Home Vs. Host Country Culture Effects on the Risk-Taking of Bank Subsidiaries
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RADBOUD UNIVERSITY Nijmegen School of Management Master Thesis Home vs. host country culture effects on the risk-taking of bank subsidiaries By DAVOR BATINA (S4481828) Supervisor: Dr. Sascha Füllbrunn Department of Economics Master: Economics (Specialization: Financial Economics) Abstract This thesis analyzes cultural effects on risk-taking among bank subsidiaries in order to answer the question whether home or host country effects are stronger. A sample of 547 banks across 61 countries is used for the purpose of this research. Culture is measured by individualism and uncertainty avoidance. The results show that both measures are positively related to risk-taking. For individualism, home country effects prevail, while for uncertainty avoidance on the other hand host country effects are the strongest. These results are partly robust when alternative measures of risk-taking are used. Table of contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 4 2 Literature review and hypothesis formulation ............................................... 6 2.1 Bank risk-taking ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.2 National culture .................................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Cultural indicators of risk-taking ................................................................................................ 8 2.3.1 Collectivism and individualism ................................................................................................. 8 2.3.2 Uncertainty avoidance ................................................................................................................. 9 2.4 Home vs. host country effects .................................................................................................... 10 3 Methodology and research methods ........................................................... 13 3.1 Data ....................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Research method and regression models ............................................................................ 14 3.3 Variables ............................................................................................................................................. 15 3.3.1 Measuring risk-taking ............................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Measuring national culture .................................................................................................... 16 3.3.3 Control variables .......................................................................................................................... 17 4 Results ........................................................................................................ 19 4.1 Summary of statistics .................................................................................................................... 19 4.2 Regression results .......................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Robustness checks .......................................................................................................................... 22 5 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 27 Reference list .................................................................................................... 29 Appendix A Tests on multicollinearity ............................................................... 33 Appendix B List of banks ................................................................................... 34 3 1 Introduction The recent financial crisis of 2007-08 showed the importance of risk-taking by banks as it was found to be one of the main factors that caused the crisis (Battaglia & Gallo, 2017). Namely, recent times have seen an increase in competition between banks. This provides banks with an incentive to take irresponsible risks in the search of income, as they do not want to fall behind on the competition. The influence of factors such as corporate governance and formal institutions on risk-taking has been widely analyzed in the literature over the years. However, only recently the literature has started to emphasize the role national culture plays in determining risk-taking. Another recent phenomenon that was outlined by the financial crisis is the worldwide interrelatedness of banks, as the crisis did not limit itself to the United States but spread across the globe (Johnson & Mamun, 2012). As a result of the interrelatedness of banks, a large number of banks operate not only in their domestic countries but have subsidiaries all over the world. What distinguishes subsidiaries operating in a foreign country from domestic banks is that subsidiaries are influenced not by one but by two cultures; namely the one of their home (domestic) and host (country of operations) country. This can cause difficulties for the parent bank when it comes to implementing its corporate culture on to the subsidiary, as the subsidiary’s culture might deviate from that of the parent country bank. For instance, a Chinese employee of an American (home country) based bank operating in China (host country) might hesitate to engage in a profitable but risky investment opportunity, while it’s American colleague is more eager to do so. This is due to the cultural differences between the two employees. Namely, China has a very collectivistic culture where individuals do not distinguish themselves much from the group, people from the United States on the other hand are much more individualistic and likely to take a risk if they can benefit from it (Lewis, 2010). Previous literature on the relationship between national culture and bank risk-taking for the largest part does not take the distinction between domestic and foreign culture effects into account (Mihet, 2013; Illiashenko & Laidroo, 2020; Kanagaretnam et. al., 2014). The main goal of this thesis is to analyze the home and host country effects closer, hence the following main research question is formulated in accordance to this: ‘Is risk-taking among banks’ subsidiaries affected more by home or host country culture?’ National culture is operationalized by using Hofstede’s cultural framework, which makes use of six dimensions (power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, long- term orientation and indulgence) to compare countries with regard to national culture. This 4 thesis will focus on individualism and uncertainty avoidance only, as these dimensions are found to influence risk-taking the most (Illiashenko & Laidroo, 2020; Kanagaretnam et. al., 2014). The z-score is used to measure the amount of risk-taking by banks. This thesis expands the previous work on the relationship between national culture and banks’ risk-taking by analyzing the distinction between domestic and foreign cultural effects in depth. The data sample used consists of a total of 547 bank subsidiaries’ across 61 countries spread all over the world. Data is collected over the course of six years (2013-2018). Random effects regression analyses are than performed with the use of panel data. The results of the first analysis show that individualism has a positive effect on risk-taking. Contrary to previous work, the relationship between risk-taking and uncertainty avoidance was found to be positive as well. This result adds up to the small part of literature that finds a positive relationship between uncertainty avoidance and bank risk-taking (Illiashenko & Laidroo, 2020). For individualism, the home country drives the positive effect. Uncertainty avoidance on the other hand, experiences both home and host country effects. The results of additional analyses show that host country effects are stronger for uncertainty avoidance. These results are partly robust when the standard deviation of the bank’s net interest margin (SDNIM) is used as an alternative measure for risk-taking. This study offers several contributions to the existing literature. Firstly, it expands the limited amount of literature that takes into account the differences in home and host country cultural effects on risk-taking (Ashraf & Arshad, 2017). Namely, by analyzing the data in more depth with additional models, the cause of the cultural effects is obtained. Secondly, it contributes to the growing field of research devoted to the impact of national culture on financial institutions (Badarau & Lapteacru, 2020; Kanagaretnam et. al., 2014; Mourouzidou-Damtsa et. al, 2019). Lastly, the results raise doubt from previous research with regard to the effects of Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance on risk-taking behavior (Minkov, 2018). Namely contrary to what was generally accepted in the literature, this study finds a positive relationship between uncertainty avoidance and risk-taking. The remainder of this work is structured as follows. In the second chapter a literature overview on bank risk-taking, culture and home and host country effects is given. The third chapter covers the research methodology, where an overview of the data collecting process is given, followed by a description of the models and variables used in the analysis. Fourthly,