Worki ng  PaPer  Seri eS
no  1568  /   j uLY  2013
Bank Lending and MonetarY
tranSMiSSion in the euro area 
Roberto A. De Santis and Paolo Surico
In 2013 all ECB 
publications 
feature a motif 
taken from 
the 5 banknote.
note: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing 
the views of the European Central Bank (ECB). The views expressed are 
those of the authors and do not necessarily refect those of the ECB.
 European Central Bank, 2013
Address      Kaiserstrasse 29, 60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Postal address    Postfach 16 03 19, 60066 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Telephone    +49 69 1344 0
Internet      http://www.ecb.europa.eu
Fax      +49 69 1344 6000
All rights reserved.
ISSN       1725-2806 (online)
EU Catalogue No    QB-AR-13-065-EN-N (online)
Any reproduction, publication and reprint in the form of a different publication, whether printed or produced electronically, in whole 
or in part, is permitted only with the explicit written authorisation of the ECB or the authors.
This paper can be downloaded without charge from http://www.ecb.europa.eu or from the Social Science Research Network electronic 
library at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=2294854.
Information  on  all  of  the  papers  published  in  the  ECB  Working  Paper  Series  can  be  found  on  the  ECBs  website,  http://www.ecb.
europa.eu/pub/scientifc/wps/date/html/index.en.html
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to David Marques-Ibanez, Frederic Malherbe, Elias Papaioannou, Diego Rodriguez-Palenzuela and three anonymous 
referees for very useful comments and conversations. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not necessarily 
refect those of the European Central Bank. Financial support from the European Research Council (Starting Grant 263429) is gratefully 
acknowledged.
Roberto A. De Santis
European Central Bank; e-mail: roberto.de_santis@ecb.europa.eu
Paolo Surico
London Business School and CEPR; e-mail: psurico@london.edu 
Abstract: To what extent does the availability of credit depend on monetary policy? 
And,  does  this  relationship  vary  with  bank  characteristics?  Based  on  a  common 
source of balance sheet data for the four largest economies of the euro area over the 
period  1999-2011,  we  uncover  three  main  regularities.  First,  the  effect  of  monetary 
policy on bank lending is significant and heterogeneous in Germany and Italy, which 
are characterised by a large number of banks; but it is very weak in Spain and more 
homogeneous  in  France,  where  the  banking  industry  has  a  higher  degree  of  market 
concentration.  Second,  there  is  some  evidence  that  monetary  policy  exerts  larger 
effects  on  cooperative  and  savings  banks  with  lower  liquidity  and  less  capital  in 
Germany  and  savings  banks  with  smaller  size  in  Italy.  Third,  heterogeneity  across 
groups of banks belonging to the same category in any particular country is found to 
be less pronounced. 
Keywords:  credit  availability,  monetary  policy,  heterogeneous  effects;  commercial, 
cooperative, and savings banks.  
JEL classification: C33, E44, E52, G21
1 
Non-technical summary 
The  transmission  of  monetary  policy  in  the  euro  area  has  been  the  focus  of  a 
comprehensive  set  of  studies  on  pre-1999  samples  undertaken  by  the  Eurosystem 
Monetary  Transmission  Network,  jointly  by  the  European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  and 
the  euro  area  National  Central  Banks  (Angeloni,  et  al.,  2003).  This  coordinated 
research  effort  has  documented  that  pre-1999  an  increase  in  interest  rates  tended  to 
reduce loan growth in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Moreover, they found that 
banks  in  these  four  countries  with  more  liquid  asset  holdings  showed  weaker  loan 
adjustments.  
This  paper  studies  a  similar  question  using  data  post-1999,  when  the  ECB  was  in 
charge  of  monetary  policy  in  the  euro  area.  Our  findings  suggest  that  heterogeneity 
in the transmission of monetary policy to banks lending activities appears associated 
with  heterogeneity  across  countries  and  across  typologies  of  banks  in  the  same 
country,  while  it  is  broadly  homogenous  within  the  bank  typology  group  in  each 
country. The effects of interest rate changes engineered by decisions at the European 
Central  Bank  are  in  Germany  and  Italy  far  stronger  than  in  Spain  and  France. 
Interestingly, the German and Italian banking industries are populated by a relatively 
larger  number  of  saving  and  cooperative  banks.  This  contrasts  with  the  French  and 
Spanish  markets,  which  appear  dominated  by  fewer  commercial  banks.  Moreover, 
heterogeneity  across  countries  and  across  typologies  of  banks  within  each  country 
seems  far  more  pronounced  and  significant  than  heterogeneity  across  groups  of 
banks belonging to the same category in any particular country.  
Our findings also suggest that changes in the cost of funding engineered by monetary 
policy  actions  exert  their  maximum  impact  on  cooperative  and  saving  banks  in 
Germany,  especially  those  with  lesser  liquidity  and  lower  capital,  and  saving  banks 
in  Italy,  especially  those  with  smaller  size.  Large  commercial  banks,  on  the  other 
hand,  appear  more  capable  to  isolate  their  lending  activities  from  changes  in 
monetary  policy  conditions.  Small  banks  are  best  placed  to  refinance  the  real 
economy,  in  particular  small-  and  medium-sized  firms,  which  are  the  biggest 
generator of employment in the economy. The analysis suggests that the increase in 
the  number  of  cooperative  and  savings  banks  that  have  access  to  the  ECB  standard 
and non-standard measures during the recent financial crisis is likely to improve the 
transmission mechanism of monetary policy in the euro area.  
Another  important  policy  issue  is  the  evidence  that  unexpected  monetary  policy 
changes  had  limited  implications  for  the  bank  loans  in  Spain  over  the  1999-2011 
period. The limited impact of interest rates on bank lending in Spain suggests that in 
a monetary union country-specific excessive growth of credit should be counteracted 
with instruments that limit the fall in lending standards during boom times.   
2
1. INTRODUCTION 
A  key  requirement  for  an  optimal  currency  area  is  that  the  business  cycle  of  the 
joining  countries  be  sufficiently  synchronized  and  the  structure  of  the  economy  be 
sufficiently  similar  for  the  transmission  of  monetary  policy  to  be  homogeneous 
within  the  currency  union.  While  a  number  of  empirical  studies  have  provided 
tentative evidence that euro area countries may not be too far from such requirement 
along a number of important dimensions, including price changes in product markets 
(see  De  Grauwe  and  Mongelli,  2005  and  the  reference  therein),  empirical  and 
anecdotal evidence suggest that the banking industry may be a significant source of 
heterogeneity  in  the  transmission  of  monetary  policy    In  particular,  the  response  of 
bank  lending  to  monetary  conditions  may  vary  across  countries  and  within  the 
banking  sector,  thereby  making  endogenously  heterogeneous  a  common  monetary 
policy.   
A  similar  question  was  addressed  out  using  data  pre-1999  by  the  Eurosystem 
Monetary  Transmission  Network  (MTN)  in  the  euro  area  (Angeloni,  et  al.,  2003).
  2 
The results from the Eurosystem MTN conducted using data pre-1999 indicated that 
the  impact  of  interest  rate  changes  was  not  highly  heterogeneous  across  countries, 
given  that  an  increase  in  interest  rates  tended  to  reduce  loan  growth  in  France, 
Germany,  Italy  and  Spain,  particularly  of  banks  with  less  liquid  asset  holdings  (see 
e.g.  Ehrmann,  et  al.,  2003).  In  this  paper,  we  review  the  analysis  using  post-1999 
observations.  
A main challenge to investigating these issues empirically is that disentangling credit 
demand  versus  credit  supply  is  not  straightforward  and  it  is  the  main  identification 
problem  of  the  literature  pioneered  by  Kashyap  and  Stein  (1995  and  2000). 
Following  their  contributions,  a  popular  approach  to  study  how  lending  activities 
vary with monetary conditions is to focus on micro data at bank  level  and  project  a 
measure  of  credit  conditions  (typically  loans)  on  a  measure  of  monetary  policy 
(typically  a  short-term  interest  rate),  bank-specific  characteristics,  business  cycle 
indicators  and  their  interactions.  Particular  emphasis  is  given  to  the  so-called  bank 
lending  channel,  namely  the  impact  of  the  interaction  between  monetary  policy  and 
banks individual characteristics on lending activities.  
Most  of  the  available  evidence  on  the  euro  area,  however,  is  typically  based  on 
individual  economies,  with  dataset  that  are  not  readily  comparable  in  terms  of  data 
source, level of disaggregation and sample period. More importantly, the literature is 
scant of comparative studies that try to quantify after the introduction of the euro the 
extent  to  which  the  transmission  of  monetary  policy  through  bank  lending  is 
heterogeneous  across  euro  area  countries,  in  a  way  that  may  depend  on  banks  and                                                           
2
  The  MTN  is  probably  the  most  comprehensive  exercise  to  date  to  analyse  the  transmission 
mechanism  of  monetary  policy.  It  was  an  extensive  three-year  joint  effort  by  the  European  Central 
Bank and the other Eurosystem central banks. 
3
borrowers  characteristics,  regulatory  environment,  financial  development  and 
institutions characteristics.   
The paper aims at filling this important gap in three steps:  
1.  Using  a  common  data  source  on  banks  balance  sheet  data  over  the  sample 
1999-2011, we present some distinctive characteristics of bank lending across 
the  four  largest  economies  of  the  euro  area.    Particular  emphasis  is  given  to 
differences  in  bank-specific  characteristics  meant  to  capture  supply 
conditions  (such  as  capital,  liquidity,  size,  profitability)  as  well  as  to  bank 
typologies. A main finding, highlighted in Section 2, is that France, Germany, 
Italy and Spain are very different in their composition of commercial, saving, 
cooperative  and  real  estate  banks  as  well  as  in  terms  of  individual 
characteristics within each typology of banks. 
2.  Then,  we  turn  to  the  possible  sources  of  such  heterogeneity.  A  non-
exhaustive  list  of  candidates,  which  is  discussed  in  Section  3,  includes  size, 
liquidity  and  capital.  Moreover,  the  transmission  of  the  monetary  policy  can 
be  highly  affected  by  a  specific  relationship  of  banks  with  their  customers, 
the  network  if  banks,  the  concentration  of  the  bank  industry,  the 
characteristics  of  the  borrowers,  the  structure  and  the  development  of  the 
nonfinancial sector. We will analyse this by looking at various typologies of 
banks. 
3.  Finally,  in  Section  4  we  present  an  empirical  model  of  the  bank  lending 
channel  and  in  Section  5  we  provide  formal  econometric  evidence  in  favour 
of  the  hypothesis  that  heterogeneity  in  banks  characteristics  lead  to 
heterogeneity  in  the  monetary  transmission  across  countries  and  typology  of 
banks.  Two  approaches  are  used:  (i)  the  linear  ordinary  least  square  (OLS) 
approach,  which  consists  of  interacting  the  policy  instrument  with  the 
candidate  source  of  heterogeneity  (i.e.  size,  liquidity  and  capital);  (ii)  the 
nonlinear  quantile  regression  approach,  which  splits  the  sample  around  the 
exogenous  policy  instrument  and  the  threshold  values.  The  first  more 
traditional  approach,  which  identifies  heterogeneity  with  observed 
