Skip to main content
Log in

U.S. Financial Services Consolidation: The Case of Corporate Credit Unions

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript


This paper estimates a stochastic cost frontier forU.S. corporate credit unions using call report datafor 1992–1997. The results indicate that corporatecredit unions were 91 percent cost efficient, onaverage, over this period and that institutionspassing a larger percentage of their investments toU.S. Central Credit Union are more cost efficient. However, the economic magnitude of estimatedefficiency gains from investment concentration isfound to be modest. We conclude that the currentthree-tier hierarchical structure for the U.S. creditunion industry is likely to endure.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others


  • Battese, G. E., and T. J. Coelli (1992)‘Frontier Production Functions, Technical Efficiency, and Panel Data: With Application to Paddy Farmers in India’ The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 3, 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battese, G. E., and T. J. Coelli (1995)‘A Model for Technical Efficiency Effects in a Stochastic Frontier Production Function for Panel Data’ Empirical Economics, 20, 325–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. (1993)‘Distribution-Free Estimates of Efficiency in the U.S. Banking Industry and Tests of the Standard Distributional Assumptions’ The Journal of Productivity Analysis, 4, 261–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A., and D. Humpherey (1997)‘Efficiency of Financial Institutions: International Survey and Directions for Future Research’ European Journal of Operations Research, 98, 175–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coelli, T. (1996)‘A Guide to FRONTIER Version 4.1: A Computer Program for Stochastic Frontier Production and Cost Function Estimation’ Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis (CEPA) Working Paper 96–07, University of New England, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, H., K. Lovell, and P. Vanden-Eeckart (1993)‘Evaluating the Performance of U.S. Credit Unions’ Journal of Banking and Finance, 17, 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fried, H., K. Lovell, and S. Yaisawarng (1999)‘The Impact of Mergers on Credit Union Service Provision’ Journal of Banking and Finance, 23, 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane, E., and R. Hendershott (1996)‘The Federal Deposit Insurance Fund that Didn't Put a Bite on U.S. Taxpayers’ Journal of Banking and Finance, 20, 1305–1327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwan, S., and R. Eisenbeis (1996)‘An Analysis of Inefficiencies in Banking: A Stochastic Frontier Approachu’Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco's Economic Review, 2, 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester, L. (1987)‘A Multiproduct Cast Study of Savings and Loans’ Journal of Finance, 42, 423–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester, L. (1989),‘testing for Expense Preference Behavior: Mutual versus Stock Savings and Loans’ RAND Journal of Economics, 20, 483–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mester, L. (1991)‘Agency Costs among Savings and Loans’ Journal of Financial Intermediation, 1, 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Donald (1984)‘A Theoretic Framework for the Analysis of Credit Union Decision Making’Journal of Finance, 69, 1155–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., T. Cargill, and R. Meyer (1981), Journal of Finance, 66, 519–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Treasury Department (1997) Credit Unions. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frame, W.S., Coelli, T.J. U.S. Financial Services Consolidation: The Case of Corporate Credit Unions. Review of Industrial Organization 18, 229–241 (2001).

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: