BRUEGEL WORKING PAPER 2013/02

THE CHANGING
LANDSCAPE OF
FINANCIAL MARKETS
IN EUROPE, THE
UNITED STATES AND
JAPAN
MICHIEL J. BIJLSMA* AND GIJSBERT T. J. ZWART**

Highlights
• We compare the structure of the financial sectors of the EU27,
Japan and the United States, looking at a set of 23 indicators.
• We find a large variation within the European Union in the structure
of the financial sector. Using principal components analysis, we
identify robust groups of EU countries. One group consists of the
eastern European members that entered the EU more recently.
These have substantially smaller financial sectors than the old
member states. A second group can be classified as market-based
(MBEU) and the third group is more bank-based (BBEU).
• We compare US, MBEU, BBEU, Eastern EU and Japan with the following main results. First, the groups within Europe are geographically related. Second, in many indicators, MBEU countries are closer
to the (market-based) US, while BBEU countries more closely resemble Japan. Paradoxically, however, market-based EU countries
also have large banking sectors. Banks in market-based countries
have larger cross-border assets and liabilities, and derive a larger
fraction of their income from fees, rather than interest income, than
banks in bank-based countries. Finally, for most indicators, the ordering of groups of countries is quite stable over time, but while the
crisis has had no impact on the relative ordering of the groups, it
has slightly widened the gap between the US and all EU regions in
some respects. We also find that during the crisis, substitution between market-based and bank-based sources of finance occurred in
the US, and to a lesser extent in MBEU and BBEU countries.
* Visiting Fellow at Bruegel, programme leader financial markets at
the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis,
michiel.bijlsma@bruegel.org
** Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, g.t.j.zwart@cpb.nl

MARCH 2013

1.

Introduction

In this paper we compare the US, Japan and groups of EU countries using 23 indicators related to the
structure of individual countries’ financial systems, such as household deposits, bank credit to nonfinancial firms, market capitalisation of listed firms, the size of the banking sector, the volume of initial
public offerings, venture capital investment activity, the size of foreign banking assets, bank
concentration levels and bank profitability.

We classify these (groups of) countries as more bank-based or more market-based (a related
terminology is relationship-based financing versus arm’s length financing). In a bank-based system,
banks are the crucial players in channeling funds from investors to non-financial corporations. They
pool resources of dispersed capital providers and play an important role as delegated monitors of the
firms they lend to, on behalf of deposit holders (see eg Boot and Thakor, 2008). In the market-based
paradigm, it is predominantly through markets that firms interact with those providing the capital. Here
firms can more easily find funding by participating in markets for tradable securities, such as stocks or
corporate bonds.

Traditionally, in Japan and continental Europe, the role of banks has been much greater than in the US,
where markets play a larger role in transactions between providers and users of capital. Of course
differences between financial systems around the world are more often a question of degree (see eg
Allen et al, 2004, for an earlier comparison of EU, US and Asian financial systems). In the United States,
banks do play an important role, for instance in financing smaller firms. Conversely, in traditionally
bank-based Germany, the market for corporate bonds has grown significantly over the past decade.
More generally, the growth of global finance has shifted the balance in the direction of market-based
architecture in most of the developed world (Rajan and Zingales, 2003). Nevertheless, the paradigm of
bank- versus market-based systems offers a tool for comparing financial systems in different
countries.

We explore whether we can classify European countries into groups that have similar financial
systems. We use principal components analysis of our financial structure indicators to assign EU
countries into groups. Principal components analysis identifies the dominant correlations among the
various indicators for different EU countries. We can then cluster these countries as more or less

2

similar. We identify three clusters of European countries with similar financial-market structures:
Market-based EU (MBEU), Bank-based EU (BBEU) and Eastern EU.

The market-based countries have generally better developed markets for equity finance, including
venture capital. Household deposits are slightly lower than in bank-based countries, as would be
expected. Strikingly, however, while all EU countries’ banking assets are generally larger (relative to
GDP) than those in Japan or the US, those EU countries classified as market-based turn out to have
significantly larger banking sectors as well. These banking sectors in market-based EU countries in
particular have much larger cross-border assets and liabilities. Also, they earn a lower fraction of their
income from interest income than the banking sectors in bank-based countries.

We use our classification to see how the market structure in these various groups evolved. Some
studies claim that European countries are moving towards more a market-based financial system.
Indeed, since the 1990s, many bank-based continental European countries have now developed
strong markets for both equity and corporate bonds, in particular since the introduction of the euro
(see Hartmann et al, 2003). Although there has been convergence, the differences between the US,
Japan, and EU remain pronounced.

In addition, we ask how countries in the various groups have fared during the recent financial crisis.
The empirical and theoretical literature on the relationship between market structure, growth and
stability is still in its infancy. Recent views are that an efficient financial system is essential for growth
– which can be strong markets, strong banks, or both – (see eg Levine, 2011)1, and that the relative
performance of either markets (and the associated arms’ length financing) or banks (and the
relationship-based model of investment) depends on the circumstances (see eg Rajan and Zingales,
1998). A recent paper by Allard and Blavy (2011) finds that market-based countries experience
stronger recovery after economic shocks than bank-based ones. For such countries, Darvas (2013)
argues, there is more scope for substitution of debt securities to compensate reduced availability of
bank lending.

Compared to the existing literature, we update indicators to reflect information up to 2011 and expand
the set of indicators to compare these countries, for instance by including bank credit to the non-

1

Although there can be too much of a good thing, according to Arcand et al (2012).
3

securitisation. 2004) have analysed the extent to which financial systems in the US. who have 2 Avoiding the sizable contributions from in particular consumer mortgages to total bank credit to the private sector 4 . and bank asset sizes and competition and operational parameters for the banking sectors. as well as deposits held by households.1 Which indicators matter? To classify systems. while the US and United Kingdom would be more market-based. tradable debt and equity would be more important in market-based systems. distinctions among financial systems go hand in hand with distinctions in the importance of banks versus markets. financiers build up knowledge of the firms they invest in. sizes of consumer deposits and bank credit extended to the private sector. We also contribute to the existing literature in another way by using data-driven analysis to identify groups of countries and the key ways in which the financial sectors of these countries differ. These studies look at indicators such as stock and bond market capitalisation. Other recent studies focus on the differences in financial structure between countries within the EU. we do not have to rely only on the size of bank intermediation versus the size of markets for tradable funding instruments. Japan and Europe conform to the stylised claim that continental EU and Japan represent the more bank-based end of the spectrum. The existing literature assumes a priori that countries are either more bank-based or more market-based. step in identifying the relationship between financial market structure and outcome. However. initial public offerings. 2005). both in terms of fragility and growth. and in particular between northern and southern countries (Rajan and Zingales.financial corporate sector2. Identifying the key points of difference is a first. and cross-border bank ownership. And conversely. venture capital investments. Many studies find that also on other dimensions. 2004). are expected to be larger in bank-based systems than in market-based systems (see also Allen et al. bank-based systems are associated to financing that is more relationship-based: investors and the firms they invest in have stronger ties. Typically. Earlier contributions (eg Allen et al. the first indicator to compare is the size of banking systems: volumes of bank loans. and it is harder to attract funding from new investors. Reputation is important. The changing financial landscape 2. Over time. 2003) and between old and new member states (Allen et al. resulting in more sizeable and active markets in both stocks and corporate bonds. and important. 2.

chapter 1). 2006. 2003). apart from VC activity we also include equity issuance and IPO activity among our indicators. 2008). and in particular also consider the role of cross-border M&A. a related indicator of the openness of the financial system is the extent of cross-border activity of banks. The reason is that such firms’ business model relies on liquid markets for exit: venture capital firms sell the equity of successful investments to outsiders. and we expect for instance more stock ownership by individual households. 2006. Private equity firms play a role in equity markets analogous to that of banks in debt markets (see eg Boot and Thakor. Only in a transparent and liquid market will those outsiders be willing to engage in such transactions (Black and Gilson. active monitoring by large block holders or creditors discipline firms’ managements. 2003. In the banking sector. and one expects larger and more liquid markets for securities in market-based systems (Rajan and Zingales. Shareholder protection is indeed more elaborate in those markets (Rajan and Zingales. 1998). 3 In bank-based systems. While in relationship-based systems.4 Consequently. 4 This also requires that the interests of outside owners of stocks are protected more strongly in such market-based systems. firms are much less locked into relations with their financiers. 2008). Although the close ties of private equity firms with the firms they invest in provide an example of relationship-based financing on the equity side. and information about firms is more widely available. the role of large stockholders (for instance in family-owned firms) is more important (see eg Tirole. Both ownership and control are typically more fragmented in such systems. To account for such differences. and act as delegated monitors (for their investors) in the companies they invest in. in contrast. chapter 1). there is more competition among financiers. In essence. allowing them to keep earning returns on their investments in the long run (Boot and Thakor. 5 .3 In market-based systems. This gives financiers some degree of monopoly power over the firms they finance. which lowers interest rate margins. venture capitalists provide intermediation in the equity market. In the arms’ length system associated to more market-based architectures. table 9). This makes trading of securities easier. venture capital is nevertheless much more important in more marketbased systems. Such ownership structures affect the governance of firms. in market-based systems the capital market plays a larger role in providing discipline: weakly managed firms fall prey to take-over bids in such systems (see eg Tirole.an information disadvantage compared to existing investors. we also explore the size of merger and acquisition activity across the regions.