characteristics  such  as  size,  capital  and  liquidity,  allows  us  to  study 
heterogeneity  of  the  monetary  transmission  mechanism  across  countries  and 
across  banks.  The  second  approach  is  used  to  study  heterogeneity  between 
typologies  of  banks,  recognising  that  banks  are  inherently  different  not  only 
in  observed  characteristics,  but  also  in  unobserved  dimensions  such  as 
business  model,  risk  propensity,  managerial  ability  and  borrowers 
characteristics.   
Section 6 compares the results obtained with the post-1999 sample with the pre-1999 
evidence and the final section provides some policy conclusions.   
4
2. BANK LENDING ACROSS THE EURO AREA: SOME FACTS 
The  euro  area  banking  system  is  the  largest  in  the  world.  Total  on-balance  sheet 
assets  of  the  euro  area  banks  were  EUR  31.1  trillion  at  the  end  of  2009,  totalling 
almost  345%  of  euro  area  nominal  GDP  and  about  3.75  times  the  size  of  the  US 
banking  system.  The  credit  intermediation  process  in  the  euro  area  is  dominated  by 
banks  which  account  for  about  three-quarters  of  the  market  (as  opposed  to  one 
quarter  in  the  United  States).  Furthermore,  over  and  above  the  high  overall  level  of 
bank dependence, there are notable differences across euro area countries and across 
typologies of banks.  
For  example,  the  Bank  Lending  Survey  (BLS),
3
  which  is  designed  to  provide 
information on supply and demand conditions in the euro area credit markets and the 
lending  policies  of  euro  area  banks,  indicate  that  credit  access  is  heterogeneous 
across countries with the degree of dispersion increasing since the beginning of 2007, 
before  the  financial  crisis  actually  started. (see Figure 1).  This  is  not  inconsistent 
with   the  notion  that the bank lending channel is highly  heterogeneous across coun
triesand possiblyacross banks typologies (see also Ciccarelli, Maddaloni and Peydro,
2013).   
In  this  section,  we  present  banks  balance  sheet  descriptive  statistics  grouped  by 
country  and  typology  of  banks  for  the  four  largest  economies  of  the  euro  area: 
France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain.  We  use  proprietary  data  from  Bankscope,  which 
are detailed in Appendix A. The focus is on key banks characteristics such as size, 
liquidity,  capital  and  profitability  to  assess  differences  and  similarities  across 
countries.  Furthermore,  we  use  data  from  a  common  source  to  make  sure  that  the 
differences in the data set are not responsible for differences in the empirical results 
available in the literature. This appears an advantage relative to earlier studies, which 
have  typically  focused  on  a  single  country  (Angeloni,  et  al,  2003;  Chatelain,  et  al, 
2003;  Ehrmann  and  Worms,  2004;  Gambacorta,  2005  and  2008;  Jimenez  et  al., 
2012), or have used synthetic aggregate data for the euro area (Altunbas et al., 2004 
and 2009), Europe and the US as a whole (Gambacorta and Marques-Ibanez, 2011).  
The relevant specialization categories in the Bankscope database are: (i) commercial 
banks, (ii) savings banks and (iii) cooperative banks. Because of the low number of 
observations for each country, we exclude real estate and mortgage banks as well as 
medium- and long-term credit banks from the econometric analysis in section 5, but 
we report descriptive statistics for them in this section. The selected categories (i) to 
(iii)  represent  more  than  eighty  percent  of  the  euro  area  corporate  and  household 
credit  markets.  Commercial  banks  are  defined  in  Bankscope  as  mainly  active  in  a 
combination  of  retail  banking  individuals, Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs),                                                           
3
  The  BLS  addresses  issues  such  as  credit  standards  for  approving  loans  as  well  as  credit  terms  and 
conditions  applied  to  enterprises  and  households.  It  also  asks  for  an  assessment  of  the  conditions 
affecting credit demand. The survey is addressed to senior loan officers of a representative sample of 
euro area banks and is conducted four times a year starting from the first quarter of 2003. The sample 
group  participating  in  the  survey  comprises  around  one  hundred  banks  from  all  euro  area  countries 
and takes into account the characteristics of their respective national banking structures.  
5
wholesale banking (large corporates) and private banking (not belonging to groups of 
saving banks, co-operative banks). Saving banks refer to banks mainly active in retail 
banking  (individuals,  SMEs)  and  belonging  to  a  group  of  savings  banks  which, 
unlike  commercial  banks,  are  characterized  by  broadly  decentralized  distribution 
network, providing local and regional outreach.  
Net percentages for the euro area 
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
12 EA countries due to a bank's capital position
due to a bank's market financing due to a bank's liquidty position 
Standard deviation across the initial twelve euro area countries 
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
12 EA countries due to a bank's capital position
due to a bank's market financing due to a bank's liquidty position 
Figure 1. 
Changes in credit standards on loans to corporations 
(net percentages of banks reporting tightening standards and standard deviation across countries) 
Source: European Central Bank. 
Note: The net percentage refers to the difference between the sum of the percentages for tightened considerably 
and tightened somewhat and the sum of the percentages for eased considerably and eased somewhat. See 
http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/lend/html/index.en.html for further information. Sample period: 2003Q1  2012Q1.    
6
Cooperative  banks  have  a  cooperative  ownership  structure  and  are  mainly  active  in 
retail  banking  (individuals,  SMEs).
4
  Real  estate  and  mortgage  banks  are  mainly 
active in mortgage financing and project development. Medium and long-term credit 
banks  provide  loans  finance  such  as  export  finance,  finance  of  projects  in  less 
developed  countries,  environmental  programs  and  loans  to  small  and  medium  sized 
firms.  
To  give  a  sense  for  the  large  extent of heterogeneity in the euro area data, Figure 2 
and Tables 1 and 2 report descriptive statistics from banks balance sheets in France, 
Germany,  Italy  and  Spain,  grouped  by  typology  of  banks.  A  few  facts  about  banks 
heterogeneity are worth noting: 
-  commercial banks have a large market share in all countries, which is particularly 
sizeable  in  Italy;  savings  banks  are  very  important  in  Spain  and  Germany; 
cooperative  banks  have  a  sizable  market  share  in  France  and  Italy;  medium  and 
long  term  credit  bank  play  only  a  marginal  role;  and  real  estate  and  mortgage 
banks are mainly present in Germany (see Figure 2). 
-  cooperative banks have the smallest size in Germany and Italy; savings banks are 
particularly large in France and Spain (see Table 1). 
-  French  savings  banks  are  the  most  liquid;  while  German  savings  banks  are  the 
least liquid. Overall, Italian banks and the commercial banks in all four countries 
are relatively liquid (see Table 1). 
-  Italian  (German)  banks  are  the  most  (least)  capitalised.  Savings  banks  are  the 
least capitalised banks in all countries except Italy (see Table 1).
5 
-  French  banks  have  the  lowest  loan  loss  provision,  which  is  particularly  low 
among savings banks (see Table 2). 
-  German,  Spanish  and  French  banks  finance  their  activity  largely  by  means  of 
deposits (about 80%); Italian banks instead rely only for about 54% to deposits, 
one  third  of  banks  activity  is  financed  by  other  liability  means,  such  as  debt 
securities. This financing structure is homogenous among banks within the same 
country (see Table 2). 
-  French  and  Spanish  banks  are  the  most  profitable,  having  the  largest  return  on 
average  assets  (ROAA  =  net  profit  /  average  assets)  and  on  average  equity 
(ROAE  =  net  profit  /  average  shareholders  equity).  Spanish  banks  appear  the 
most efficient as measured by the lowest cost/income ratio (= operating expenses 
/ operating income) (see Table 2). 
-  Spanish (German) banks recorded the fastest (slowest) growth rate of credit (see 
Table 1).                                                            
4
 Cooperative banks are owned by the depositors and often offer rates more favourable than for-profit 
banks.  Typically,  membership  is  restricted  to  employees  of  a  particular  company,  residents  of  a 
defined  neighbourhood,  members  of  a  certain  labour  union  or  religious  organizations,  and  their 
immediate  families.  This  specialization  category  includes  also  Banche  Popolari  in  Italy, 
Volksbank in Germany, Caja rural in Spain or Banque populaire in France. 
5
  Commercial  banks  and  cooperative  banks  are  more  capitalised  than  savings  banks  most  likely 
because  they  can  find  capital  on  the  market,  the  former  issuing  equities,  and  the  latter  finding 
members,  while  savings  banks  can  increase  capital  only  through  retained  earnings  and  through  the 
intervention of municipalities. 
7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Germany Italy Spain France
Real estate and mortage,
medium and long-term credit
Cooperative
Savings
Commercial
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Germany Italy Spain France
Real estate and mortage,
medium and long-term credit
Cooperative
Savings
Commercial
Loans  
Assets  
Figure 2. 
Countries Market Share for Loans and Assets by Bank Type 
Source: Bankscope and authors calculations. Sample period: 1999-2011.      
8
All Commercial Savings Cooperative
Germany
Liquidity / Assets (%) 14.5 22.5 12.6 15.0
Capital / Assets (%) 5.5 6.5 5.0 5.8
Size (log of assets, EUR mil.) 6.3 6.9 7.1 5.8
Loan growth (%) 1.8 3.4 1.7 1.8
Number of observations 18669 1364 5848 10645
Italy
Liquidity / Assets (%) 20.0 20.4 19.1 20.3
Capital / Assets (%) 10.6 7.4 8.7 11.5
Size (log of assets, EUR mil.) 5.9 8.0 7.4 5.4
Loan growth (%) 9.8 10.0 8.7 10.2
Number of observations 6536 1055 592 4680
Spain
Liquidity / Assets (%) 14.1 19.3 13.5 11.8
Capital / Assets (%) 7.4 7.5 6.9 8.6
Size (log of assets, EUR mil.) 8.3 7.6 9.1 7.0
Loan growth (%) 12.4 12.4 14.4 3.4
Number of observations 1332 540 518 248
France
Liquidity / Assets (%) 19.3 24.2 46.5 12.4
Capital / Assets (%) 7.6 6.7 5.7 9.6
Size (log of assets, EUR mil.) 8.1 7.2 9.0 8.7
Loan growth (%) 7.0 6.6 7.4 8.2
Number of observations 2671 1300 260 829
Table 1.  
Descriptive statistics by typologies of banks 
(Median, sample period: 1999-2011) 
Source: Bankscope and authors calculations.  
9
Table 2.  
Banks Balance Sheet and Financial ratios in the Largest euro area Countries  
(Median, sample period: 1999-2011)  
Germany 
Al l Commerci al Savi ngs Cooperati ve
Assets (%)
Liquid assets 14.5 22.5 12.6 15.0
Loans 60.9 54.6 60.8 61.1
Fixed assets 1.4 0.4 1.3 1.5
Other assets 23.3 22.5 25.3 22.4
Total assets 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Li abi l i ty and Equi ty (%)
Deposits 86.1 84.1 87.6 85.7
Other liabilities 8.4 9.4 7.4 8.5
Equity capital 5.5 6.5 5.0 5.8
Total liabilities and equity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Profi tabi l i ty and effi ci ency (%)
ROAA 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3
ROAE 4.1 4.7 3.5 4.3
Net interest margin 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.7
Cost to income ratio 70.4 69.1 68.1 71.8
Loan loss provision to asset ratio (%) 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4
Size (log of assets, EUR) 6.3 6.9 7.1 5.8 
Italy 
Al l Commerci al Savi ngs Cooperati ve
Assets (%)
Liquid assets 20.0 20.4 19.1 20.3
Loans 66.5 66.0 71.2 65.4
Fixed assets 1.4 1.2 1.5 1.5
Other assets 12.2 12.3 8.2 12.8
