The analysis employs data on Indian listed firms from 1996 to 2010 to explore several hypotheses relating to the costs of lending relationships. The evidence indicates that smaller, established, levered and high-growth firms charge higher interest rates. In addition, capitalized firms charge lower rates, and both bank and firm ownership do have a role to play in influencing borrowing costs.
AlbertazziU.MarchettiD. J. (2010). Credit supply, flight to quality and evergreening: An analysis of bank-firm relationships after Lehmann(Bank of Italy Discussion Paper No. 756). Rome: Bank of Italy.
2.
AlfaroL.ChariA. (2009). India transformed? Insights from the firm level 1988–2005(NBER Working Paper No. 15448). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
3.
AllenF.ChakrabartiR.DeS.QianJ.QianM. (2006). Financing firms in India(Financial Institutions Working Paper No. 68). Philadelphia, PA: The Wharton Institution.
4.
AllenF.ChakrabartiR.DeS.QianQJ JunQianM. (2012). Financing firms in India. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 21, 409–445.
5.
ArnoldJ.JavorcikB.LipscombM.MattooA. (2010). Services reform and manufacturing performance: Evidence from India. CEPR Discussion Paper 8011. CEPR: London.
6.
BasM.BerthouA. (2011). The decision to import capital goods in India: Firms’ financial factors matter(Working Paper No. 6). Paris: CEPII Research Center.
7.
BasM.BerthouA.. (2002). Small business credit availability and relationship lending: The importance of bank organisational structure. The Economic Journal, 112, F32–F53.
8.
BergerA. N.KlapperL.UdellG. (2001). The ability of banks to lend to informationally opaque small businesses. Journal of Banking and Finance, 25, 2127–2167.
9.
BergerA.KlapperL.Martinez PeriaM. S.ZaidiR. (2008). Bank ownership type and banking relationships. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17, 37–62.
10.
BergerA. N.MillerN.PetersenM. A.RajanR. G.SteinJ. C. (2005). Does function follow organizational form? Evidence from the lending practices of large and small banks. Journal of Financial Economics, 76, 237–269.
11.
BerlinM.MesterL. J. (1999). Deposits and relationship lending. Review of Financial Studies, 12, 579–607.
12.
BertrandM.MehtaP.MullainathanS. (2002). Ferreting out tunneling: An application to Indian business groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 121–148.
13.
BharathS.DahiyaS.SaundersA.SrinivasanA. (2011). Lending relationships and loan contract terms. Review of Financial Studies, 24, 1141–1203.
14.
BhattacharyaS.ChiesaG. (1995). Proprietary information, financial intermediation and research incentives. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 4, 328–357.
15.
BilsM.McLaughlinK. (1992). Inter-industry mobility and the cyclical upgradation of labor(Working Paper No. 81). Chicago, IL: Center for the Study of Economy and the State, University of Chicago.
16.
BoltonP.ScharfsteinD. (1996). Optimal debt structure and the number of creditors. The Journal of Political Economy, 104, 1–25.
17.
BonfimD.DaiQ.FrancoF. (2008). The number of bank relationships and the cost of borrowing: An empirical study. In SoaresO.PinaJ.Catalão-LopesM. (Eds.), New developments in financial modelling (pp. 5–32). London, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
18.
BonfimD. (2018). The number of banking relationships and borrowing costs: The role of information asymmetries. Journal of Empirical Finance, 46, 191–209.
19.
BootA.ThakorA. (2000). Can relationship banking survive competition? Journal of Finance, 55, 679–713.
20.
BrisA.WelchI. (2005). The optimal concentration of creditors. Journal of Finance, 60, 2193–2212.
21.
CameronC.GelbachJ.MillerD. (2011). Robust inference with multi-way clustering. Journal of Business and Economics Statistics, 29, 238–249.
22.
CaoW.ChenJ.ChiJ. (2010). Bank firm relationship and firm performance under a state-owned banking system: Evidence from China. Bank and Bank Systems, 5, 68–79.
23.
CarlettiE.CerasiV.DaltungS. (2007). Multiple-bank lending: Diversification and free-riding in monitoring. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 16, 425–451.
24.
ChangC.LiaoG.YuX.NiZ. (2009). Information from relationship lending: Evidence from China(CentER Discussion Paper No. 39). London, UK: CentER.
25.
ChibberP. K.MajumdarS. (1999). Foreign ownership and profitability: Property rights, control, and the performance of firms in Indian industry. Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 209–238.
26.
ChittediK. R. (2015). Financial crisis and contagion effects in Indian stock market: DCC-GARCH analysis. Global Business Review, 14, 50–60.
27.
ConiglianiC.FerriG.GeneraleA. (1997). The impact of bank-firm relations on the propagation of monetary policy squeezes: An empirical assessment for Italy. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, 50, 271–299.
28.
D’AuriaC.FogliaA.ReedtzP. M. (1999). Bank interest rates and credit relationships in Italy. Journal of Banking and Finance, 23, 1067–1093.
29.
De MitriS.GobbiG.SetteE. (2010). Relationship lending in a financial turmoil(Bank of Italy Discussion Paper No. 772). Rome: Bank of Italy.
30.