Figure 2. These countries have banking sectors that are both very large and extend a large amount of credit compared to their national economies. Portugal. Among European countries there is considerable heterogeneity in many indicators. The second group consists of ‘bank-based EU’ countries. Germany. Malta and Luxembourg as outliers. Czech Republic. The Netherland. Denmark. Both are explained in more detail in appendix A. Estonia. Using this methodology. Belgium. As we shall see. We have used principal components analysis (PCA) to find linear combinations of indicators that capture the largest amount of cross-country variance for EU27. Hungary. and Sweden. and distinctions between countries are gradual. Finally. plotting the first two principal components. 1. The indicators of all 29 countries are included in appendix B. Slovakia.csv file from the CPB and Bruegel websites. Cyprus. Ireland. United Kingdom. 5 The data is also available in a separate . these countries have generally smaller financial systems than those in the old member states. we classified Ireland.5 We want to identify clusters of countries that are broadly similar and discuss the differences between clusters of countries and the evolution of these differences. Italy. The third group includes the Eastern European countries that accessed the EU more recently. we identify four groups of countries. We see that these countries are closer to the US than other EU countries. 2. Lithuania. Poland. Luxembourg We call the first group ‘market-based EU’. and Spain 3.1 (reproduced from figure A.2 Grouping countries . Romania. Malta. Greece. Latvia. We then use a clustering algorithm to identify similar groups of countries. Austria. Cyprus.2. 6 . France. Finland.1 in the appendix) shows visual evidence for the clustering of the countries in these groups. Bulgaria.market based versus bank based Europe We have collected data on 23 different financial sector indicators for EU27 countries plus the United States and Japan. and these resemble Japan more closely. and Slovenia 4.

1: Groups of countries resulting from PCA analysis This classification is broadly similar to that of Allard and Blavy (2011). The map of Europe below shows the four groups of countries we have identified. 7 Namely: Belgium. although some countries7 migrate between groups as we change the exact grouping procedure. France. France and the Netherlands positioned closest to the (denser) cluster of bank-based countries. who use the ratio of private sector loans to private sector liabilities to the market as determined from the national accounts. The different classification of Belgium and the Netherlands arises because we include more characteristics of financial markets. 6 They differ in their classification of Denmark as market based and Belgium as well as the Netherlands as bank based. it is clear that the market-based countries are more diverse than the bankbased ones. our groups are fairly stable against changing the year or the exact grouping procedure. From figure A.6 As shown in appendix A. with Belgium. The market-based countries are located in the North West of Europe. and the member states in the East form a separate group. Cyprus and Malta 7 . the Netherlands. Both Belgium and the Netherlands have relatively well-developed equity markets. Denmark is border-line according to Allard and Blavy (2011). Bank-based countries comprise Southern Europe and Central Europe.1.Figure 2. These groups are clearly geographically related.

it is worthwhile discussing the drivers of the assignment into the market-based and bank-based EU groups. bank-based EU.2: Classification of EU countries into groups based on principal component analysis (see appendix A). For each indicator. and their comparison with the financial system characteristics of the US and Japan. looking at the axis denoted “stock market cap”.Figure 2. On each of the nine axes. market-based EU. which is normalised to 1. the largest stock market capitalisation (as a percentage of its GDP) is for the US market. we plot the relative sizes of the indicator (as a percentage of GDP) for each of the four groups. the US and Japan. we normalised the largest value to one. Although we will discuss the indicators of individual countries in some detail in the next chapter. To do so. As an example.3 are for the year 2006). Stock market capitalisation is 8 . figure 2.3 graphs a comparison of seven indicators in which the distinction among the groups is particularly clear and robust over time (data in figure 2.

2006 figures. and similarly. Looking at the plot. exploring both how they vary over time. and how individual countries perform. On bank-related dimensions. and is followed by the EU countries that we classify as market-based (eg the UK. 9 . Figure 2.3: Comparison of market-based EU.slightly smaller in market-based EU countries (at 0. we shall look at these and other indicators in more detail. US and Japan based on seven indicators. 8 As an aside. France8 and the Netherlands). while the smallest figure occurs in bank-based EU countries. as well as bond markets (though Japan scores at a similar level in this dimension). active venture capital markets. however. These typically have well developed stock markets.74 times the US figure). In the next section. note that also Allard and Blavy (2011) classify France as market-based. the US has the largest outcomes in equity related fields. the EU countries we classify as market-based are also the countries with the largest banking sectors. the picture is more mixed. bank-based EU. Household deposits typically make up a large fraction of total household assets in bank-based countries (as well as Japan). foreign bank assets are of greater importance.88 times the US value). next is Japan (0. bank credit to firms is higher in these countries than in market-based EU or the US. This appears related to the observation that for market-based countries. Paradoxically.

a growth which has leveled off after 2008. and the other countries. we see a large divergence among countries.3. The EU-average growth in volumes over the past decade is driven to a large extent by this subset of six countries.1. featuring large volumes of bank loans to the private sector compared to GDP. The changing financial landscape 3. Nor is this difference clearly related to the classification of countries as bank-based or market-based. In eastern European countries.1 Channels for financial intermediation 3. But also within the EU. see Figure 3. as a percentage of GDP. however. Only since the onset of the financial crisis in 2007 has this growth stopped and turned into some decline. 10 10 .1. bank credit is much lower on average. 9 The data for all indicators that we present are collected in appendix B. money market mutual funds and government-sponsored enterprises. whether in old or new member states. the Netherlands (198 percent) and Spain (204 percent). the most striking point is the massive growth of bank credit in the EU. Strong growth has taken place across most of these countries. with Japan not experiencing much effect from the crisis. including finance companies. Bank loans to the private sector across the EU averaged 136 percent of GDP in 2011. Even excepting Cyprus as a clear outlier. a much larger share of credit is extended by the shadow banking system. in countries classified as market oriented or bank oriented. while the corresponding figure for Japan is 105 percent. where this indicator is at 55 percent of GDP.1 Bank-intermediated credit A common indicator for assessing the importance of bank-intermediated finance in a country is the size of bank credit to the private sector. This is in stark contrast with the situation in Japan and the US. including the UK (188 percent). figure 3. Both regions have bank credit to the private sector roughly twice the size of that in the US in 2011.1. comparable to the US level. where credit has remained more stable over the last decade. see eg Pozsar et al (2010). right-hand panel for levels in 2011 (the ordered bar plots that we present in this paper always contain data for 2011 unless stated otherwise). which cluster more around the Japanese level. there is a stark difference between the highest six countries. In the US. A look at this statistic9 for recent years confirms the traditional view of Europe and Japan as being more bank-based than the US.10 Looking at the recent evolution of bank credit.

compared to traditionally bank-based countries such as Germany and Japan. as provided in the National Financial Accounts (see eg Allard and Blavy. for the US and Japan. that these loans include a sizeable fraction of intra-firm loans (as opposed to bank loans).Figure 3. it is more instructive to focus on only bank credit to the non-financial corporate sector.11 These graphs suggest a much larger and growing role for bank intermediation in particular in the former set of six countries. it also includes consumer mortgages. In particular. and hence partly reflects housing booms in these countries. one might use loan data from non-financial firms’ balance sheets. A drawback of this data is. as a percentage of GDP. as in figure 3. But note that this indicator measures all credit to the private sector. This might call into question the distinction between market-based and bank-based systems that we put forward. Spain. 2011). Central Bank data on commercial loans).1: Bank credit to the private sector. as well as Ireland and Denmark.2. however. the UK and the Netherlands. Figures are based on bank balance sheet data (for EU: ECB data on loans to non-financial corporations. 12 11 . Alternatively.12 11 The jump in Japanese figures is due to a change in reporting. If we are interested in the role of banks in channeling funds towards the corporate sector in particular. Portugal.

We can. see figure 3.13 Growth in the last decade has been highest in the outlier-countries (Cyprus. In contrast. As with total bank credit. conversely.1. Again. the numbers confirm the view of the US as the most market-based of these 13 Although the Netherlands does not conform to this general picture.3. 12 .2 The market channel for credit provision The bank-credit-to-corporate-sector statistic provides a way of capturing the role of banks in credit intermediation. There is now also a clearer distinction between the average of BBEU and MBEU countries (left-hand panel). with bank loans to the corporate sector higher in bank-based countries than in those classified as market-based. while in all EU groups we see on average a decline in bank lending to firms since 2009. the figures for the more recent EU members are lower than average. While Spain and Portugal are still among the top countries in this dimension.2 (appendix B) for the detailed figures on an individual country level. also look at market mechanisms. compared to the total credit indicator. see right-hand panel for 2011 figures). in the UK.2: Bank credit to non-financial firms. Ireland. we see that Japan scores highest. for credit provision to firms. credit to the non-financial corporate sector is among the lowest in this sample.Figure 3. We observe that countries’ ranks are significantly different along the dimension of credit to the corporate sector. One prominent such market channel is the market for corporate bonds. where bank lending seems to have recovered in 2011. This is as opposed to the situation in Japan. rather than bank intermediation. along with the outlier islands. Malta. 3. See table B.

6 depicts growth of securitisation volumes. Europe as a whole appears to be catching up. Bond market size generally appears relatively robust under the financial market turmoil. We see particularly large bond markets in France. Also. with Japan (17 percent). Portugal and the Netherlands. First. and indeed these form the bulk of securitisation 13 . In fact.economies. with new issuance (see table b. and the EU average (15 percent) lagging somewhat behind.5 in appendix B) almost coming to a standstill.3: Size of the market for corporate bonds As a recurrent theme. in particular in the form of mortgages. volumes kept increasing until more recently. however. Apart from the corporate bond market. Figure 3. Securitisation allows issuers of loans to resell those loans to external capital providers. and surpassed the US levels before starting to decline. In the US. and again generally lower numbers for the eastern European accession countries. we should note two important caveats. In interpreting these figures. If we consider developments between 2005 and 2011. also securitisation has substantially gained in importance over the last decade as a market channel for credit intermediation. looking at the EU as a whole hides the divergence in the development of corporate bond markets among EU member states. in particular in the euro area. where the volume of the corporate bond market in 2011 amounted to 35 percent of GDP. Figure 3. the development of the UK bond market has lagged somewhat behind. In various EU countries. European bond markets have grown quite extensively since around 2000. outstanding volumes started to decrease from 2008 onwards. they include securitised credit also to consumers.

volumes. Again. 14 . Clearly. Firstly. For countries in Eastern EU. there is a large dispersion of sizes within the EU. capitalisations remain smaller. we may look at the importance of market-based equity funding.3 Equity funding For a second perspective on the importance of market-based funding. as measured by stock market capitalisation of listed firms.4: Outstanding securitised loans 3. Although all stock markets have lost value after the crisis. differences among groups of countries remain clear. and hence are not actually funded in the market. consider the importance of stock markets (table B.1. but have grown to the 20-30 percent range of their GDPs in the past decade. a large part (typically around 80 percent) of these securitised loans are retained by the issuing banks. Figure 3. And second. with those countries classified as market-based having on average significantly higher stock market capitalisations (exceeding Japanese levels) than the bank-based countries.6). the size of the US market (with a 2011 stock market capitalisation of 104 percent of GDP) exceeds that of both the EU (43 percent) and Japan (60 percent).

with market-based EU countries (as well as Spain) generally outperforming Japan. issuance in MBEU countries has been on average higher than those in BBEU. See table B.8 in the appendix for the details per country. and bank-based EU countries. The level of activity is volatile over time. 14 Since issuance in individual countries is rather volatile. and has in all decreased since the peak reached in 2007.14 After the crisis. One way of studying stock market activity is to look at the actual trading of stocks (see table b. Another metric by which to compare stock market activity is to look at issuance of shares by listed companies.7 in appendix B). Figure 3. issuance has dropped and as a result levels have converged.Figure 3.com’ years around the millennium change. where activity in Germany was particularly high. with the exception of the ‘dot. We see that over the past decade. however. we do not include a one year snapshot of the order of individual countries in 2011.5: Stock market capitalisation Of course. 15 . Comparing the levels of stock market activity confirms the view of the US as the most stock-oriented region. the mere size of the stock market conveys only limited information on the active use of the equity market in financing listed firms.6 shows the evolution of stock issuance for the various groups of countries.

7: IPO volume 16 .6: Issuance of listed shares A related indicator to consider is the money raised through Initial Public Offerings (compared to GDP).7 shows data for the period 2007-2011. The most striking observation is the large share of IPOs in Eastern EU. which is excluded from this set). IPO volumes have generally dropped in 2008-2009. Closer observation reveals this to be driven entirely by Polish IPO figures. Figure 3. which indeed top the list across this period (with the exception of Luxembourg. Figure 3.Figure 3. with slight apparent recovery since then. Looking at the pattern of all series. with the right-hand panel again representing 2011 figures for individual countries. it is clear that since the onset of the financial crisis.

In the other regions. venture capital investments have been much lower. Figure 3. BBEU countries. and many countries in Eastern EU reach similar levels of VC investment as those in BBEU.8 we plot the evolution of annual investments by venture capital firms (as a percentage of GDP). Table B. The trough in many countries occurs in 2009. and indeed seem to be declining further. but excluding private equity investment in buy-outs and restructuring). in particular the UK sees levels of VC investments of the same order of magnitude as those in the US. are at the lower end. venture capital. before declining. We see that over the past few years. Smaller and medium sized enterprises may generally be more dependent on banks for their funding. average venture capital investments have been large in the US and in MBEU.8: Investments by venture capital firms In Figure 3. on the other hand. and later stage and growth investments. investment in start-up firms. In market-based systems. capital markets are not only channels for funding firms.Corporate bonds and stock markets tend to be more attractive for the larger corporations. and once more before the financial crisis. and here volumes have remained comparable to their levels before the crisis. VC investments peak around the millennium change. in particular. Within the EU.10 in appendix B lists the sizes of annual investments by venture capital firms (comprising seed capital. They are also an essential part of firm governance: it is partly through capital market discipline that firms’ managers are 17 . but another channel for providing those firms with funds is the market of private equity.

In all regions. We therefore next consider the M&A activity for the different regions. in contrast. bond issuance by non-financial firms. for the period 2006-2011. M&A activity is comparatively low. In Figure 3. but looking at total M&A figures (including domestic ones. US figures are among the highest. as underperforming firms may fall prey to acquisition by more successful rivals. In Japan. market-based financing has to some extent substituted bank-based financing. see table b.1. where crossborder take-overs are abundant.9 we focus on crossborder mergers and acquisitions. and changes in bank credit to non-financial firms. This in addition provides a measure of how open a country’s capital market is to foreign investors. Finally. we see a clear divide between MBEU countries on the one hand. with only little sign of recovery by 2011. Looking at the patterns. Figure 3.incentivised to put in effort. In table B.4 Substitution bank credit by market funding during the crisis In Figure 3 we study the numbers on gross issuance of listed shares. The figures suggest that during the crisis. The US scores lower than MBEU on cross-border take-overs.9: Cross-border M&A (by country of seller) 3.11 we list recent figures for M&A activity more generally.9 in appendix B). for each group of countries. and BBEU and Eastern EU on the other. M&A activity has clearly converged to much lower levels since the onset of the crisis. the volume of bank loans decreased following the 18 .

19 . and Japan (bottom LHS) we see no such pattern in changes in market funding. In Europe. gross issuance of listed shares as well the size of the corporate bond market has risen as bank credit to the private sector has dropped. shown in the top LHS.crisis (ie negative change in bank loan volume). though in the US the decline sets in earlier. we see an increase in corporate bond market volume in 2009. The peak in share issuance in 2009 is more pronounced in market-based Europe than bank-based Europe. In the case of Eastern EU (middle RHS). which is stronger in market-based Europe (top RHS) than in bank-based Europe (middle LHS). This is clearest for the United States.

10: Market substitution of bank 20 credit to non-financial firms .Figure 3.

In BBEU the ratio to GDP is somewhat below two. The composition of these assets also relates to the bank based or market based nature of the economy. Eastern EU states score significantly lower.3. who either directly or through an intermediate hold the firms’ capital. First.consumer finances The funds used by firms for investment are ultimately supplied by households.44 in 2011.71 times GDP. We can therefore obtain a related view of the channels of intermediation by focusing on household portfolios. There is some dispersion among the EU countries. For the other groups. while for MBEU it is somewhat higher at 2. shares and other equity. with the Netherlands and the UK at the higher end within the EU.11: Household total financial assets as fraction GDP Countries with the highest levels of total financial assets also seem to exhibit the largest volatility. For the US and Japan. with total household assets at 80 percent of GDP.32 times GDP. Figure 3. because these countries have a large fraction of their financial assets in equity or insurance and technical reserves. and insurance and technical reserves. household assets in 2011 exceeded three times GDP. with the former seemingly somewhat 21 . we note the variation in the size of total household assets (relative to GDP) across countries. again stressing how different financial sectors in these countries still are from the rest of Europe.2 Liability side . In line with intuition. the number is lower. while Eastern Europe consistently the smallest with 0. This is related to the composition of these assets. Total financial assets drop significantly between 2006 and 2008. closely followed by the US. Within Europe. the BBEU countries and MBEU countries are comparable. We distinguish three main categories: deposits. but there is no change in relative position of groups. between 1990 and 2011 Japan consistently has the largest deposits at 1.

however. Deposits in all countries seem to be rising since the onset of the financial crisis. Figure 3. as shown in figure 3.below the other. Figure 3. Households in Eastern Europe hold virtually no shares or other equity. consumers hold more deposits with banks.10.9: Household deposits as fraction GDP Holdings of shares and other equity have increased significantly in BBEU and MBEU between the beginning of the 1990s and 2000. as in bank based countries.10: Household shares and other equity as fraction GDP 22 . has stopped or reversed. but especially so in Japan. which is in line with our classification of these groups. The trend.

Japan still scores highest. however. especially in the UK and in the Netherlands. Deposits rose in all regions in the period 2006-2008. however. The real shift can be seen with Eastern European countries. BBEU. As shown in figure 3. stayed constant in Japan. the level of deposits increased in Eastern EU and BBEU. As an indicator of the relative importance of bank intermediation. scores somewhat higher than MBEU. While consumers in these countries have relatively low total financial assets. they hold a large fraction of them in the form of deposits. 51 percent of Japanese households’ financial assets consisted of bank deposits. 23 .The ordering of groups is now reversed with the US scoring highest and Japan scoring lowest.11. which seems counterintuitive. which becomes especially clear in the bar plot. After that. Compare first again the main three regions. The difference between bank based and market based countries becomes more pronounced. insurance and technical reserves are considerable. we consider the size of households’ bank deposits relative to total household financial assets. in accordance with these countries’ market-based and bank-based natures. To a considerable extent. Figure 3. and decreased in MBEU and the US. In 2011. these consist of equity holdings.11: Household insurance and technical reserves as fraction GDP We now turn to the relative importance of the different channels.

Lithuania and Poland all have figures in excess of 40 percent. households have much capital in insurance reserves.13. however. Household insurance and technical reserves have been on the rise in all regions since 1995. shares and other equity as a fraction of other financial assets decreased for all regions. except for Japan which declined steadily between 1990 and 2002. At the lower percentage end we find Slovakia. The reason for these latter two countries’ appearance is that in both the UK and the Netherlands. In 2011. 24 .Figure 3. The relative position of all regions remains stable throughout the crisis. while Finland. For individual countries within the EU. for Japan we find a low figure of 10 percent and again the EU is in between at 21 percent. The highest shares of equity in household portfolios are found in Eastern European countries. the third category we consider. Romania and Estonia both have 52 percent. Spain. Between 2007 and 2009.12: Household deposits as fraction of total financial assets Looking at shares and other equity in household portfolios more or less gives the reverse image for the three regions. as shown in figure 3. US households hold 43 percent of their financial assets in equity. is slightly increasing. The gap between the US and all EU regions. the UK and the Netherlands. we have a different break-up.

14: Household insurance and tech. in 25 . But even among countries that have a comparable share of bank intermediation.13: Household shares and other equity as fraction other financial assets Again BBEU and MBEU are situated counter intuitively. the structure of the banking sector may differ very much. but this can once more be explained by looking at household insurance and technical reserves. reserves as fraction total financial assets 3. Figure 3.Figure 3.3 Structure of the banking sector Banks provide an important channel of intermediation.

importance of foreign markets. 26 . US or Japan. In contrast. the banking sector in the new member states in Eastern EU is still relatively small.3.15 below shows the developments between 1990 and 2011 for our four groups of European countries.1 Bank assets Figure 3. with the exception of Eastern Europe. ownership structure. and competitive parameters. for the US and Japan the ratio has stayed relatively flat. Bartiloro and Kowalewski. resulting in the top positions in 2011. while for the European outlier countries banking assets have grown massively. the US has a relatively small banking system (82 percent of GDP in 2011) compared to BBEU (314 percent in 2011).terms of size. These countries are making the transition towards a more developed financial system (see eg Allen.15: Total banking assets as fraction of GDP Banking assets in Europe have increased substantially as a percentage of GDP. Japan and the US. 2005). or MBEU (465 percent GDP in 2011). 3. 2005 and ECB. In accordance with the size of bank credit to the private sector. In MBEU the figure has doubled. The size of the banking sector seems somewhat more volatile in MBEU compared to BBEU. In general. In this section we describe these differences in some detail. while Japan is located in between (182 percent of GDP in 2011). Figure 3. Growth has slowed down but not reversed since the financial crisis.

Growth has been particularly fast in MBEU (as well as in the outlier countries) and much less so in BBEU. A similar picture emerges when looking at the banks’ liability sides. Within Europe. there is substantial variation in the size of the banking sector. Figure 3. in 2011. Figure 3. 27 . The high score of Europe relative to the US and Japan indicates the importance of intra-European banking activity. banking assets as a percentage of GDP range from 67 percent for Romania to 840 percent for Ireland (with Luxembourg the outlier at banking assets of over 25 times its GDP). As we discuss below. Japan and the US. more market oriented countries also have the largest banking sectors. the UK. Figures for 2011 range from 4 percent for Slovakia. In addition. in Eastern Europe. showing the partial withdrawal of banks within their national borders. the Netherlands and France have a large banking sector with assets exceeding 4 times GDP in 2011. after the financial crisis the trend has reversed.2 Cross-border links Banking systems in different countries also differ in terms of how internationally they operate. banks have virtually no foreign assets.Paradoxically. In particular. 29 percent for Italy.3.16: Cross-border assets as a fraction of GDP Disaggregating these figures reveals the large diversity within Europe. For example. The barplot shows this more clearly. this may be related with the large cross-border activity of banks in marketbased countries. to 263 percent for Ireland and more than 1200 percent for Luxembourg (not shown). For instance. 3.19 below compares foreign assets of banks as a percentage of GDP for the EU groups of countries.

as expected. 34 percent). The market share of foreign banks in Eastern European countries stands out with around 70 percent (even 97 percent in the Czech Republic and Estonia). Like the previous indicator. Market penetration of foreign banks is very low in Japan. 0.3 percent. at 1. The US also scores relatively low with 11 percent market share of foreign banks. we can also look at the market penetration of foreign banks in different countries for the period 2005-2011. although they exhibit a slight decline after the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Comparing the groups also shows that MBEU is on average more open to foreign banks than BBEU. This suggests that countries with large financial sectors function as hubs through which international capital markets finance international investments. Figure 3. it is a measure of the openness of the banking system. 28 .8 percent) or Austria (bank-based. The banking system in these countries is practically owned by foreign banks.As the correlation plots below clearly show. banking systems with large total assets relative to GDP tend to have large foreign assets and large foreign liabilities too. but now on the receiving side. although there are exceptions like Sweden (marketbased.17: Correlation banking assets and foreign assets / liabilities Complementary to the level of foreign assets held by banks in a particular country. These market shares are quite stable over this period.

concentration levels in the US and Japan it is relatively low.19: Market share of three largest banks (C3) 29 . we consider concentration and types of bank ownership.3 Concentration and ownership Focusing next on the structure of the internal banking sector.18: Market share foreign-owned banks 3. The level of concentration in the various European regions is broadly similar.Figure 3.20 lists figures per country).3. although there is quite some heterogeneity among European countries. Figure 3. We start by simply looking at the C3 (market share of the three largest banks) in the various regions (table B. In comparison.

concentration levels in Europe would compare favorably to those in the US. while in the EU regions it is generally lower. 39 percent for Japan. For Japan the 10 largest banks have more than 60 percent of all banking assets.20: Cumulative size distribution banks In terms of ownership structure of banks. and Japan (18 percent). 30 . The C3-ratio for instance. If the banking sector in Europe were truly European in nature. in the US this figure lies around 50 percent. see table B. While the relative position of the US and Japan conforms to intuition. Looking at the HHI (Hirschmann-Herfindahl Index) competition measure gives similar results. This is mainly driven by France. however. This may. with substantial variation in the levels of concentration within Europe. while they hardly have any market share in for instance the US or the UK. we consider market share of cooperative banks and market share of listed banks.For every individual European country the banking sector is more concentrated than in the US. Figure 3. and ranges from 44 percent in Poland.20 below therefore shows the cumulative distribution in 2010 for the 25 largest banks in the EU. They have a large market share in France (43 percent). Cooperative banks are not listed. and Japan. 50 percent in the UK to 100 percent in Estonia. is 30 percent for the US. cooperative banks play a larger role in MBEU as compared to BBEU. Netherlands (25 percent). Figure 3. and shows that some countries have more mixed indicators than others. Italy (20 percent).20 in appendix B. the US. Germany (16 percent) Finland (16 percent). reflect the more geographically integrated nature of financial markets within the US or Japan.

with France and Belgium on the low end. and have been rising since 2005. Indeed.Figure 3. The market share of listed banks seems to rise quite steadily. while Italy and Greece score at the high end.22: Market share of listed banks 31 . Figure 3. Within the EU the picture is mixed. The United States (73 percent) are currently on top but have been behind Japan before 2007. BBEU scores higher than MBEU.21: Market share of cooperative banks Listed banks’ market shares are large in most systems.

however. Figure 3. return on assets is on average quite similar. When we look in more detail. but also recovered faster. Interestingly. UK) have a somewhat higher return on assets. we see that MBEU (Netherlands. France.4 Profitability We now turn to profitability of banks as captured by pre-tax ROA and the Net interest margin. the numbers are comparable to those in the old EU member states. For Japan. 32 . This suggests that other income sources are more important for countries in BBEU.3. Within Europe there is a clear divide between new member states and old member states. Banks in the US are more profitable on both measures as compared to old member states. There is a large dispersion among countries. the return on assets dropped faster in MBEU during the 2007-2008 financial crisis compared to BBEU.3. Belgium.23: Return on assets While the net interest margin of BBEU is generally higher compared to the interest margin in MBEU. Banks in new member states are more profitable than banks in old member states.

just before the crisis. it is also apparent that other sources of income were more severely hit by the 2007-2008 financial crisis. 33 .24: Net interest rate margin This is indeed borne out when looking at interest revenue as a fraction of bank income shown in figure 3.Figure 3.25: Interest revenue as a fraction of bank income (RHS for 2006) 15 We make an exception in showing 2006 data instead of 2011 in the bar plot because income is relatively volatile. As interest revenue is fairly stable during the crisis.15 For most years the level in BBEU exceeds that in MBEU. Figure 3. The bar plot on the right-hand side illustrates this for 2006.28.

household deposits generally make up a more significant share of total household assets. We do so by exploring a large number of indicators. Although performance against individual indicators is mixed for all countries. we find that by looking at the overall performance of countries on all indicators. 34 . such as stock market activity. the issuance of listed equity and the prevalence of mergers and acquisitions. the development of corporate bond markets. but also measures such as the activity of private equity markets. Within the latter set of countries. Perhaps the same characteristics that make market-based countries more accessible for providers of equity capital also allow their banks to play a role as financial hubs through which international capital markets finance international investments. In a large part this seems to be driven by the cross-border activity of banks in marketbased countries: both foreign assets and liabilities are much larger in these countries than in their bank-based neighbours. in EU bank-based countries. including not only traditional indicators such as bank credit to the private sector. relative to GDP. whereas in the US bank lending is much lower. we identify a group of market-based and a group of bank-based countries. Also. Concluding remarks We analyse the financial structures of European countries. we distinguish the eastern European accession countries that generally have smaller sizes of both banking sectors and financial markets than those of the old EU15 member states. and compare these to those of Japan and the United States. In these respects. venture capital investments and openness of the economy to foreign capital. banking assets are much larger. Generally. bank operating income is more reliant on other sources than the interest margin. we can assign countries into groups that share common performance across these indicators. in European countries. as would be expected. market-based countries are more similar to the US. differences in bank lending between market-based and bank-based EU countries are less pronounced. than in the US and Japan. A more paradoxical observation is that it is the EU market-based countries that have the larger banking sectors.4. or stock market capitalisation. But also banking sectors in market-based Europe are much larger than those in bankbased countries. For Europe. The distinctions among these two groups are driven in particular by dimensions that are associated with equity capital financing. as well as in Japan. Also the source of banks’ income for banks in market-based countries is qualitatively different from that in bank-based countries: in market-based countries. On the other hand.

In both market-based EU and bank-based EU there was a marked increase in bond issuance from 2008 to 2009 and this increase was twice as large in the market-based group. some convergence among bank-based and market-based countries has taken place for many indicators. many of the indicators have declined (though less so in Japan) and hence in Europe. We do see some signs that in particular in the US. issuance of securities (both debt and equity) has offset some of the decline in bank lending to firms. while markets in the US appear more resilient in some respects. 35 .Following the onset of the financial crisis.

M. Panizza (2012) ‘Too much finance?’ IMF working paper WP/12/161 Black. A. J. P. 3 Rajan. R. Zsolt (2013) ‘Can Europe recover without credit?’ Policy Contribution 2013/03. and L.References Allard. Wilson Darvas. (2006) The Theory of Corporate Finance. eds. Frankfurt. 4 Arcand. A. F. eds. Berger.S.J. and L. 19. mimeo Allen. B. the USA and Asia’. F. Bruegel European Central Bank (2005) Banking Structures in the New EU Member States. L. R. Kowalewski (2005) ‘The Financial System of the EU 25’. J. Gilson (1998) ‘Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: banks versus stock markets’. and R. Oxford Review of Economic Policy. O. Thakor (2008) ‘The accelerating integration of banks and markets and its implications for regulation’. Z. Zingales (1998) ‘Which Capitalism? Lessons from the East Asian Crisis’. 47. 11. 20. 243-277 Boot. Zingales (2003) ‘Banks and Markets: The Changing Character of European Finance’. and A. in The transformation of the European financial system. Molyneux and J. in Proceedings of the Jackson Hole Economic Policy Symposium 2011 Pozsar. E.. Hartmann.. ECB Tirole. Sleijpen. A. Chui and A. P. Manganelli (2003) ‘The Euro-Area Financial System: Structure. Adrian. P. Frankfurt: ECB Hartmann. Blavy (2013) ‘Market Phoenixes and Banking Ducks Are Recoveries Faster in MarketBased Financial Systems?’ IMF working paper Allen. in The Oxford Handbook of Banking. T. Berkes. . A. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance.. R. Maddaloni (2004) ‘Financial systems in Europe. Boesky (2010) ‘Shadow Banking’.S. Bartiloro and O.. and R. Ashcraft. 180-213 Levine. U. Integration and Policy Initiatives’. H. Maddaloni and S. J. Oxford Review of Economic Policy.-L. Princeton University Press 36 . Journal of Financial Economics. V. (2011) ‘Regulating Financial Markets and Institutions to Promote Growth’. Gaspar. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Report 458 Rajan.

• venture capital investment as a percentage of GDP. we normalise the variances to one. 37 . expect for Luxembourg.Grouping of countries using PCA Although the countries differ on each individual characteristic. with more strongly correlated indicators. and use K-means on the first two principal components. • total stock market capitalisation as a percentage of GDP. we use Principal Components Analysis (PCA). using data for the year 2006. these differences may be correlated among groups of indicators.Appendix A . which finds those linear combinations of indicators that capture the largest amount of cross-country variance. • household shares and other equity as a percentage of GDP. to prevent the crisis from distorting our classification: • banking assets relative to GDP. • household deposits as a percentage of GDP. • corporate bonds outstanding as a percentage of GDP. • foreign assets of banks as a percentage of GDP. this decomposition for country i is formulated as follows ℎ = ∗ + ∗ +( ℎ ) We then use using K-means clustering on the first two principal components to determine which countries can be clustered into groups. It requires specification how many clusters there are. A recursive algorithm then determines which countries fall in the same group. the year previous to the financial crisis.16 Algebraically. Luxembourg is a definite outlier 16 As is standard in PCA analysis with large variation in the dimensions of different variables. • credit to non-financial firms as a percentage of GDP. 17 In our PCA analysis. we can reduce the dimensionality of the problem of finding related groups of countries. For this. 17 K-means clustering partitions observations into groups where each observation belongs to the group with the nearest mean. we use the following indicators. We want to identify which 27 European Union individual member states financial systems are more alike. the figure below shows the clustering of countries in the first two principal components (indicated by the differently shaped point in the plot) if we use all EU27 countries. and on which indicators there is independent dispersion. By keeping a limited number of linear combinations of such correlated indicators (the principal components). As a first step.

Including countries that are so clearly different from the rest.0. small banking sectors.all EU27 (LHS) and EU27 without Eastern Europe (RHS)18 Because we want to focus on the variation in countries with well-developed financial sectors that are not clear outliers. the first principal components would be biased towards its indicators. and Malta. biases the principal components towards those indicators that distinguish these outlier countries. The resulting grouping is shown on the right-hand side of figure A. Table A. and group four comprises the outliers Ireland.on most dimensions. Cyprus. while group three consists of eastern European countries thatentered the EU more recently. This should not come as a surprise.1. We ignore it from the start to prevent distortion of the principal components. 18 Excluding Luxembourg 38 . as PCA extracts those dimensions that capture the largest variance. We call group one market based financial Europe. as the financial sectors in these countries differ strongly from those in ‘old’ member states. These countries are associated with high profitability.1 PCA . group two bank-based Europe. Because Luxembourg creates relatively large fraction of variation in the sample. Figure A. in line with previous findings by eg Allen et al (2005). a large fraction of foreign banks.1 below summarises the grouping that we find. low levels of household deposits relative to GDP. The eastern European countries are clearly identified as one group. in the second stage of our analysis we leave out all eastern European countries as well as Luxembourg.

Table A.1: Groups of countries within Europe
Group 1 (Market Based EU)
Group 2 (Bank based EU)
Group 3 (Eastern Europe)
Group 4 (Outlier)

BE
AT
BG
CY

FR
ES
CZ
MT

FI NL SE GB
GR DE DK PT IT
EE HU LV LT PL SI
IE

SK RO

To check robustness of this grouping we slightly adapt the PCA starting from our original analysis.
following dimensions - year of reference, the number of components underlying the clustering
analysis, and the indicators included.

Figure A.0.2

Robustness checks PCA

39

Figure A.2 above shows how the clustering of countries changes if we subsequently cluster countries
using just the first principal component (top - LHS), if we use reference data for the year 2005 instead
of 2006 (top - RHS), if we include concentration measure C3 and Net Interest Margin as two additional
indicators (bottom - LHS), or if we measure household deposit and equity relative to household total
assets instead of GDP (bottom -RHS). Note that the axes (ie the principal components themselves)
cannot be compared because their meanings in terms of indicators differ among these four variants.
We conclude that the following countries switch groups: Belgium (two switches), France (one switch),
the Netherlands (one switch), Cyprus (one switch), and Malta (two switches). The other countries are
robust to these changes in the PCA analysis.

40

Appendix B - Data

Table B.1: Bank credit to the private sector as fraction GDP (Source: IMF Financial statistics, World Bank)
Country

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
EU
Japan
United States

0,93
0,73
0,40
1,21
0,68
0,31
0,16
0,62
0,86
1,00
0,30
0,22
0,70
0,56
0,08
0,15
0,86
0,86
0,93
0,17
0,63
0,36
0,25
0,72
0,97
1,13
0,85
1,79
0,48

0,96
0,75
0,70
1,31
0,66
0,32
0,22
0,59
0,83
1,06
0,31
0,22
0,73
0,54
0,07
0,11
0,87
0,95
0,99
0,19
0,70
0,11
0,43
0,26
0,73
0,96
1,17
0,86
1,79
0,48

1,02
0,76
0,10
1,39
0,68
0,32
0,32
0,53
0,82
1,11
0,32
0,24
0,82
0,55
0,11
0,11
0,93
0,96
1,05
0,21
0,78
0,08
0,56
0,26
0,78
0,97
1,17
0,88
1,88
0,48

0,10
1,43
0,59
0,35
0,32
0,52
1,17
0,34
0,24
0,87
0,58
0,15
0,12
1,01
0,23
0,89
0,12
0,53
0,30
0,85
0,97
1,16
0,91
1,96
0,49

0,99
0,81
0,12
2,11
0,54
0,35
0,32
0,53
0,82
1,16
0,42
0,26
1,01
0,70
0,16
0,14
1,06
1,25
0,26
1,09
0,08
0,54
0,33
0,90
0,98
1,18
0,94
1,96
0,49

1,03
0,78
0,12
2,12
0,47
1,35
0,36
0,53
0,85
1,19
0,47
0,32
1,05
0,76
0,19
0,13
1,02
1,05
1,34
0,27
1,26
0,07
0,51
0,36
0,98
0,42
1,29
1,00
1,91
0,51

1,05
0,76
0,15
2,14
0,39
1,43
0,39
0,56
0,88
1,19
0,57
0,33
1,09
0,77
0,26
0,14
1,29
1,12
1,35
0,27
1,33
0,09
0,37
0,38
1,01
0,98
1,34
1,03
1,12
0,52

1,05
0,74
0,19
2,06
0,30
1,45
0,45
0,58
0,86
1,18
0,61
0,35
1,08
0,80
0,33
0,16
1,04
1,08
1,41
0,27
1,36
0,10
0,39
0,39
1,06
0,99
1,38
1,04
1,04
0,52

1,05
0,74
0,26
2,06
0,30
1,52
0,51
0,64
0,89
1,16
0,65
0,43
1,14
0,83
0,40
0,23
1,03
0,99
1,48
0,28
1,35
0,14
0,32
0,41
1,13
1,00
1,43
1,06
1,00
0,53

1,06
0,71
0,35
2,08
0,31
1,58
0,61
0,68
0,91
1,13
0,71
0,46
1,33
0,85
0,51
0,29
1,06
1,06
1,58
0,28
1,36
0,16
0,30
0,48
1,25
1,01
1,51
1,09
0,97
0,55

1,16
0,74
0,41
2,10
0,35
1,72
0,70
0,75
0,93
1,13
0,80
0,51
1,59
0,89
0,68
0,41
1,29
1,06
1,65
0,29
1,41
0,20
0,35
0,56
1,46
1,08
1,60
1,15
0,99
0,57

1,16
0,82
0,45
2,23
0,39
1,86
0,83
0,79
0,98
1,10
0,85
0,56
1,80
0,94
0,88
0,50
1,55
1,15
1,67
0,33
1,52
0,26
0,39
0,66
1,67
1,13
1,71
1,21
0,98
0,59

1,15
0,91
0,63
2,50
0,46
2,03
0,91
0,82
1,06
1,05
0,94
0,63
1,99
1,01
0,89
0,60
1,85
1,17
1,88
0,39
1,62
0,35
0,42
0,79
1,88
1,21
1,87
1,29
0,97
0,62

1,20
0,94
0,72
2,52
0,51
2,16
0,96
0,86
1,09
1,09
0,98
0,70
2,20
1,05
0,90
0,63
1,84
1,24
1,93
0,50
1,74
0,46
0,45
0,85
2,03
1,28
2,12
1,36
1,02
0,62

1,27
0,97
0,76
2,70
0,52
2,23
1,07
0,94
1,12
1,13
0,94
0,70
2,35
1,11
1,05
0,70
1,87
1,34
2,15
0,50
1,87
0,47
0,93
2,12
1,36
2,14
1,41
1,06
0,59

1,22
0,95
0,74
2,84
0,53
2,16
0,99
0,95
1,14
1,08
1,16
0,69
2,15
1,23
0,99
0,64
1,85
1,33
1,99
0,52
1,91
0,46
0,94
2,14
1,36
2,03
1,40
1,03
0,57

1,20
0,93
0,72
2,98
0,56
2,09
0,85
0,96
1,16
1,05
1,18
0,65
2,08
1,22
0,83
0,54
1,70
1,34
1,98
0,55
1,92
0,45
0,91
2,04
1,36
1,88
1,36
1,05
0,55

41

42 0.84 0.78 0.36 0.18 1.31 1.33 0.20 0.32 0.29 0.77 0.49 0.35 0.70 0.48 0.45 0.16 0.22 1.59 0.17 0.48 0.23 0.51 0.31 0.01 0.24 0.50 0.52 0.65 0.44 0.56 0.52 0.36 0.37 0.27 0.80 0.24 0.52 0.15 0.77 0.54 0.47 0. FRB commercial banks balance sheet data.24 0.44 0.92 0.79 0.57 0.24 0.30 0.59 0.28 1.64 0.50 0.32 1.58 0.26 0.87 0.23 0.26 0.87 0.32 0.33 0.21 0.17 0.27 0.2: Bank credit to non-financial firms as fraction GDP (Source: ECB bank balance sheet data.56 0.15 0.33 0.46 0.43 0.44 0.83 - 0.40 0.38 0.45 1.67 0.29 0.41 0.68 0.21 0.23 0.38 0.12 0.48 0.28 0.71 0.19 0.57 0.45 0.24 0.43 0.69 0.55 0.23 0.16 0.31 0.46 0.25 1.55 0.45 0.62 0.34 0.71 0.02 0.56 0.81 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.26 0.49 0.56 0.42 0.38 0.72 0.86 0.39 0.20 0.58 0.81 - 0.38 1.20 0.81 0.69 0.41 0.21 0.49 0.85 - 0.47 0.81 0.18 0.51 0.41 0.78 - 0.49 0.44 0.53 0.25 0.45 0.82 - 0.42 0.16 0.25 0.38 0.84 - 0.44 0.56 0.46 0.31 1.38 0.58 0.20 0.20 0.34 0.34 0.64 0.Table B.40 0.49 0.60 0.23 0.38 0.68 0.24 0.50 0.28 0.25 0.57 0.15 0.44 1.15 0.35 0.33 0.54 0.16 0.33 0.27 1.64 0.85 - 0.44 1.74 0.35 1.84 0.22 1.35 0.75 - 0.46 0.24 0.89 0.45 0.36 0.35 0.57 0.55 0.57 0.86 0.80 0.45 0.34 0.17 0.25 0.38 0.24 0.46 0.58 0.17 0.49 0.03 0.34 0. Bank of Japan loan data) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 0.21 0.29 0.36 0.19 0.45 1.46 0.61 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.58 0.85 - 0.35 0.43 0.59 0.25 0.31 1.66 0.37 0.57 0.33 0.53 0.30 0.31 0.91 0.47 0.36 0.50 0.33 0.13 0.38 0.13 0.71 0.11 0.43 0.89 0.52 0.39 0.56 0.21 0.42 0.73 0.37 0.31 0.61 0.23 0.34 0.44 0.33 0.25 0.15 0.59 0.30 0.24 0.35 0.53 0.45 0.17 0.18 42 .44 0.

59% 0.00% 35.51% 3.11% 25.00% 4.00% 1.65% 0.71% 0.62% 0.00% 0.78% 12.04% 9.80% 2.00% 0.30% 7.89% 0.59% 1.79% 14.50% 13.01% 6.96% 25.58% 1.69% 6.06% 16.00% 0.04% 0.52% 25.25% 1.02% 4.00% 0.11% 18.59% 4.74% 3.97% 18.00% 0.06% 7.86% 16.36% 14.93% 1.88% 34.00% 3.01% 0.42% 5.45% 14.24% 25.00% 2.00% 54.05% 0.62% 1.00% 38.69% 1.15% 12.11% 0.23% 0.84% 2.07% 0.18% 0.00% 0.98% 0.76% 0.08% 0.79% 12.00% 1.27% 4.95% 15.91% 0.00% 44.14% 14.30% 20.00% 3.92% 12.16% 16.01% 12.08% 26.57% 11.59% 7.05% 17.70% 0.45% 5.07% 0.50% 0.17% 5.47% 12.00% 0.00% 4.53% 0.71% 1.22% 0.20% 0.14% 11.05% 24.44% 10.48% 1.20% 3.00% 2.29% 32.68% 18.74% 0.66% 0.32% 0.95% 4.32% 8.48% 13.11% 15.82% 12.69% 12.95% 3.75% 16.81% 22.22% 9.30% 17.10% 0.70% 3.48% 0.07% 0.65% 1.58% 7.35% 2.79% 0.09% 3.02% 11.59% 0.70% 2.79% 23.91% 19.00% 1.62% 1.99% 12.24% 7.59% 23.31% 11.77% 3.16% 0.72% 2.55% 4.95% 6.44% 0.68% 2.43% 11.10% 7.61% 30.11% 11.36% 6.33% 1.95% 8.24% 28.61% 0.97% 17.92% 4.35% 1.12% 0.14% 13.00% 18.97% 13.00% 1.60% 2.27% 11.00% 0.13% 8.78% 0.52% 6.20% 0.23% 0.95% 0.09% 9.55% 9.73% 3.12% 25.31% 0.00% 3.44% 19.39% 1.25% 1.70% 1.61% 4.76% 43 .76% 0.00% 0.50% 20.51% 23.84% 20.52% 0.87% 15.19% 0.32% 8.13% 17.37% 10.00% 0.00% 13.03% 26.35% 2.00% 15.52% 10.96% 16.00% 0.66% 3.85% 11.76% 10.90% 25.00% 0.00% 0.94% 18.20% 0.74% 14.95% 0.39% 33.60% 4.14% 15.38% 3.79% 8.87% 1.00% 2.39% 6.00% 0.94% 0.72% 0.56% 0.11% 27.49% 0.73% 9.76% 3.00% 7.60% 12.44% 1.31% 16.00% 0.32% 0.33% 1.67% 2.97% 23.18% 14.41% 2.96% 1.12% 15.75% 22.60% 5.61% 6.83% 7.65% 2.40% 1.39% 0.66% 9.84% 16.00% 0.53% 8.49% 15.57% 1.87% 14.64% 6.64% 2.69% 18.08% 1.00% 0.80% 16.20% 2.15% 2.01% 12.00% 0.15% 26.27% 0.70% 2.68% 9.87% 3.02% 0.91% 2.48% 2.35% 13.34% 3.61% 12.00% 0.82% 4.24% 25.80% 18.74% 9.00% 6.35% 6.39% 25.02% 6.00% 0.24% 14.00% 0.00% 0.71% 11.00% 6.06% 21.74% 0.06% 8.00% 0.15% 1.04% 3.19% 12.00% 0.11% 11.38% 0.76% 2.45% 0.29% 5.07% 7.68% 0.80% 3.99% 5.22% 16.00% 0.07% 11.30% 2.00% 7.02% 11.64% 8.79% 0.62% 4.00% 0.51% 1.21% 26.28% 9.16% 12.59% 11.17% 8.86% 0.00% 52.47% 14.90% 0.56% 22.21% 0.91% 4.00% 0.83% 6.00% 17.92% 9.82% 4.72% 13.60% 3.60% 3.46% 0.60% 16.44% 3.79% 4.03% 0.62% 5.72% 13.92% 0.02% 2.19% 0.00% 23.95% 0.00% 0.33% 10.90% 0.46% 5.28% 0.76% 4.20% 3.76% 0.00% 18.16% 25.67% 11.22% 24.49% 4.73% 9.33% 0.16% 5.23% 7.15% 3.57% 16.10% 15.28% 3.00% 7.99% 5.11% 14.15% 4.29% 1.01% 13.00% 0.18% 0.11% 13.34% 2.30% 1.75% 25.34% 5.48% 3.58% 10.50% 10.66% 14.64% 1.00% 1.99% 2.82% 19.93% 5.00% 22.95% 3.79% 24.09% 24.36% 4.69% 14.03% 2.12% 22.77% 2.94% 0.11% 0.55% 5.15% 0.29% 0.44% 3.97% 3.51% 0.05% 13.39% 17.21% 1.36% 13.67% 5.18% 7.80% 2.00% 0.08% 9.00% 0.93% 0.44% 1.00% 2.64% 4.00% 0.84% 0.28% 3.80% 10.18% 0.12% 4.14% 10.88% 10.90% 1.97% 0.3: Corporate bonds as percentage GDP (Source: BIS.82% 24.Table B.00% 2.00% 0.15% 7.05% 12.55% 0.63% 3.07% 0.49% 1.00% 7.59% 4.52% 12.87% 13.75% 6.26% 0.41% 27.57% 0.63% 16.43% 0.40% 0.70% 12.06% 7.15% 12.12% 11.60% 16.93% 0.00% 7. domestic and international debt securities for non-financial corporations) Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 4.38% 4.07% 17.61% 19.50% 26.16% 9.89% 3.00% 0.43% 25.55% 20.55% 25.10% 19.00% 14.74% 6.95% 0.00% 28.02% 8.12% 6.42% 5.81% 22.02% 15.29% 0.93% 10.66% 5.83% 23.00% 16.26% 13.96% 14.36% 2.29% 34.85% 0.64% 0.80% 6.00% 0.55% 10.65% 10.66% 18.54% 3.92% 3.07% 1.96% 13.08% 0.27% 0.36% 0.03% 0.77% 0.33% 21.39% 0.59% 0.08% 26.16% 12.12% 5.00% 1.20% 6.56% 0.00% 4.

07% 28.04% 8.33% 23.90% - 2001 - 1.88% 28.63% 8.20% 50.12% 4.26% 1. national central banks) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States - 0.28% 24.Table B.04% 0.42% 2.12% 0.81% 17.51% 0.79% 17.33% 1.03% 0.06% - 7.34% 0.14% 21.27% - 3.42% 43.94% 0.10% 22.74% 2.72% 1.38% 33.60% 23.18% 10.29% 13.59% 15.59% 0.74% 19.97% 7.94% 51.73% 5.85% 12.65% 44 2007 - 1.27% 0.64% 2004 - 1.71% 5.87% 2003 - - - - - 1.37% 6.93% 18.15% 0.51% 1.94% 16.27% 1.02% 0.00% 3.23% 19.37% 8.55% 5.06% 1.54% 5.78% 21.63% 4.97% 18.19% 0.10% - - 2.11% 2.64% 37.21% 15.25% 20.83% 9.36% 0.63% 6.19% 0.88% 8.26% 13.30% 3.45% 2008 2009 2010 2011 14.04% 3.99% 7.47% 19.16% 0.77% 13.83% 4.60% 5.64% 0.88% 1.16% 0.13% - 1.70% 1.12% 12.91% 18.83% 1.02% 43.25% 8.84% 0.09% 0.04% 2.88% 1.73% 2.29% 11.58% - 2.74% 1.85% .83% 28.61% 0.09% - 1.89% - 2005 1.18% 4.13% 16.71% 48.99% 1.54% 14.82% 2.90% 4.29% 13.44% 21.99% 13.31% 25.49% - 3.69% 55.63% 2.17% 1.97% 9.95% - 3.51% 0.05% 3.70% 24.25% 27.72% - 1.39% 3.76% - 2002 - 1.29% 0.99% 4.68% 2.04% - 2.01% 25.67% - 1.35% 39.37% 0.88% 36.23% 0.87% 7.31% 3.43% 12.58% 10.11% 16.28% 0.69% 17.62% 5.28% - 2.28% 15.67% 2.33% - 1.07% 16.07% 0.33% - 1.07% 0.91% 0.76% 23.90% 10.24% 0.10% 0.13% 14.43% - 1.91% - 3.12% 3.28% 32.97% 45.89% 30.19% 14.28% 16.00% 25.95% 31.23% 10.11% 0.39% 0.39% 3.47% 1.17% 22.30% 39.09% 1999 - 2000 - 1.4: Securitisation outstanding as percentage GDP (source: SIFMA.49% 2.67% 11.10% 1.85% 3.77% 1.99% 17.74% 0.10% 0.42% 4.83% 9.47% - 1.07% - 2006 1.24% 0.20% 13.33% 5.22% 1.

42% 0.22% 5.80% 22.33% 1.75% 1.49% 12.82% - 5.68% 3.43% 7.75% - 5.00% 0.58% 0.90% 0.62% - 0.17% 1.89% 0.00% 2.00% 0.23% 1.03% 3.99% - - 14.54% 0.46% 3.94% 0.00% - 2000 - - - - - 0.97% 45 3.08% .59% 4.49% 0.76% 7.09% 0.32% 0.99% 3.39% 1.09% 1.28% 0. national central banks) Country 1995 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States - 1996 - 1997 - 0.Table B.04% 0.75% 9.92% 6.05% 1.21% 3.63% 13.55% 0.16% 0.13% 2.22% - 3.98% 5.22% 0.87% 15.58% 5.76% 9.31% 0.94% 6.04% 10.72% 8.33% 9.92% - - - - 8.34% 4.22% 0.12% 9.13% - 9.36% 0.70% - - - - - 2001 - 0.19% 5.93% - 2002 - - - - - - - 0.34% 0.95% 2.38% 0.63% 5.03% 2.00% 0.92% 7.65% 0.12% 5.45% 0.00% 2.22% - - - - - 2005 - 0.27% 3.93% 8.20% 1.79% - 2008 - - - - - 0.55% 0.00% 0.67% 5.03% 0.40% 1.73% 1.01% 0.07% - 0.24% 0.72% 2.73% 6.00% 2.44% 0.06% 5.00% 0.47% 0.41% 0.63% 4.57% - - - - - 2011 - 0.45% 5.16% 0.24% 0.53% - 2010 - - - - - 4.48% 3.66% 0.27% 0.00% 0.76% 3.20% 0.04% 1.05% - 1999 - 0.99% 10.70% 0.06% 0.12% 24.00% 2.28% 0.70% 8.61% 5.93% 4.26% - 0.15% - 5.82% 0.23% 14.17% 3.71% 1.04% - 1998 - 5.16% 0.24% - 6.40% 0.74% 1.80% 0.38% 2.28% 7.15% 0.41% 0.32% 0.68% 1.53% 3.40% - 2006 - - - - - 2.03% 7.27% 1.54% 0.26% 4.03% 5.88% 0.45% 0.47% 0.12% 2.15% 0.12% 1.26% 0.87% 2.72% 0.22% 0.67% 0.69% 0.00% 1.51% 0.47% 0.21% 2.74% 3.25% - - - - - 2009 - 0.15% 0.82% 0.71% - 6.40% 19.83% 4.45% - - - - - 2007 - 0.14% 6.45% 0.22% 0.61% 2.34% 0.00% - - 0.78% 1.00% 3.00% 0.86% 0.45% 2.37% 0.21% 4.43% 0.16% 0.87% - - - - - 2003 - 0.75% 3.85% 2.5: Securitisation issuance as percentage GDP (source: SIFMA.87% 5.26% 0.21% 3.80% 8.29% 3.87% 1.31% 0.89% 4.65% 1.00% - 2004 - - - - - - 3.50% 2.71% 1.03% - - - 0.94% 12.10% 1.16% 1.

