Summary:
The bank-firm relationship has long been of interest in the financial literature. Before a lending decision, the commercial bank typically requires the company to provide its “hard” information, such as financial statements and credit score data, to mitigate the problem of information asymmetry and reduce the potential default risk. However, this approach is less effective if the hard information is insufficient, especially for small companies. On the other hand, a good bank-firm relationship can help to transmit “soft” information, such as the character and reliability of the company's owner, which may also improve the company's credit financing capacity. However, quantitatively measuring the strength of the bank-firm relationship remains a challenge in the financial literature. In the context of the big data paradigm, we introduce the co-occurrence analysis approach and develop an innovative indicator for bank-firm relationships based on their co-occurrence in news texts. The co-occurrence analysis is a text-mining method that has been extensively applied for knowledge discovery in many domains. The key idea is to use the co-occurrence frequencies of given keywords in a corpus to represent their relationship strength. Regarding the bank–firm relationship, a good relationship can manifest not only in frequent business cooperation, but also in non-business interactions, such as mutually organizing or participating in public events, because both formal and informal communications can effectively deliver the company's soft information to the bank. Meanwhile, these mutual events are likely to appear in the news and thus be documented by online media if they are important enough. Hence, we propose to use the news co-occurrence frequency of a specific bank-company pairing to quantify their relationship strength. Relative to most traditional measurement approaches, the news co-occurrence indicator can comprehensively reflect both business and non-business bank-firm relationships, and has the advantage of data availability. Following this idea, we use the news co-occurrence indicator to quantitatively measure the relationships between 238 listed real estate companies and 19 major domestic banks from 2009 to 2014 in China, using Baidu News as the source of the news text. We test the validity of this indicator by comparing it with the corresponding bank's occurrence frequencies in the corresponding company's annual reports and its chief sources of debt financing. We then examine the effects of the bank–firm relationship on the company's credit financing capacity. To alleviate the potential endogeneity problem, we introduce two instrumental variables for the bank–firm relationship, namely the number of senior executives in the company with a banking background and the geographical distance between the headquarters of the company and the bank, and then estimate the models using the 2SLS method. The empirical results suggest that a stronger bank-firm relationship can significantly improve the company's credit availability, but is not generally effective in reducing the cost of credit. In addition, such patterns are heterogeneous across companies; in particular, the bank–firm relationship effect is more pronounced for smaller or less profitable companies from the perspective of either credit availability or credit cost. Furthermore, a company can improve its credit availability more efficiently by choosing to further strengthen its strongest bank relationship rather than establishing relationships with new banks. Strengthening the relationship with SOE versus non-SOE banks achieves similar effects. Further empirical analysis shows that the news co-occurrence measuring approach can be extended to other industries, and corresponding empirical models suggest similar conclusions. This study is among the first to introduce big data and text-mining technology to research on the bank-firm relationship. It contributes to the literature in two ways. First, we propose an innovative and effective bank-firm relationship indicator based on their co-occurrence frequencies in news text, which can comprehensively reflect the relationship from both the business and non-business perspective. Hence, it can serve as an important complement to more traditional measures of the bank–firm relationship. Second, our empirical findings provide not only new evidence for the effects of the bank-firm relationship on a company's credit financing capacity, but also additional insights into the heterogeneities of such effects across companies and banks.
朱恩伟, 吴璟, 刘洪玉. 基于新闻文本共现性的银企关系分析——以房地产上市公司为例[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 464(2): 117-135.
ZHU Enwei, WU Jing, LIU Hongyu. Bank-Firm Relationship Analysis Based on Co-occurrence in News Texts: Evidence from Listed Real Estate Companies in China. Journal of Financial Research, 2019, 464(2): 117-135.
[1]陈键,2008,《银企关系与信贷可获得性,贷款成本——基于2003年NSSBF调查的实证分析》,《财贸经济》第1期,第86~93页。 [2]程小可、杨程程和姚立杰,2013,《内部控制,银企关联与融资约束——来自中国上市公司的经验证据》,《审计研究》第5期,第80~86页。 [3]邓建平和曾勇,2011a,《金融生态环境,银行关联与债务融资——基于我国民营企业的实证研究》,《会计研究》第12卷,第33~40页。 [4]邓建平和曾勇,2011b,《金融关联能否缓解民营企业的融资约束》,《金融研究》第8期,第78~92页。 [5]杜颖洁和杜兴强,2013,《银企关系,政治联系与银行借款——基于中国民营上市公司的经验证据》,《当代财经》第2期,第108~118页。 [6]何韧、刘兵勇和王婧婧,2012,《银企关系,制度环境与中小微企业信贷可得性》,《金融研究》第11卷,第103~115页。 [7]何韧和王维诚,2009,《银企关系与中小企业成长——关系借贷价值的经验证据》,《财经研究》第10期,第81~91页。 [8]罗正英、周中胜和王志斌,2011,《金融生态环境,银行结构与银企关系的贷款效应》,《金融评论》第2期,第64~81页。 [9]尹志超、钱龙和吴雨,2015,《银企关系,银行业竞争与中小企业借贷成本》,《金融研究》第1期,第134~149页。 [10]翟胜宝、易旱琴、郑洁、唐玮和曹学勤,2014,《银企关系与企业投资效率——基于我国民营上市公司的经验证据》,《会计研究》第4期,第74~80页。 [11]张晓玫和宋卓霖,2016,《保证担保,抵押担保与贷款风险缓释机制探究——来自非上市中小微企业的证据》,《金融研究》第1期,第83~98页。 [12]周好文和李辉,2005,《中小企业的关系型融资:实证研究及理论释义》,《南开管理评论》第8卷第1期,第69~74页。 [13]祝继高、韩非池和陆正飞,2015,《产业政策,银行关联与企业债务融资——基于A股上市公司的实证研究》,《金融研究》第3期,第176~191页。 [14]Behr, P., A. Entzian and A. Guettler, 2011, “How do Lending Relationships Affect Access to Credit and Loan Conditions in Microlending？”. Journal of Banking & Finance, 35(8): 2169~2178. [15]Berger, A. N. and G. F. Udell, 1995, “Relationship Lending and Lines of Credit in Small Firm Finance”. Journal of Business, 68(3): 351~381. [16]Berger, A. N. and G. F. Udell, 2002, “Small Business Credit Availability and Relationship Lending: The Importance of Bank Organisational Structure”. The Economic Journal, 112(477): 32~53. [17]Berlin, M. and L. J. Mester, 1998, “On the Profitability and Cost of Relationship Lending”. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(6): 873~897. [18]Bharath, S. T., S. Dahiya, A. Saunders and A. Srinivasan, 2009, “Lending Relationships and Loan Contract Terms”. Review of Financial Studies, 24(4): 1141~1203. [19]Boot, A. W. and A. V. Thakor, 2000, “Can Relationship Banking Survive Competition？”. The Journal of Finance, 55(2): 679~713. [20]Callon, M., J. Courtial and F. Laville, 1991, “Co-word Analysis as a Tool for Describing the Network of Interactions between Basic and Technological Research: The Case of Polymer Chemsitry”. Scientometrics, 22(1): 155~205. [21]Card, D., 1993, “Using Geographic Variation in College Proximity to Estimate the Return to Schooling”. NBER Working Paper No. 4483. [22]Cole, R. A., 1998, “The Importance of Relationships to the Availability of Credit”. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(6): 959~977. [23]Coulter, N., I. Monarch and S. Konda, 1998, “Software Engineering as Seen through its Research Literature: A Study in Co-word Analysis”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13): 1206~1223. [24]Degryse, H. and S. Ongena, 2005, “Distance, Lending Relationships, and Competition”. The Journal of Finance, 60(1): 231~266. [25]Degryse, H. and P. Van Cayseele, 2000, “Relationship Lending within a Bank-based System: Evidence from European Small Business Data”. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 9(1): 90~109. [26]Diamond, D. W., 1984, “Financial Intermediation and Delegated Monitoring”. The Review of Economic Studies, 51(3): 393~414. [27]Elsas, R., 2005, “Empirical Determinants of Relationship Lending”. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 14(1): 32~57. [28]Elsas, R. and J. P. Krahnen, 1998, “Is Relationship Lending Special？ Evidence from Credit-file Data in Germany”. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22(10): 1283~1316. [29]He, Q., 1999, “Knowledge Discovery through Co-word Analysis”. Library Trends, 48(1): 133~159. [30]Hernández-Cánovas, G. and P. Martínez-Solano, 2010, “Relationship Lending and SME Financing in the Continental European Bank-based System”. Small Business Economics, 34(4): 465~482. [31]Kane, T. J. and C. E. Rouse, 1993, “Labor Market Returns to Two-and Four-year Colleges: Is a Credit a Credit and do Degrees Matter？” NBER Working Paper No. 4268. [32]Kleibergen, F., 2007, “Generalizing Weak Instrument Robust IV Statistics towards Multiple Parameters, Unrestricted Covariance Matrices and Identification Statistics”. Journal of Econometrics, 139(1): 181~216. [33]Kleibergen, F. and R. Paap, 2006, “Generalized Reduced Rank Tests Using the Singular Value Decomposition”. Journal of Econometrics, 133(1): 97~126. [34]Kroszner, R. S. and P. E. Strahan, 2001, “Bankers on Boards: Monitoring, Conflicts of Interest, and Lender Liability”. Journal of Financial Economics, 62(3): 415~452. [35]Lehmann, E. and D. Neuberger, 2001, ”Do Lending Relationships Matter？: Evidence from Bank Survey Data in Germany”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45(4): 339~359. [36]Peltoniemi, J., 2007, “The Benefits of Relationship Banking: Evidence from Small Business Financing in Finland”. Journal of Financial Services Research, 31(2-3): 153~171. [37]Petersen, M. A. and R. G. Rajan, 1994, “The Benefits of Lending Relationships: Evidence from Small Business Data”. The Journal of Finance, 49(1): 3~37. [38]Stock, J. H. and M. Yogo, 2002, “Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression”. NBER Technical Working Paper No. 284. [39]Vitols, S., 1998, “Are German Banks Different？” Small Business Economics, 10(2): 79~91.