Total assets 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Li abi l i ty and Equi ty (%)
Deposits 53.9 58.5 55.5 53.1
Other liabilities 35.5 34.1 35.8 35.4
Equity capital 10.6 7.4 8.7 11.5
Total liabilities and equity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Profi tabi l i ty and effi ci ency (%)
ROAA 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7
ROAE 6.0 6.7 6.9 5.7
Net interest margin 3.1 2.7 3.3 3.2
Cost to income ratio 69.6 67.6 66.8 70.8
Loan loss provision to asset ratio (%) 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3
Size (log of assets, EUR) 5.9 8.0 7.4 5.4   
10
continued 
Spain 
Al l Commerci al Savi ngs Cooperati ve
Assets (%)
Liquid assets 14.1 19.3 13.5 11.8
Loans 70.9 66.9 70.7 74.7
Fixed assets 1.8 1.1 2.2 2.1
Other assets 13.3 12.8 13.7 11.4
Total assets 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Li abi l i ty and Equi ty (%)
Deposits 77.7 80.2 73.5 81.3
Other liabilities 14.9 12.3 19.7 10.1
Equity capital 7.4 7.5 6.9 8.6
Total liabilities and equity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Profi tabi l i ty and effi ci ency (%)
ROAA 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5
ROAE 9.4 8.6 10.7 5.9
Net interest margin 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.2
Cost to income ratio 58.7 56.5 58.7 61.8
Loan loss provision to asset ratio (%) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Size (log of assets, EUR) 8.3 7.6 9.1 7.0  
France 
Al l Commerci al Savi ngs Cooperati ve
Assets (%)
Liquid assets 19.3 24.2 46.5 12.4
Loans 66.9 59.3 39.3 75.1
Fixed assets 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7
Other assets 13.2 15.8 13.6 11.8
Total assets 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Li abi l i ty and Equi ty (%)
Deposits 73.0 71.9 90.1 77.6
Other liabilities 19.4 21.4 4.2 12.8
Equity capital 7.6 6.7 5.7 9.6
Total liabilities and equity 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Profi tabi l i ty and effi ci ency (%)
ROAA 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8
ROAE 8.4 10.3 7.9 7.9
Net interest margin 2.1 2.5 1.5 2.2
Cost to income ratio 65.8 66.9 70.6 63.3
Loan loss provision to asset ratio (%) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3
Size (log of assets, EUR) 8.1 7.2 9.0 8.7 
Source: Bankscope and authors calculations. 
Note:  Net  interest  margin  =  net  interest  income  /  total  earnings  assets.  Return  on  average  assets  (ROAA)  =  net  profits  / 
average  assets.  Return  on  Average  Equity  (ROAE)  =  net  profits  /  average  shareholders'  equity.  The  cost/income  ratio  = 
operating expenses / operating income.   
This set of descriptive statistics exemplifies the significant extent of heterogeneity in 
euro area data across countries and typology of banks. At the same time, they call for 
a  deeper  understanding  of  the  relevant  source(s)  of  heterogeneity  and  the 
11 
consequences  for  the  conduct  of  monetary  policy.  The  rest  of  the  paper  aims  at 
addressing these issues.   
3. SOURCES OF HETEROGENEITY IN BANK LENDING 
The  starting  point  of  the  bank  lending  channel  is  the  recognition  of  the  imperfect 
functioning  of  capital  markets  and  the  existence  of  incomplete  contracts  in  a 
violation  of  the  Modigliani-Miller  (1958)  theorem.  The  imperfections  are  brought 
about  by  the  pervasiveness  of  asymmetric  information  and  the  associated  agency 
problems that can result in large gaps between the lenders' expected returns and the 
borrowers'  costs  of  funds.
6
  In  this  context,  banks  are  not  able  to  substitute  freely 
across different sources of finance as well as firms may not easily replace bank loans 
with other form of financing (e.g. market debt and trade credit). However, there are 
many factors that can influence credit supply, the most important being: the specific 
characteristics  of  banks,  a  particular  relationship  with  customers,  the  networks 
among  banks,  and  the  degree  of  market  competition.  Moreover,  bank  lending  is 
influenced by borrowers characteristics as well as the structure and the development 
of the nonfinancial sector.  
Banks characteristics 
Given that credit provision requires the evaluation of both projects and borrowers as 
well as the monitoring of the borrowers performance before and during the loan, the 
theoretical  literature  attributes  a  prominent  role  to  net  worth  (banks  capital)  in 
reducing  the  agency  costs  of  borrowing  (Bernanke  and  Gertler,  1995;  Holmstrom 
and  Tirole,  1997  and  1998;  Bernanke,  Gertler  and  Gilchrist,  1999;  Gertler  and 
Kiyotaki,  2010),  while  the  empirical  literature  suggests  using  size  (banks  total 
assets)  as  a  proxy  for  informational  asymmetries.    It  is  generally  argued  that 
following a monetary tightening, the banks less likely to contract loan supply are: (i) 
the  larger  banks  as  they  can  raise  external  funds  more  easily  (Kashyap  and  Stein, 
1995);  (ii)  the  more  capitalized  banks  as  they  have  more  equity  securities  to  absorb 
future  losses  (Kishan  and  Opiela,  2000;  Van  den  Heuvel,  2002)  and  less  moral 
hazard  problems  at  the  bank  level  given  that  relatively  more  money  is  at  stake 
(Bernanke, 2007); but also (iii) the more liquid banks as they can use their liquidity 
to satisfy the demand for loans (Kashyap and Stein, 2000, and Chatelain et al., 2003).  
Relationship lending 
In  several  euro  area  countries,  the  market  for  intermediated  finance  is  characterised 
by  relationship  rather  than  arms  length  lending.  It  is  very  common  that  bank 
customers establish long lasting relationships with banks, with a prominent example 
being  the  German  system  of  house  banks,  in  which  firms  conduct  most  of  their                                                           
6
 The role of credit in the economy becomes important once the assumption of perfect information is 
relaxed.  Indeed,  the  essence  of  the  credit  creation  process  is  the  gathering  and  transmission  of 
information,  which  are  needed  to  evaluate  projects  and  borrowers  and  to  monitor  borrowers' 
performance after the loan. In particular, banks have the expertise to channel savings to small business 
projects that are information-intensive and particularly hard to evaluate. 
12 
financial  business  with  one  bank  only.  With  most  German  banks  operating  as 
universal  banks,  and  therefore  supplying  their  customers  with  the  full  range  of 
financial  services,  this  implies  a  much  closer  linkage  to  a  single  bank  than  in  many 
other countries. For the creditor, this could also imply an implicit guarantee to have 
access  to  (additional)  funds  even  if  the  central  bank  follows  a  restrictive  monetary 
policy. In such a case, the reaction of bank loan supply to monetary policy should be 
at  least  muted.  Italian  banks  seem  to  be  characterized  by  a  similar  business  model, 
according  to  which  many  small  banks  entertain  close  relationships  with  their 
customers  (especially  small  firms).  This  is  true  also  for  France  as  most  small  firms 
have business relationships with one bank only. However, French small firms do not 
account for a large share of GDP. Typically, house bank relationships exist between 
relatively small banks  for which the loan business with non-banks is still a central 
activity    and  their  customers.  However,  also  the  typology  of  banks  is  very 
important, given the personal contact typical of credit cooperatives.  
Bank networks 
Banks have set up networks of various kinds. This is particularly true for two sectors: 
savings banks and credit cooperatives in Germany. Both sectors consist of an upper 
tier  of  large  banks  serving  as  head  institutions  and  a  lower  tier  of  smaller  banks 
that  entertain  very  close  relationships  to  the  head  institutions,  leading  to  an  internal 
liquidity  management.  On  average,  the  lower  tier  banks  deposit  short-term  funds 
with  the  upper  tier  banks,  and  receive  long-term  loans  in  turn.  Therefore,  these 
types of banks might be less affected by a monetary policy shock even if they have a 
relatively lower liquidity ratio.  
Banks concentration   
Since the inception of the single currency, the banking industry in the euro area has 
continued to experience a gentle trend in market concentration, mostly driven by the 
steadily  increase  in  the  number  of  mergers  and  acquisitions.  While  the  evolution  of 
market  concentration  over  time  appears  rather  homogeneous  across  the  four 
economies,
7
  we  note  that  the  extent  of  concentration  for  the  entire  sample  period 
stands  at  different  levels  in  the  various  countries  and,  using  various  measures  of 
concentration indices, it is higher in Germany and Italy. These two countries are also 
characterised  by  a  banking  system  with  many  more  banks  per  unit  of  GDP  or 
working population (see Figure 3).   
Therefore,  the  transmission  mechanism  can  differentiate  across  countries  due  to  the 
different degree of market competition, because the sensitivity of the lending rates to 
monetary  policy  rates  may  also  depend  upon  the  intensity  of  market  competition 
(Klein,  1972;  Monti,  1972).  As  the  market  become  more  competitive,  the  degree  of 
pass  through  rises.  This  hypothesis  has  been  tested  favourably.  Hannan  and  Berger 
(1991),  for  example,  show  that  lending  rates  are  sticky  and  that  this  thickness 
increases  with  market  concentration  in  accordance  with  the  prediction  of  the  Klein-
Monti model. The survey by Berger et al. (2004) on the impact of bank concentration                                                           
7
 More specifically, the ranking of the four countries in terms of market concentration has not changed 
over the sample period. 
13 
and  competition  provides  additional  reviews  of  the  existing  literature.  Clearly,  the 
assumption of perfect competition may not seem appropriate for the banking sector, 
given the large barriers to entry.   
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Germany   Italy   Spain   France
N.BanksperEURbillionGDP  
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Germany   Italy   Spain   France
N.BankspermillionWorker 
Figure 3. 
Number of banks per GDP and per working population 
Source: Bankscope, European Central Bank.and own calculations. 
Note: based on the average 1999-2011 period.    
Balance sheet channel 
The  transmission  of  monetary  policy  through  credit  markets  is  also  affected  by 
borrowers' net worth, cash flow and liquid assets, namely the balance sheet channel. 
It  is  widely  recognised  that  firms'  balance  sheets  deteriorate  with  a  monetary 
contraction,  through  a  reduction  of  both  net  worth  (and  thus  collateral)  and  cash 
flows.  As  pointed  out  by  Jimnez,  et  al  (2011),  tighter  monetary  conditions  may 
14 
reduce  supply  through  increased  agency  costs  of  banks;  but  it  also  may  influence 
demand  because  of  reductions  in  net  worth  and  expected  investment.  They  suggest 
controlling  for  borrowers  characteristics  with  firm-month  fixed  effects,  which 
capture  time-varying  observed  and  unobserved  firm  heterogeneity.  They  use  the 
credit  register  of  Spain,  which  is  collected  by  the  Banco  de  Espaa  acting  in  its 
capacity  as  bank  supervisor,  to  attain  identification.  Unfortunately,  we  do  not  have 
information  on  the  borrower  side,  which  prevents  us  from  investigating  this 
additional channel.   
Nonfinancial sectors 
Heterogeneity  in  bank  lending  across  countries  and  typology  of  banks  may  also 
reflect  differences  in  the  real  economy.  If  firms  in  different  sectors  are  run  using 
different  business  models,  have  diverse  managerial  practice  or  face  different  risks, 
for  instance,  then  heterogeneity  in  lending  activities  may  be  rooted  outside  the 
