The Japanese Big Bang: the effects of "free, fair and global"
The Japanese “Big Bang” financial deregulations started in 1996. The objective was to make the Japanese banking sector more “free, fair and global”, spurring competition and resulting in a more profitable and efficient financial sector. The Big Bang brought about a massive consolidation of Japan’s already relatively concentrated banking sector. Japan’s “Top 20” banks have now merged to just three financial conglomerates that are among the largest in the world. Is this a sign of the success? Focusing on the Big Bang’s stated objectives of promoting profitability and efficiency, this study examines the Japanese “Big Bang” deregulation from its start in 1996 to completion in 2001, and the following eight years. On profitability, we find that the banking sector as a whole did not become more profitable than the pre-deregulation period. Rather, we see a steady decline in profitability. In addition, the main targets of the deregulation (and the most active in mergers and acquisitions activity during our sample period), the city, trust and long-term credit banks, actually exhibit lower profitability measured in ROA and ROE than the smaller regional banks. The “Big Bang” did not succeed in promoting a more profitable banking sector. We next turn to efficiency. We find that in terms of cost reduction, the banking sector did become more efficient after the Big Bang deregulation. However, the real bottom line of performance, profit efficiency, declined. In addition, we again see a significant difference between the big city, trust long-term credit banks and the smaller regional banks. The biggest banks are statistically significantly less profit efficient, despite their higher cost efficiency. Thus, on the whole, the Japanese “Big Bang” financial deregulation was not successful in achieving its stated objectives. Both profitability and efficiency declines on the whole, and the main targets of the deregulation, the big city, trust and long-term credit banks, exhibit statistically significantly lower profitability and efficiency than their smaller counterparts.
|Date of creation:||Sep 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Elijah Brewer & Julapa Jagtiani, 2013.
"How Much Did Banks Pay to Become Too-Big-To-Fail and to Become Systemically Important?,"
Journal of Financial Services Research,
Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 1-35, February.
- Elijah Brewer, III & Julapa Jagtiani, 2011. "How much did banks pay to become too-big-to-fail and to become systematically important?," Working Papers 11-37, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Elijah Brewer, III & Julapa Jagtiani, 2009. "How much did banks pay to become too-big-to-fail and to become systemically important?," Working Papers 09-34, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.
- Berger, Allen N. & Bonaccorsi di Patti, Emilia, 2006.
"Capital structure and firm performance: A new approach to testing agency theory and an application to the banking industry,"
Journal of Banking & Finance,
Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 1065-1102, April.
- Allen N. Berger & Emilia Bonaccorsi di Patti, 2002. "Capital structure and firm performance: a new approach to testing agency theory and an application to the banking industry," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2002-54, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:35040. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.