Menu Expand

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style

Maurer, T., Thießen, F. Erfolgsunterschiede städtischer und ländlicher Genossenschaftsbanken. Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, 49(3), 445-471. https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.49.3.445
Maurer, Thomas and Thießen, Friedrich "Erfolgsunterschiede städtischer und ländlicher Genossenschaftsbanken" Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital 49.3, 2016, 445-471. https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.49.3.445
Maurer, Thomas/Thießen, Friedrich (2016): Erfolgsunterschiede städtischer und ländlicher Genossenschaftsbanken, in: Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, vol. 49, iss. 3, 445-471, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/ccm.49.3.445

Format

Erfolgsunterschiede städtischer und ländlicher Genossenschaftsbanken

Maurer, Thomas | Thießen, Friedrich

Credit and Capital Markets – Kredit und Kapital, Vol. 49 (2016), Iss. 3 : pp. 445–471

1 Citations (CrossRef)

Additional Information

Article Details

Author Details

Dr. Thomas Maurer, TU Chemnitz, Lehrstuhl für Finanzwirtschaft und Bankbetriebslehre, Straße der Nationen 62, 09111 Chemnitz

Prof. Dr. Friedrich Thießen, TU Chemnitz, Lehrstuhl für Finanzwirtschaft und Bankbetriebslehre, Straße der Nationen 62, 09111 Chemnitz

Cited By

  1. Die Größe einer Genossenschaftsbank als Einflussfaktor auf risikoadjustierte Kapitalstruktur- und Ergebniskennzahlen

    Helms, Nils

    Zeitschrift für das gesamte Genossenschaftswesen, Vol. 68 (2018), Iss. 3 P.168

    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgg-2018-0015 [Citations: 0]

Abstract

On the Success of Rural and Urban Cooperative Banks

This paper analyzes efficiency differences between rural and urban banks. It is based upon German cooperative banks data from the 2005–2011 period and uses gross profit margins to measure bank success. Rural banks show consistently higher margins than urban banks. There are statistically significant differences between rural, semi-urban and urban banks in all key indicators for expenditure, revenue and success. The crucial result is that in all years the net interest income is in favor of rural banks, as interest income was higher and interest expense was lower than in urban banks. Quantity and price aspects, however, go in different directions: rural banks charge lower interest rates, but do more profitable corporate business. Rural banks have significantly higher personnel and material expenses. Overall, the competition argument from the literature can be confirmed. Interrelations, however, are far more complex than illustrated in the literature.