banking  industry.  And  if  the  euro  area  is  not  a  fully  optimal  currency  area,  then 
perhaps such an asymmetry would not necessarily be undesirable as heterogeneity in 
bank  lending  may  compensate  for  heterogeneity  in  the  structure  of  the  economy. 
While  controlling  for  this  effect  would  require  access  to  borrowers  characteristics 
(something  that  unfortunately  we  do  not  observed  in  our  data),  the  empirical 
specification  below  allows  for  GDP  growth  and  its  interaction  with  bank 
characteristics  to  influence  loan  growth  heterogeneously.  This  suggests  that  in  our 
model any evidence of heterogeneity in the lending response to monetary conditions 
would  be  occurring  over  and  above  the  heterogeneous  impact  captured  by  GDP 
growth and the associated interaction terms, which are likely to capture some of the 
effects stemming from the nonfinancial sectors. 
4. MODELLING THE EFFECTS OF MONETARY POLICY ON LENDING 
This  section  presents  an  empirical  specification  to  study  the  impact  of  monetary 
policy  on  bank  lending.  Our  estimation  strategy  follows  the  contributions  by 
Kashyap  and  Stein  (1995  and  2000),  Kishan  and  Opiela  (2000),  Ehrmann,  et  al. 
(2003),  Altunbas,  et  al.  (2009)  and  Gambacorta  and  Marques  (2011),  among  many 
others. These studies share the emphasis that some form of heterogeneity matters for 
the  transmission  of  monetary  policy  and  this  is  explored  by  introducing  an 
interaction  term  between  the  policy  instrument  and  the  candidate  source  of 
heterogeneity. We carry out the same exercise.   
In  addition,  one  should  recognise  that  banks  are  inherently  different  not  only  in 
observed  characteristics  such  as  size,  capital  and  liquidity,  etc.,  but  also  in 
unobserved  dimensions  such  as  business  model,  risk  propensity  and  managerial 
ability.    While  the  main  focus  of  this  paper  is  on  cross-country  heterogeneity, 
monetary  policy  may  also  have  diverse  effects  within  typology  of  banks  for  each 
country.  To  investigate  this  possibility,  we  will  complement  the  results  by  splitting 
the  sample  around  some  exogenous  variables  and  threshold  values  using  an 
estimation strategy that allows heterogeneity in the transmission of monetary policy 
across groups of banks within the same country and bank typology. 
15 
4.1 The empirical specification  
The  transmission  of  monetary  policy  through  the  bank  lending  channel  requires  the 
identification  of  the  monetary  policy  shock  as  well  as  controlling  for  loan  demand 
determinants.  A  vast  empirical  literature  has  proposed  alternative  identification 
strategies  to  decompose  changes  in  the  short-term  interest  rate  into  the  systematic 
and  the  non-systematic  component  of  monetary  policy.  Among  those,  one  of  the 
most  popular  set  of  restrictions  assumes  that  the  short-term  interest  rate  responds 
contemporaneously  to  inflation,  real  activity  and  possibly  a  measure  of  credit 
conditions. Accordingly, we label monetary policy shocks the residuals of a Taylor-
type rule in which changes  in  the 3-month overnight index swap are orthogonalised 
vis--vis  euro  area  real  GDP  growth,  inflation  and  the  growth  of  loans  to  non-
financial  corporations  and  households.
8
  Previous  studies  have  typically  used  the 
realised short-term interest rate as monetary indicator (see for instance Kashyap and 
Stein, 1995 and 2000, and the literature they have pioneered).  
To control for loan demand determinants, we use nominal GDP growth at time t and 
time t-1, the past value of loan growth and the interaction of current and past nominal 
GDP  growth  with  individual  bank  characteristics  at  time  t-1,  such  as  banks' 
profitability  measures  (such  as  the  return  on  equity),  loan  loss  provisions,  size, 
capital  and  liquidity.  The  aggregate  variables  and  their  interaction  with  bank 
characteristics are used to isolate loan demand effects. In addition, the bank-specific 
variables  aim  at  capturing  individual  characteristics  associated  with  the  cyclical 
effects not captured by GDP growth (through returns on equity) and borrowers' risk 
(through  loan  loss  provisions),  as  banks  exposed  to  financially  stronger  borrowers 
are expected to make relatively smaller non-performing loans.
9  
Finally, we allow banks to respond differently to the monetary policy shock in a way 
that  may  also  depend  on  individual  characteristics.  By  doing  so,  we  hope  to 
disentangle  the  policy  effect  that  is  common  across  all  banks  from  the  policy  effect 
that may vary according to the size, liquidity or capital position of each bank.  
4.2 The Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) specification  
A  separate  model  is  estimated  for  each  country  and  each  bank  typology.  The 
econometric specification takes the following form:    
  (1)                                                           
8
  The  finding  of  heterogeneity  is  robust  to  compute  the  monetary  policy  shock  using  the  first  lag  of 
inflation, output and credit aggregate as instruments for their contemporaneous values. The correlation 
of the policy shocks obtained with OLS and IV is 0.85. 
9
 Loan loss provisions are non-cash expenses for banks to account for future losses on loan defaults. 
This  guarantees  a  bank's  solvency  and  capitalisation  if  and  when  the  defaults  occur.  Given  that  the 
loan loss provisions increase with the riskiness of the loans, it is often used as a proxy for bank risk 
(see also Altunbas, et al., 2009). 
t i
j
j t t i j
j
j t t i j t i
j
j t t i j t i t i
j
j t j
j
j t j t i t i
u NGDP z a MP z a z a
NGDP w a LLP a ROE a
NGDP a MP a L a a L
,
1
0
1 , 9
1
0
1 , 8 1 , 7
1
0
1 , 6 1 , 5 1 , 4
1
0
3
1
0
2 1 , 1 0 ,
+ A + + +
A + + +
A + + A + = A      
=   
=    
=     
=  
=   
16
where  L
i,t
  is  the  first  difference  of  the  logarithm  of  loans  of  bank  i  in  period  t  to 
private non-banks in deviation from the average loan growth for that bank. Following 
Altunbas, Gambacorta and David-Marques (2009), we exclude interbank positions.
10 
The  variable  MP
t
  refers  to  the  monetary  policy  shock,  NGDP
t
  stands  for  the  log 
difference  of  nominal  GDP  (in  deviation  from  the  average  GDP  growth),  ROE
i,t
  is 
the  return  on  equity  of  bank  i,  LLP
i,t
  describes  loan  loss  provisions  to  asset  ratio  of 
bank  i,  w
i,t 
=  [ROE
i,t
,  LLP
i,t
]  and z
i,t
 represents a vector of bank characteristics such 
as  size,  liquidity  and  capital.  w
i,t
    and  z
i,t
  are  standardised  value  for  each  bank.  The 
term  
i,t
  represents  the  source(s)  of  unobserved  heterogeneity  across  banks  (See 
Appendix A for detailed information on the construction of the variables).  
Negative  coefficients  on  the  monetary  policy  shock  (i.e.  
2 
<  0)  but  insignificant 
coefficients  on  its  interaction  with  bank-specific  variables  would  indicate  that  the 
transmission of monetary policy on lending activities is homogeneous across banks. 
Positive coefficients on the interaction terms between the MP variable and the bank 
characteristics  (i.e.  
8 
>  0)  would  indicate  that  the  effects  of  monetary  policy  vary 
with the size, liquidity and capital of individual banks.  
4.3 The Quantile Regression (QR) specification  
The  OLS  specification  allows  studying  the  extent  of  heterogeneity  in  the  effects  of 
monetary  policy  on  lending  both  across  countries  and  across  typologies  of  banks 
within each country. In this section, we move one step further and ask whether there 
exists heterogeneity within typology of banks for each country. As it seems arbitrary 
to take a stand a priori on the relevant source of heterogeneity across groups of banks 
within  the  same  category  (intra-group  heterogeneity),  our  empirical  strategy  will  be 
based  on  quantile  regressions  (QR),  which  allow  us  to  deal  with  unobserved 
heterogeneity. To provide intuition for the way quantile regressions work it is useful 
to  draw  an  analogy  between  Ordinary  Least  Squares  (OLS)  and  Least  Absolute 
Deviations (LAD). As OLS provides an estimate of the average effect, LAD provides 
an  estimate  of  the  median  effect.  Quantile  regressions  generalize  the  idea  behind 
LAD in a way that allows the econometrician to characterize the entire distribution of 
lending  responses  to  unanticipated  movements  in  the  policy  rate  across  financial 
institutions.  To  the  extent  that  policy  institutions,  including  the  central  bank,  is 
concerned about risk management in the credit market, looking at the average effect 
is likely to be inappropriate for the purpose of identifying the characteristics that are 
likely  to  make  a  bank  more  sensitive  to  changes  in  its  cost  of  funding  and  business 
cycle conditions.   
In  the  heterogeneous  response  model,  bank  lending  is  treated  as  a  potential  latent 
outcome. The potential outcome L
i,t
 at date t is latent because, given the monetary 
policy  shock,  MP,  and  other  observable  individual  covariates,  x  and  z,  and  macro                                                           
10
  See  Giannone,  Lenza,  Pill  and  Reichlin  (2012)  for  a  study  of  the  effects  of  the  ECB  monetary 
policy, especially the nonstandard tools, on the Euro area interbank market. 
17 
covariates, NGDP, the observed outcome for each bank i is only one of the possible 
realizations  in  the  admissible  space  of  outcomes.  The  quantiles,  Q
r
,  of  the  potential 
outcome distributions conditional on covariates are denoted by: 
  Q
r 
(L
i,t
|MP, NGDP, w
i
, z
i
)   with  (0,1)      (2)  
and  the  effect  of  the  treatment,  here  the  unanticipated  interest  rate  change,  on 
different points of the marginal distribution of the potential outcome is defined as:  
        (3)  
The quantile treatment model can then be written as:  
L
i,t
 = q(MP
t
, MP
t-1
, NGDP
t
, NGDP
t-1
, w
i,t-1
, z
i,t-1
, u
i,t
)      
with u
i,t
|MP, NGDP, W
i
, Z
i
 ~U(0,1)  (4)  
where q(.) = Q
r 
(MP|NGDP, w
i
, z
i,
 u
i
) and u
i,t
 captures unobserved heterogeneity 
across banks i with the same observed characteristics w
i
, z
i
 and "treatment" MP. The 
variable  u
i,t
  is  usually  referred  to  as  the  rank  variable  as  it  determines  the  relative 
ranking of unit of observations in terms of potential outcomes. To the extent that the 
unanticipated  component  of  monetary  policy  is  independent  from  bank-specific 
characteristics, QTE
 measures the causal effect of monetary policy on loan growth, 
holding the unobserved characteristics driving heterogeneity fixed at u
i,t
 = .  
To  estimate  quantile  effects,  we  can  use  methods  outlined  by  Koenker  and  Bassett 
(1978), which are based on the following conditional moment restrictions:  
Prob[L  q(MP,NGDP,x,)|MP,NGDP,w,z]  
= Prob[u  |MP,NGDP,w,z] =   
for  each    (0,1).  The  estimated  parameters,  os,  are  the  results  of  the  following 
optimization problem:                                 
where  
t
(u)  =  u(t     I(u<0))  and  the  indicator  function  I()  takes  value  of  one  for 
negative  values  of  u  and  zero  otherwise.  The  penalty  function  above  is  asymmetric 
and  piecewise  linear.  The  asymmetry  is  introduced  by  the  tilting  term  (t     I(u<0)) 
which weights differently the absolute residuals associated with the different parts of 
the conditional distribution of the endogenous variable. By varying the weights in the 
tilting term, quantile regressions yield a set of estimates for the slope coefficient over 
the conditional distribution of the latent variable, which in the present context is loan 
growth.  
The  empirical  specification  of  the  conditional  -th  quantile  distribution  of  loan 
growth then takes the following form:   
(   )
MP
z w NGDP MP L Q
QTE
i i i
c
A A c
=
, , ,
t
t
(   ) o 
 t
o
'
1
min
i i
n
i
x y   
=
18
 
