Practitioners, regulators and researchers have long recognized important conceptual distinctions among screening, monitoring and collection of loans. However, virtually no empirical studies have explored whether these tools of risk management are employed as net substitutes or as net complements. This paper finds evidence that, across the US banking industry, screening and monitoring behave as net substitutes but collection is complementary to screening and monitoring. A subset of low-risk banks suggests that best practices may involve net substitutability between each pair of these tools and, further, that any weakness in screening is fully offset by strength in monitoring and vice versa.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 16 (2006) Issue (Month): 14 (October) Pages: 1007-1017 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).
Related research
Keywords:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: