and methodological tools, NBER Working Paper No. 8498

  • Hall BH, Thoma G, Torrisi S (2007) The market value of patents and R&D: Evidence from European firms. NBER Working paper No. 13426

  • Hall BH, Mairesse J, Mohnen P (2010) Using innovation surveys for econometric analysis. In:, Hall BH and Rosenberg N (eds) The Handbook of the Economics of Innovation Elsevier, Amsterdam pp. 1034–1076.

  • Harhoff D (1996) Strategic spillovers and incentives for research and development. Manag Sci 42(6):907–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D, Körting T (1998) Lending relationships in Germany: Empirical results from survey data. J Bank Finance 22:1317–1353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D, Thoma G (2010) Inventor location and the globalization of R&D. Paper presented at the Conference on Patent Statistics on Decision Makers, Vienna, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D, Scherer FM, Vopel K (2003) Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights—Evidence from Germany. Res Policy 32:1343–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff D, Häussler C, Müller E (2009) To be financed or not: The role of patents for VC financing, CEPR Discussion Paper 7115

  • Hsu D, Ziedonis R (2008) Patents as quality signals for entrepreneurial ventures. Academy of Management Best Paper Procedings, Anaheim Ca

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr WR, Lerner J, Schoar A (2010) The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: A regression discontinuity analysis, NBER Working Paper No. 15831

  • Lanjouw JO, Schankerman M (2004) Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Econ J 114:441–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennox C (1999) Identifying failing companies: A reevaluation of the Logit, Probit and DA approaches. J Econ Bus 51:347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. Rand J Econ 25(2):319–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motohashi K (2011) Innovation and entrepreneurship: A first look at linkage data of Japanese patent and enterprise census, RIETI Discussion Paper Series 11-E-007

  • OECD (2009a) OECD patent statistics manual. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2009b) Financing high growth and innovative start-ups and SMEs: Data and measurement issues. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlson J (1980) Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. J Acc Res 18:109–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pederzoli C, Torricelli C (2010) A parsimonious default prediction model for Italian SMEs. Banks Bank Syst 5:28–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobehart J, Keenan S, Stein R (2001) Benchmarking quantitative default risk models: A validation methodology. Algo Res Q 4:57–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein RM (2007) Benchmarking default prediction models: Pitfalls and remedies in model validation. J Risk Model Validat 1:77–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoma G, Torrisi S, Gambardella A, Guellec D, Hall BH, Harhoff D (2010) Harmonizing and combining large datasets – An application to firm-level patent and accounting data, NBER Working Paper No. 15851

  • Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. Rand J Econ 21:172–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank for comments and suggestions an anonymous referee, Kazu Motohashi, Elisabeth Müller, Raffaele Oriani, Francesco Pattarin, Georg Licht, and participants at the CEFIN Workshop (Modena, 2010), 4th CSDA International Conference on Computational and Financial Econometrics (CFE'10, London), 4th ZEW Conference on Economics of Innovation and Patenting (2011, Mannheim), 3rd Workshop on The Output of R&D Activities: Harnessing the Power of Patents Data (2011, Sevilla), International Risk Management Conference (2011, Amsterdam), 15th International Conference on Insurance: mathematics and Economics (2011, Trieste). Authors acknowledge financial support from the Italian University Ministry. Usual caveat apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Costanza Torricelli.

Appendices

Appendix A

1.1 The sample: descriptive statistics

Table 4

Table 4 The number of firms in the sample for each cohort and industrial sector

Table 5

Table 5 The number of defaulted firms in the sample for each cohort and industrial sector

Appendix B

2.1 The variables: descriptive statistics

Table 6

Table 6 Descriptive statistics for the whole sample as well as for each single industrial sector

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pederzoli, C., Thoma, G. & Torricelli, C. Modelling Credit Risk for Innovative SMEs: the Role of Innovation Measures. J Financ Serv Res 44, 111–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-012-0152-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-012-0152-0

Keywords

JEL classification

Navigation