  (5) 
 
 
for each  (0,1), where the variables have been defined in the previous section. 
 
Specification  allows  unlike  earlier  studies-  the  impact  of  monetary  policy  shocks, 
2
,  and  its  interaction  with  bank  characteristics,  
8
,  to  vary  across  endogenously 
determined  groups  of  banks  within  each  country.  Furthermore,  we  also  allow  the 
growth  rate  of  GDP  and  its  interaction  with  all  individual  characteristics  to  have 
heterogeneous  effects  across  the  conditional  distribution  of  loan  growth.  Given  that 
the  financial  sector  typically  represents  a  small  fraction  of  GDP  in  each  of  the  four 
countries  we  consider,  allowing  for  heterogeneity  in  
3
,  
6 
and  
9
  suggests  that  any 
evidence of heterogeneity in 
2
 and 
8
 is most likely to capture heterogeneity in the 
bank  lending  response  to  monetary  conditions,  over  and  above  any  possible 
heterogeneous influence coming from the nonfinancial sectors. 
5.  EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 
In  this  section,  we  present  the  main  results  of  the  paper,  namely  the  effects  of  non-
systematic changes in the short-term interest rate on lending activity. We distinguish 
between  the  direct  effect  of  monetary  policy  on  loans,  as  exemplified  by  the 
estimated coefficients o
2
, and the indirect effect coming from the interaction between 
the short-term interest rate and bank-specific variables (i.e. the bank lending channel) 
such as size, liquidity and capital, as exemplified by the coefficients o
8
. In each table 
and  panel,  we  report  the  sum  of  the coefficients  on  the  variable  of  interest  at  time  t 
and  t-1.  Given  our  focus  on  the  effects  of  monetary  policy  in  the  euro  area,  we 
investigate  the  impact  of  the  monetary policy shock using data for the period 1999-
2011.  We  estimate  a  separate  specification  for  each  country  and  then  within  each 
country  for  each  typology  of  banks.  We  consider  neither  real  estate  and  mortgage 
banks nor medium and long term credit banks separately because of the insufficient 
number of observations for each country.  
 