DedolaL.LippiF. (2005). The monetary transmission mechanism: Evidence from the industry data of five OECD countries. European Economic Review, 49, 1543–1569.
31.
DedolaL.LippiF.. (2008). Competition and regulation in the banking sector: A review of the empirical evidence on the sources of bank rents. In ThakorA.BootA. (Eds.), Handbook of financial intermediation and banking (pp. 483–554). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
32.
DetragiacheE.GarellaP. G.GuisoL. (2000). Multiple versus single banking relationships: Theory and evidence. Journal of Finance, 55, 1133–1161.
33.
FarinhaL.SantosJ. A. C. (2002). Switching from single to multiple bank lending relationships: Determinants and implications. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 11, 124–151.
34.
FerriG.MessoriM. (2000). Bank-firm relationships and allocative efficiency in Northeastern and Central Italy and in the South. Journal of Banking and Finance, 24, 1067–1095.
35.
GarrigaJ. M. (2006). The effect of relationship lending on firm performance(University of Barcelona Working Paper No. 5). Spain: University of Barcelona.
36.
GhoshS. (2006). Did financial liberalization ease financing constraints? Evidence from Indian firm-level data. Emerging Markets Review, 7, 176–190.
37.
GhoshS.. (2017). Ownership, evergreening and crisis: An analysis of bank firm relationships in India. Macroeconomics and Finance in Emerging Market Economies, 11, 169–194.
38.
GoldbergP. K.KhandelwalA. K.PavcnikN.TopalovaP. (2009). Trade liberalization and new imported inputs. American Economic Review, 99, 494–500.
39.
GoldbergP. K.KhandelwalA. K.PavcnikN.TopalovaP.. (2010). Imported intermediate inputs and domestic product growth: Evidence from India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 1727–1767.
40.
GopalanR.NandaV.SeruA. (2007). Affiliated firms and financial support: Evidence from Indian business groups. Journal of Financial Economics, 86, 759–785.
41.
GuptaN. (2005). Partial privatization and firm performance. Journal of Finance, 60, 987–1015.
42.
HaoL. (2003). Bank effects and the determinants of loan yield spreads. Toronto, Canada: York University.
43.
HarhoffD.KörtingT. (1998). Lending relationships in Germany: Empirical results from survey data. Journal of Banking and Finance, 22, 1317–1353.
44.
HerreraA.MinettiR. (2007). Informed finance and technological change: Evidence from credit relationships. Journal of Financial Economics, 83, 223–269.
45.
MachauerA.WeberM. (2000). Number of banking relationships: An indicator of competition, borrower quality or just size? (Center for Financial Studies Working Paper No. 6). Frankfurt: CFS.
46.
MemmelC.SchmiederC.SteinI. (2008). Relationship lending: Empirical evidence for Germany(Economic and Financial Report No. 1). Frankfurt: European Investment Bank.
47.
MianA. (2006). Distance constraints: The limits of foreign lending in poor countries. Journal of Finance, 61, 1465–1505.
48.
MohanR. (2004). Finance for industrial growth. RBI Bulletin, March, 319–339.
49.
OngenaS.SmithD. (2000). What determines the number of bank relationships? Cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 9, 26–56.
50.
ParkS. Y.ShinB. S.UdellG. F. (2008). Lending relationships, credit availability, firm value and banking crises. SSRN Paper No: 1102127.
51.
PetersenM. A.RajanR. G. (1994). The benefits of lending relationships: Evidence from small business data. Journal of Finance, 49, 1367–1400.
52.
PetersenM. A.RajanR. G.. (1995). The effect of credit card competition on lending relationships. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 406–443.
53.
PetersenM. A.RajanR. G.. (2002). Does distance still matter? The information revolution in small business lending. Journal of Finance, 57, 2533–2570.
54.
RajanR. G. (1992). Insiders and outsiders: The choice between informed and arms length debt. Journal of Finance, 47, 1367–1400.
55.
RoyA. (2016). Corporate governance and firm performance: A study of Indian listed firms. Global Business Review, 15, 31–46.
56.
SharpeS. (1990). Asymmetric information, bank lending and implicit contracts: A stylized model of customer relationships. Journal of Finance, 45, 1069–1087.
57.
SteinJ. C. (2002). Information production and capital allocation: Decentralized versus hierarchical firms. Journal of Finance, 57, 1891–1921.
58.
SteinI. (2011). The price impact of lending relationships. (Discussion Paper No. 2). Banking and Financial Studies Seies, Deutsche Bundesbank: Frankfurt.
59.
TopalovaP. (2004). Overview of the Indian corporate sector 1989–2002(IMF Working Paper No. 64). Washington, DC: IMF.
60.
TopalovaP.KhandelwalA. (2011). Trade liberalization and firm productivity: The case of India. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93, 995–1009.
61.
VigV. (2013). Access to collateral and corporate debt structure. Journal of Finance, 68, 881–928.
62.
von RheinbabenJ.RuckesM. (1998). A firm’s optimal number of bank relationships and the extent of information disclosure. Mannheim: University of Mannheim.
63.
von ThaddenE. L. (1995). Long-term contracts, short-term investment and monitoring. Review of Economic Studies, 62, 557–575.
64.
YoshaO. (1995). Information disclosure costs and the choice of financing source. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 4, 3–20.