The first column of Figure 4 reports the direct effect of the monetary policy shock on 
loan growth in Germany (first row), Italy (second row), Spain (third row) and France 
(fourth  row).  Non-systematic  changes  in  the  cost  of  short-term  financing  have  a 
negative impact in all countries with the largest extent of heterogeneity in Germany 
and Italy. The impact is milder and statistically insignificant in Spain.  
 
The  interaction  between  monetary  policy  shocks  and  bank's  size  (liquidity)  in  the 
second (third) column reveals that this form of the bank lending channel is active in 
Italy,  Spain  and  France  (Germany  and  Italy).  Finally,  there  is  little  evidence  in  the 
last  column  of  Figure  4  that  banks'  capital  may  significantly  dampen  the  effect  of 
monetary policy on lending activities. 
 
 
(   )   ( )   ( )   ( )   ( )
( )   ( )   ( )
( )   ( )   ( )
 
  
   
=
   
=
    
=
     
=
  
=
   
A + + +
A + + +
A + + A + =  A
1
0
1 , 9
1
0
1 , 8 1 , 7
1
0
1 , 6 1 , 5 1 , 4
1
0
3
1
0
2 1 , 1 0 ,
j
j t t i j
j
j t t i j t i
j
j t t i j t i t i
j
j t j
j
j t j t i t i
NGDP z MP z z
NGDP w LLP ROE
NGDP MP L L Q
t o t o t o
t o t o t o
t o t o t o t o
t
19
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. 
Impact of monetary policy shock and its interaction with bank characteristics on loan growth 
The  econometric  specification  takes  the  form  of  equations  (1)  and  (5).  Prior  to  estimation  the  interest  change  is 
orthogonalized  by  taking  the  residuals  on  a  regression  of  interest  rate  change  on  euro  area  real  GDP  growth, 
euro area GDP deflator inflation, euro area loan growth and lagged interest rate change. The panels report the 
sum  of  the  coefficient  of  the  variables  at  time  t  and  t-1.  Source:  Bankscope,  annual  data.  QR  (LS)  estimates  in 
black  (blue)  refer  to  quantile  (least  squares)  regressions.  Shaded areas  (dotted  lines)  are  95%  confidence  bands 
estimated using robust standard errors. Estimates are reported for   [.05, .95] at .05 unit intervals. Sample: see 
Table 1. 
 
 
Figure  5  decomposes  the  estimates  of  the  effect  of  the  monetary  policy  shock  by 
banks'  categories  with  the  effects  of  monetary  policy  on  lending  for  commercial, 
cooperative  and  saving  banks  reported  in  the  first,  second  and  third  column, 
respectively.  We  find  that  the  impact  of  non-systematic  changes  in  the  short-term 
interest rate is significant and larger for cooperative banks in Italy and France and for 
saving banks in Italy. A fraction of commercial banks in Germany, Italy and France 
also appear negatively affected by monetary policy shocks, although the coefficients 
seem imprecisely estimated. 
 
 
 
 
20
 
 
Figure 5. 
Impact of monetary policy shock on loan growth across typologies of banks 
The  econometric  specification  takes  the  form  of  equations  (1)  and  (5).  Prior  to  estimation  the  interest  change  is 
orthogonalized  by  taking  the  residuals  on  a  regression  of  interest  rate  change  on  euro  area  real  GDP  growth, 
euro area GDP deflator inflation, euro area loan growth and lagged interest rate change. The panels report the 
sum  of  the  coefficient  of  the  variables  at  time  t  and  t-1.  Source:  Bankscope,  annual  data.  QR  (LS)  estimates  in 
black  (blue)  refer  to  quantile  (least  squares)  regressions.  Shaded areas  (dotted  lines)  are  95%  confidence  bands 
estimated using robust standard errors. Estimates are reported for   [.05, .95] at .05 unit intervals. Sample: see 
Table 1. 
 
 
As  the  interaction  between  monetary  policy  and  size  does  not  seem  to  have 
significant  effects  on  lending  activities  (with  the  possible  exception  of  German 
cooperative banks and Italian saving banks), we move to the impact of the interaction 
between  the  policy  shock  and  size,  liquidity  and  capital  in  Figures  6,  7  and  8 
respectively,  focusing  on  the  countries  and  typologies  of  banks  for  which  there  is 
evidence of significant effects or heterogeneous behaviour.  
 
Figure  6  reveals  that  the  bank  lending  channel  working  through  size  is  significant 
and heterogeneous for German cooperative banks and Italian saving banks.  
 
Figure  7  reveals  that  the  bank  lending  channel  working  through  liquidity  is 
significant  and  heterogeneous  for  German  cooperative  and  saving  banks,  Italian 
cooperative banks.  
21
 
 
 
Figure 6. 
Impact of monetary policy interacted with size on loan growth across typologies of banks 
The  econometric  specification  takes  the  form  of  equations  (1)  and  (5).  Prior  to  estimation  the  interest  change  is 
orthogonalized  by  taking  the  residuals  on  a  regression  of  interest  rate  change  on  euro  area  real  GDP  growth, 
euro  area  GDP  deflator  inflation,  euro  area  loan  growth  and  lagged  interest  rate  change.  The  channel  is 
calculated using the interaction between the monetary policy shocks at time t and t-1 and liquidity at time t-1. The 
panels report the sum of the coefficient of the variables at time t and t-1. Source: Bankscope, annual data. QR (LS) 
estimates  in  black  (blue)  refer  to  quantile  (least  squares)  regressions.  Shaded  areas  (dotted  lines)  are  95% 
confidence  bands  estimated  using  robust  standard  errors.  Estimates  are  reported  for     [.05,  .95]  at  .05  unit 
intervals. Sample: see Table 1. 
 
 
Figure 7. 
Impact of monetary policy interacted with liquidity on loan growth across typologies of banks 
The  econometric  specification  takes  the  form  of  equations  (1)  and  (5).  Prior  to  estimation  the  interest  change  is 
orthogonalized  by  taking  the  residuals  on  a  regression  of  interest  rate  change  on  euro  area  real  GDP  growth, 
euro  area  GDP  deflator  inflation,  euro  area  loan  growth  and  lagged  interest  rate  change.  The  channel  is 
calculated using the interaction between the monetary policy shocks at time t and t-1 and liquidity at time t-1. The 
panels report the sum of the coefficient of the variables at time t and t-1. Source: Bankscope, annual data. QR (LS) 
estimates  in  black  (blue)  refer  to  quantile  (least  squares)  regressions.  Shaded  areas  (dotted  lines)  are  95% 
confidence  bands  estimated  using  robust  standard  errors.  Estimates  are  reported  for     [.05,  .95]  at  .05  unit 
intervals. Sample: see Table 1. 
22
 In line with the aggregate results in Figure 4, we detect little evidence of a significant 
bank  lending  channel  operating  in  Spain  and  France.  Finally,  as  for  the  interaction 
between  monetary  policy  and  capital,  Figure  8  reports  significant  effects  only  for 
German cooperative and saving banks. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. 
Impact of monetary policy interacted with capital on loan growth across typologies of banks 
The  econometric  specification  takes  the  form  of  equations  (1)  and  (5).  Prior  to  estimation  the  interest  change  is 
orthogonalized  by  taking  the  residuals  on  a  regression  of  interest  rate  change  on  euro  area  real  GDP  growth, 
euro  area  GDP  deflator  inflation,  euro  area  loan  growth  and  lagged  interest  rate  change.  The  channel  is 
calculated using the interaction between the monetary policy shocks at time t and t-1 and liquidity at time t-1. The 
panels report the sum of the coefficient of the variables at time t and t-1. Source: Bankscope, annual data. QR (LS) 
estimates  in  black  (blue)  refer  to  quantile  (least  squares)  regressions.  Shaded  areas  (dotted  lines)  are  95% 
confidence  bands  estimated  using  robust  standard  errors.  Estimates  are  reported  for     [.05,  .95]  at  .05  unit 
intervals. Sample: see Table 1. 
 
Cooperative  banks,  which  are  typically  present  in  the  financial,  crafts  and 
agricultural sectors, differ from stockholder banks by their organization, their goals, 
their  values  and  their  governance.  Cooperative  banks  are  often  created  by  persons 
belonging to the same local or professional community or sharing a common interest 
with the ownership, which is widely shared. The first aim of cooperative banks is not 
to  maximise  profit  but  to  provide  the  best  possible  products  and  services  to  its 
members.  They  provide  access  to  financial  services  to  individuals  who  would 
otherwise  be  excluded  from  such  offers.  Also  saving  banks,  unlike  commercial 
banks,  are  characterized  by  broadly  decentralized  distribution  network,  providing 
local  and  regional  outreach.  Given  that  the  core  business  of  the  credit  cooperatives 
and savings banks is local, the heterogeneous impact of the monetary policy shocks 
on local income and deposits might explain the findings. 
 
In  summary,  the  direct  effect  of  policy  rate  changes  on  lending  activities  is  highly 
heterogeneous  in  Germany  and  Italy,  but  it  is  far  more  muted  in  Spain  and  France. 
As for the bank lending channel, we find evidence that it is mostly operating through 
liquidity in Germany and Italy, with the significant and heterogeneous effects mostly 
driven  by  cooperative  banks.  There  is  some  evidence  that  the  effects  of  monetary 
23
 
policy on bank lending may change with the size of banks in Italy, Spain and France 
but  these  findings  do  not  seem  to  correlate  with  the  classification  in  commercial, 
cooperative  and  saving  banks,  thereby  suggesting  that  other  forms  of  (unobserved) 
heterogeneity  may  be  at  play.  Next  section  discusses  some  possible  interpretations 
for these findings. 
6.  COMPARISON  WITH  EARLIER  MICRO  STUDIES  FOR  INDIVIDUAL 
EURO AREA COUNTRIES 
At  this  point,  it  is  useful  to  compare  our  estimates  with  those  obtained  by  selected 
studies  using  balance  sheet  data  on  individual  banks  for  single  euro  area  countries. 
Most of these earlier studies on single countries have typically focussed on pre-1999 
samples.  The  comparison  is  meant  to  highlight  any  possible  time  variation  in  the 
interest rate and bank lending channel in the euro area. 
 
We  already  mentioned  that  the  impact  of  interest  rate  changes  were  not  so 
heterogeneous across countries as an increase in interest rates tended to reduce loan 
growth  in  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain,  particularly  of  banks  with  less  liquid 
asset holdings (see e.g. Ehrmann, et al., 2003). Conversely, in reviewing the analysis 
using  post-1999  observations,  we  find  clear  evidence  that  the  impact  of  monetary 
policy  shocks  is  heterogeneous  across  countries  and  across  typologies  of  banks. 
Moreover, we find that bank lending supply amplifies the effect of monetary policy 
changes  of  savings  and  cooperative  banks  in  Germany  and  savings  banks  in  Italy, 
which mainly serve individuals and small firms. 
 
This summary study by Ehrmann, et al. (2003) was then followed by country specific 
studies that are here highlighted. 
 
Using quarterly data for Germany over a pre-1999 sample, Worms (2003) argues that 
a bank's share of short-term interbank deposits relative to total assets (as opposed to 
its size) is paramount to explain the bank lending reaction to monetary policy. This is 
because  of  the  existence  of  long-term  lending  relationships  between  the  majority  of 
German  banks  and  their  loan  customers  ("house-bank  relationships").  Our  results 
corroborate  this  view  that  the  bank  lending  channel  in  Germany  works  through 
liquidity and not the size of the bank. 
 
The  estimates  we  obtain  for  Italy  resemble  those  reported  by  Gambacorta  (2003) 
using  quarterly  data  over  a  pre-1999  sample  with  regard  to  the  role  of  liquidity.  In 
addition,  we  document  a  significant  interaction  between  size  and  changes  in  the 
short-term interest rate since 1999. 
 
Based  on  annual  data  over  the  period  1991-1998,  Hernando  and  Martiniz-Pages 
(2003) find evidence for a bank lending channel working through liquidity in Spain. 
On  the  other  hand,  using  monthly  data  on  loan  applications,  Jimnez  et  al.  (2011) 
conclude  that  the  effects  of  monetary  policy  are  stronger  for  banks  of  smaller  size. 
24
 
Our  results  suggest  that  on  average  over  the  1999-2011  period  policy  interest  rates 
have not affected credit growth in Spain and the bank lending channel was impaired. 
 
As for France, Loupias, et al. (2003) employ annual data over the period 1993-2000 
and find that, following a change in the interest rate, the reduction of loan growth in 
French banks with lesser liquid assets (relative to total assets) tends to be larger than 
the  reduction  in  more  liquid  banks.  We  instead  cannot  find  a  bank  lending  channel 
for France. 
7. POLICY CONCLUSIONS 
The  transmission  of  monetary  policy  in  the  euro  area  has  been  the  focus  of  a 
comprehensive  set  of  studies  on  pre-1999  samples  undertaken  by  the  Eurosystem 
Monetary  Transmission  Network,  jointly  by  the  European  Central  Bank  (ECB)  and 
the  euro  area  National  Central  Banks  (Angeloni,  et  al.,  2003).  This  coordinated 
research  effort  has  documented  that  pre-1999  an  increase  in  interest  rates  tended  to 
reduce loan growth in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Moreover, they found that 
banks  in  these  four  countries  with  more  liquid  asset  holdings  showed  weaker  loan 
adjustments. 
 
This  paper  studies  a  similar  question  using  data  post-1999,  when  the  ECB  was  in 
charge  of  monetary  policy  in  the  euro  area.  Our  findings  suggest  that  heterogeneity 
in the transmission of monetary policy to banks lending activities appears associated 
with  heterogeneity  across  countries  and  across  typologies  of  banks  in  the  same 
country,  while  it  is  broadly  homogenous  within  the  bank  typology  group  in  each 
country.  
 
Our findings also suggest that changes in the cost of funding engineered by monetary 
policy  actions  exert  their  maximum  impact  on  cooperative  and  saving  banks  in 
Germany,  especially  those  with  lesser  liquidity  and  lower  capital,  and  saving  banks 
in  Italy,  especially  those  with  smaller  size.  Large  commercial  banks,  on  the  other 
hand,  appear  more  capable  to  isolate  their  lending  activities  from  changes  in 
monetary  policy  conditions.  Small  banks  are  best  placed  to  refinance  the  real 
economy,  in  particular  small-  and  medium-sized  firms,  which  are  the  biggest 
generator of employment in the economy. The analysis suggests that the increase in 
the  number  of  cooperative  and  savings  banks  that  have  access  to  the  ECB  standard 
and non-standard measures during the recent financial crisis is likely to improve the 
transmission mechanism of monetary policy in the euro area. 
 
Another  important  policy  issue  is  the  evidence  that  monetary  policy  shocks  had 
limited  implications  for  the  bank  loans  in  Spain  over  the  1999-2011  period.  The 
limited impact of interest rates on bank lending in Spain suggests that in a monetary 
union  country-specific  excessive  growth  of  credit  should  be  counteracted  with 
instruments that limit the fall in lending standards during boom times. 
 
25
 
REFERENCES 
 
Angeloni,  I.,  A.  Kashyap  and  B.  Mojon  (2003),  Monetary  Policy  Transmission  in 
the Euro Area, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Altunbas,  Y.,  G.  de  Bondt  and  D.  Marques-Ibanez  (2004),  Bank  Capital,  Bank 
Lending  and  Monetary  Policy  in  the  euro  area,  Kredit  und  Kapital,  Vol.4,  pp. 
443-465. 
Altunbas,  Y.,  L.  Gambacorta  and  D.  Marques-Ibanez  (2009),  Securitisation  and 
the Bank Lending Channel, European Economic Review, 53, pp. 996-1009. 
Berger,  A.N.,  A.  Demirguc-Kunt,  R.  Levine,  and  J.G.  Haubrich  (2004),  Bank 
Concentration and Competition: An Evolution in the Making, Journal of Money, 
Credit and Banking, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 433-451.  
Bernanke, B.S. and M. Gertler (1995), Inside the Black Box: The Credit Channel 
of Monetary Policy Transmission, Journal of Economic Perspective, Vol. 9, No. 
4, pp. 27-48. 
Bernanke, B.S., Gertler, M. and Gilchrist, S. (1999), The Financial Accelerator in 
a  Quantitative  Business  Cycle  Framework,  in  Handbook  of  Macroeconomics, 
ed. J. Taylor and M. Woodford, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1341-93. 
Bernanke,  B.S.  (2007),  The  Financial  Accelerator  and  the  Credit  Channel, 
speech on 15 June at the The Credit Channel of Monetary Policy in the Twenty-
first Century Conference, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. 
Chatelain, J.B., Generale, A., Vermeulen, P., Ehrmann, M. Martinez-Pages, J. and 
A.  Worms  (2003),  Monetary  Policy  Transmission  in  the  euro  area:  New 
Evidence  from  Micro  data  on  Firms  and  Banks,  Journal  of  the  European 
Economic Association, Vol. 1, pp. 731-742. 
Ciccarelli,  M.,  A.  Maddaloni  and  J.L.  Peydro  (2013),  Heterogeneous 
Transmission  Mechanism:  Monetary  Policy  and  Financial  Fragility  in  the  Euro 
Area, ECB Working Papers, n. 1527. 
De  Grauwe,  P  and  Mongelli,  F.P.  (2005).  Endogeneities  of  Optimum  Currency 
Areas: What Brings Countries Sharing a Single Currency. ECB Working Paper 
Series, No. 1091. 
Ehrmann,  M.,  L.  Gambacorta,  J.  Martinez-Pages,  P.  Sevestre  and  A.  Worms, 
(2003),  Financial  Systems  and  the  Role  of  Banks  in  Monetary  Policy 
Transmission  in  the  Euro  Area,  eds.  I.  Angeloni,  A.  Kashyap  and  B.  Mojon 
(eds.),  Monetary  Policy  Transmission  in  the  Euro  Area,  Cambridge:  Cambridge 
University Press, pp. 235-269. 
Ehrmann,  M.  and  A.  Worms  (2004),  Bank  Networks  and  Monetary  Policy 
Transmission,  Journal  of  the  European  Economic  Association,  Vol.    2(6),  pp. 
1148-1171. 
Gambacorta,  L.  (2003),  The  Italian  Banking  System  and  Monetary  Policy 
Transmission:  Evidence  from  Bank-Level  Data,  eds.  I.  Angeloni,  A.  Kashyap 
26
 
and  B.  Mojon,  Monetary  Policy  Transmission  in  the  Euro  Area,  Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press, pp. 323-346. 
Gambacorta  L.  (2005),  Inside  the  Bank  Lending  Channel,  European  Economic 
Review, Vol. 49, pp. 1737-1759.  
Gambacorta L. (2008), How Do  Banks Set Interest Rates?, European Economic 
Review, Vol. 52, pp. 792-819.  
Gambacorta,  L.  and  D.  Marques-Ibanez,  2011,  The  Bank  Lending  Channel: 
Lessons from the Crisis, Economic Policy, pp. 137-168. 
Gertler, M. and Kiyotaki, N. (2010), Financial Intermediation and Credit Policy in 
Business  Cycle  Analysis,  in  Handbook  of  Monetary  Economics,  eds.  B.M. 
Friedman and M. Woodford, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 547-99. 
Giannone,  D.,  M.  Lenza,  H.  Pill  and  L.  Reichlin  (2012),  The  ECB  and  the 
Interbank Market, CEPR Discussion Paper, No. 8844. 
Hannan,  T.  H.,  and  A.  Berger  (1991),  "The  Rigidity  of  Prices:  Evidence  for  the 
Banking Industry, American Economic Review, Vol. 81, No. 4, pp. 938-945. 
Hernando,  I.  and  J.  Martinez-Pages (2003), Is There a Bank-Lending Channel of 
Monetary  Policy  in  Spain,  eds.  I.  Angeloni,  A.  Kashyap  and  B.  Mojon, 
Monetary  Policy  Transmission  in  the  Euro  Area,  Cambridge:  Cambridge 
University Press, pp. 284-296. 
Holmstrom,  B.  and  Tirole,  J.  (1997),  Financial  Intermediation,  Loanable  Funds, 
and the Real Sector, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112, pp. 663-91. 
Holmstrom,  B.  and  Tirole,  J.  (1998),  Private  and  Public  Supply  of  Liquidity, 
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 1-40. 
Jimenez,  G.,  S.  Ongena,  J.L.  Peydr  Alcalde,  and  J.  Saurina,  (2012),  Identifying 
Loan  Supply  and  Balance-sheet  Channels  with  Loan  Applications,  American 
Economic Review,  Vol. 102, No. 5, 2301-2326.  
Kashyap,  A.,  and  J.  Stein  (1995),  The  Impact  of  Monetary  Policy  on  Bank 
Balance  Sheets,  Carnegie-Rochester  Conference  Series  on  Public  Policy,  Vol. 
42, pp. 151-95. 
Kashyap, A., and J. Stein (2000), What Do a Million Observations on Banks Say 
About the Transmission of Monetary Policy?, American Economic Review, Vol. 
90, pp. 407-28. 
Kishan,  R.P.  and  T.  P.  Opiela  (2000),  Bank  Size,  Bank  Capital,  and  the  Bank 
Lending Channel, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 32 (1), pp. 121-
141.  
Klein,  M.  A.  (1971),  A  Theory  of  the  Banking  Firm,  Journal  of  Money,  Credit 
and Banking, Vol. 3, pp. 205218. 
Koenker,  Roger  and  Gilbert  W.  Bassett  (1978),  Regression  Quantiles, 
Econometrica 46, pp. 33-50. 
27
 
Loupias,  C.,  Savignac,  F.  and  P.  Sevestre  (2003),  Is  There  a  Bank-Lending 
Channel  in  France?  Evidence  from  Bank  Panel  Data,  eds.  I.  Angeloni,  A. 
Kashyap  and  B.  Mojon,  Monetary  Policy  Transmission  in  the  Euro  Area, 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 297-308. 
Modigliani,  F.  and  M.  Miller  (1958),  The  Cost  of  Capital,  Corporation  Finance 
and  the  Theory  of  Investment,  American  Economic  Review,  Vol.  48,  pp.  261-
297. 
Monti,  M.  (1972),  Deposit,  Credit  and  Interest  Rate  Determination  under 
Alternative  Bank  Objective  functions,  eds.  K.  Shell  and  G.P.  Szeg, 
Mathematical  methods  in  investment  and  finance,  Amsterdam:  North-Holland, 
pp. 431454. 
Van  den  Heuvel,  S.  (2002),  Does  Bank  Capital  Matter  for  Monetary 
Transmission?,  Economic  Policy  Review,  Federal  Reserve  Bank  of  New  York, 
pp. 1-7. 
Worms, A. (2003), The Reaction of Bank  Lending to Monetary Policy Measures 
in  Germany,  eds.  I.  Angeloni,  Kashyap,  A.  and  B.  Mojon,  Monetary  Policy 
Transmission in the Euro Area, Cambridge University Press, pp 270-283. 
28
 
APPENDIX A: THE DATA  
 
The  data  we  use  are  commercially  distributed  through  Bankscope,  a  comprehensive 
database  provided  by  the  rating  agency  Fitch  Ibca  containing  detailed  annual 
information on about 8,000 European banks, 14,000 North American banks and more 
than 6,000 banks from other areas around the world. The data cover the universe of 
banks  in  the  four  euro  area  economies  we  focus  on.  The  global  disclosure  format 
provides  consistent  financial  criteria  standardised  across  countries  and  accounting 
standards.  Each  bank  report  contains  detailed  unconsolidated  and/or  consolidated 
balance  sheets  and  income  statements.  Our  results  below  are  robust  to  using 
unconsolidated  or  consolidated  data,  so  we  only  report  estimates  based  on 
consolidated  balance  sheets.  Our  data  are annual.  Other  databases,  such  as  the  SNL 
Financials  or  Thomson  Reuters,  provide quarterly data on banks balance sheet, but 
only  for  the  largest  banks  and  they  are  very  weak  on  historical  information  and 
coverage  for  non-listed  banks.  These  alternative  databases,  therefore,  are  not  really 
suitable to study the bank lending channel. 
 
The specialization categories in the Bankscope database of relevance for our analysis 
are: (i) commercial banks, (ii) savings banks and (iii) cooperative banks. Thereby, we 
excluded  (also  because  of  the  low  number  of  observations  for  each  country)  real 
estate  and  mortgage  banks,  medium-  and  long-term  credit  banks,  investment  banks 
and  securities  houses,  islamic  banks,  non-banking  credit  institutions,  specialised 
government credit institutions, bank holdings and holding companies, central banks, 
and multilateral government banks.  
 
Bankscope contains data from 1989 onwards. However, the coverage during the first 
half  of  1990s  is  very  limited.  Furthermore,  given  our  focus  on  the  effects  of 
monetary policy in the euro area, it makes sense to select a sample characterized by a 
homogeneous  policy  regime,  as  represented,  for  instance,  by  the  transfer  of 
responsibility  for  setting  the  area  wide  short-term  interest  rate  from  national 
monetary  authorities  to  the  European  Central  Bank.  With  this  goal  in  mind,  our 
sample  begins  in  1999  and  ends  in  2011,  with  the  last  observation  reflecting  data 
availability at time of writing.  
 
More specifically, we employ four releases of data in electronic format so as to keep 
track of the balance sheets of merged and failed banks which are no longer reported 
in the new releases. By doing so we reduce the errors related to survivorship bias and 
to a spurious burst of credit growth that only reflect take-overs between banks. 
 
To quantify the bank lending channel, we consider (i) size measured by the logarithm 
of banks' assets, (ii) liquidity measured by cash, interbank lending, reserves at central 
banks plus government securities divided by total assets and (iii) capital measured by 
banks equity capital and retained earnings divided by total assets. To ensure that the 
size  of  the  coefficients  is  comparable  across  variables,  we  standardise  individual 
characteristics  across  banks  in  each  year.  This  implies  that  the  parameters  a
2j
  in 
equation  (1)  and  
2j
  in  equation  (5)  below  can  be  interpreted  as  a  direct  measure  of 
29
 
the overall monetary policy effect on loans, given that the average of the interaction 
terms  is  zero.  Also,  bank-specific  variables  are  normalised  relative  to  the  cross-
sectional  average  in  each  year,  in  an  effort  to  remove  low-frequency  components. 
Loan loss provisions divided by total assets as well as return on equity, defined as net 
profits over a fiscal year divided by shareholders' equity, are also standardised. 
 
30