06 0.18 0.57 0.15 0.12 2.22 0.13 1.53 0.17 0.60 0.50 0.06 0.57 0.41 0.75 1.16 0.09 1.72 0.51 1.54 0.82 0.46 0.25 1.37 0.17 0.29 0.03 1.03 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.50 0.38 0.13 0.17 0.77 1.67 0.54 0.66 0.89 0.49 0.08 0.44 0.36 0.07 1.88 0.13 0.56 0.28 0.87 0.34 0.31 0.45 0.17 1.37 0.56 0.13 0.60 0.47 0.39 0.13 0.08 1.14 0.69 0.23 0.10 1.20 0.19 0.09 1.20 0.11 1.50 1.19 0.55 0.52 1.04 1.55 0.01 0.89 0.24 0.22 0.16 0.67 1.23 0.05 0.56 0.13 0.21 0.84 0.41 0.20 0.15 0.05 0.54 1.04 46 .69 0.50 0.56 0.31 2.15 0.11 0.69 0.18 0.03 0.10 1.96 0.00 0.31 0.32 0.Table B.75 0.17 0.39 0.20 0.33 0.22 0.71 0.34 0.60 0.06 0.44 1.22 0.10 0.66 1.21 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.44 0.19 0.47 0.44 0.74 1.32 0.16 0.69 0.67 0.09 0.74 0.79 1.47 0.20 0.67 0.50 0.46 0.61 0.93 0.17 0.54 0.28 0.78 0.16 0.60 0.55 0.05 0.25 0.15 0.83 0.71 1.11 0.07 0.26 1.47 0.10 0.17 0.11 0.45 0.15 0.19 0.80 0.10 1.02 0.33 0.61 0.04 0.05 0.65 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.92 1.57 0.53 1.33 1.05 0.63 0.32 0.59 0.07 0.64 1.21 1.67 1.29 0.29 0.31 1.18 0.29 0.31 0.11 0.00 0.12 0.08 1.71 0.49 1.04 1.09 0.92 1.25 0.67 0.26 0.58 0.36 0.05 0.37 0.26 0.04 0.42 0.07 0.06 1.34 0.36 0.43 0.26 0.76 0.10 0.86 0.83 0.49 0.24 0.28 0.66 0.97 0.16 0.64 0.87 1.16 1.18 0.09 0.22 0.19 0.35 0.20 0.21 0.10 1.90 1.62 0.73 0.27 0.19 1.09 0.17 0.27 0.09 0.22 0.71 0.87 0.40 1.25 1.66 0.24 1.57 0.04 1.29 0.04 0.09 0.04 0.27 0.49 0.74 1.28 0.31 0.75 0.18 0.08 0.34 0.35 1.43 1.11 0.35 0.48 0.24 0.52 0.05 0.34 1.08 0.38 0.71 0.38 0.22 0.30 0.09 0.54 0.13 0.05 0.00 0.28 1.31 0.14 0.84 1.27 0.47 0.55 0.52 0.61 0.61 1.69 0.29 0.38 0.38 0.08 0.91 0.44 0.57 0.10 0.84 0.52 1.02 0.68 0.44 0.72 0.85 1.00 0.08 1.08 0.10 0.12 0.22 0.08 0.37 0.89 1.53 0.50 0.40 0.75 0.32 0.02 0.39 1.59 0.16 0.76 0.71 1.46 0.87 0.32 1.20 0.14 0.79 0.20 0.70 1.44 0.28 1.50 0.35 0.14 0.26 3.08 0.11 0.07 0.47 0.14 0.15 0.53 0.52 0.33 0.02 1.21 0.02 0.91 0.14 1.75 0.32 2.15 0.38 0.68 0.21 0.70 0.03 0.18 0.60 0.55 0.91 0.50 0.45 0.59 0.28 0.00 0.66 0.99 0.15 0.52 0.45 0.67 1.10 0.75 1.71 1.39 0.09 1.20 0.53 0.24 0.13 0.6: Stock market capitalisation as fraction GDP (Source: World Bank) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 0.07 0.88 0.14 0.55 0.43 0.63 0.55 0.36 0.10 1.30 0.03 0.42 0.19 0.44 0.01 0.49 0.05 0.36 0.13 0.30 0.05 0.70 1.43 0.93 0.27 0.26 0.75 0.02 1.08 0.00 0.33 1.46 0.32 0.51 0.18 0.38 0.37 0.51 0.57 0.02 0.38 0.16 0.68 1.27 1.61 0.92 1.00 1.85 0.18 0.28 0.84 0.60 0.95 1.47 0.05 0.19 0.51 1.05 0.05 0.70 0.69 0.35 0.85 0.28 0.41 0.33 0.60 1.20 0.89 1.05 0.38 1.73 0.82 0.27 0.13 0.05 0.38 0.34 0.39 0.12 0.14 0.78 0.55 0.67 1.05 0.20 0.28 0.43 0.35 0.33 0.79 0.12 0.39 0.16 0.83 0.29 0.41 0.27 0.35 1.61 0.08 0.87 0.10 0.23 0.67 0.12 0.22 0.14 0.

26 14.41 2.35 0.86 21.70 59.55 6.03 95.23 0.64 32.90 22.52 143.44 23.23 141.82 118.68 164.69 71.37 77.14 1.53 53.63 0.39 101.28 120.69 14.19 45.25 21.60 2.83 15.17 0.88 0.07 20.45 109.55 108.69 60.20 5.11 2010 12.67 1.14 305.17 3.87 157.98 34.53 23.28 21.18 22.20 43.80 5.80 17.68 0.72 199.49 71.95 3.82 6.30 130.65 80.33 76.62 33.82 139.19 14.80 2.42 1999 5.72 79.54 64.51 5.00 246.32 49.18 3.91 203.98 1.99 18.64 4.25 34.66 122.95 4.45 7.12 19.23 1.70 29.97 14.08 38.04 2.02 10.90 52.18 49.06 2005 15.39 68.67 41.52 58.78 19.41 0.21 0.32 49.67 0.63 13.96 6.48 17.52 239.73 4.92 7.80 2.58 153.44 0.99 210.45 19.20 182.52 130.31 43.92 13.00 3.84 0.16 64.48 8.02 34.58 61.28 14.98 28.28 6.73 1998 8.82 0.91 8.62 0.62 16.15 12.05 33.99 87.11 14.70 5.27 337.85 0.34 1.56 116.88 116.61 16.80 70.50 209.91 1.24 41.56 87.13 1.27 0.23 105.10 0.89 1.25 20.76 132.75 87.19 230.66 3.15 169.47 16.78 0.77 2002 2.33 169.12 46.7: Stock market turn-over as a percentage of GDP (source: World Bank) Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 1995 10.67 31.00 3.26 12.52 47.45 99.09 6.08 0.95 123.70 3.47 143.07 16.71 35.85 1.95 2.44 59.61 1996 8.28 1.01 9.95 26.63 35.69 0.32 4.14 2.79 149.58 8.78 17.81 83.28 11.53 40.36 5.05 0.20 2006 24.78 0.54 1.84 32.32 1.66 0.72 52.39 5.50 75.10 65.94 12.20 2.86 8.84 11.35 4.87 0.74 16.58 98.76 23.19 2009 6.06 20.36 0.94 321.25 1.86 2007 32.47 0.20 2004 8.58 47.54 23.76 0.68 0.33 0.46 92.33 70.90 283.80 2011 9.32 24.30 3.23 76.65 83.59 0.58 3.96 122.49 5.52 61.50 23.28 143.79 9.34 0.09 22.99 0.56 1.98 3.82 0.79 1.40 0.80 13.69 46.45 1.73 7.00 4.04 5.08 12.54 3.78 171.33 20.40 78.49 41.99 0.46 104.94 27.47 0.75 9.56 59.22 1.04 0.55 20.04 85.38 81.73 132.38 61.76 29.53 220.29 1.03 3.74 124.40 68.56 6.95 38.90 0.58 8.52 0.37 7.73 99.44 0.19 8.30 1.05 24.74 3.37 29.31 171.51 2.87 137.11 28.02 36.47 367.86 131.60 91.73 72.48 46.83 98.44 26.20 257.14 39.37 0.89 7.49 40.22 58.73 .77 5.47 1.03 16.40 31.07 1.74 1.19 1.57 47 2003 4.96 19.37 2.99 161.58 111.55 115.16 49.38 23.16 38.65 126.18 0.Table B.96 0.34 22.77 1.88 1997 5.42 3.43 63.12 2.06 0.82 4.19 22.89 27.11 0.50 29.06 18.08 57.62 2.33 39.67 0.47 0.65 10.14 21.82 62.01 17.34 79.22 3.83 52.29 1.35 0.34 147.49 1.42 11.07 73.74 27.57 19.95 15.62 44.67 173.26 13.53 105.08 109.87 96.69 26.96 7.25 6.90 3.52 3.97 80.64 2.32 85.74 44.76 9.49 2.74 1.16 38.45 17.28 18.53 5.90 40.05 91.90 168.55 43.05 121.01 6.67 56.15 132.23 31.70 41.23 150.68 76.19 156.94 0.99 3.90 9.19 57.30 9.49 13.72 1.64 15.18 51.07 118.57 0.23 116.67 175.11 69.47 44.21 0.45 2.38 55.13 2.45 48.21 2008 25.43 0.46 114.71 125.71 43.24 8.64 3.31 1.20 0.90 3.76 7.87 51.38 95.09 69.70 34.18 21.33 1.08 5.03 8.10 104.97 1.88 2.04 52.23 77.36 113.55 66.25 450.70 2000 4.57 28.51 1.48 4.51 105.72 89.02 2.02 1.47 28.51 249.67 81.81 4.56 2.88 62.78 0.43 27.89 0.28 4.80 3.19 26.50 39.98 56.78 26.82 140.78 23.21 137.64 3.06 1.20 40.27 13.17 133.20 93.11 2.73 2.55 6.11 15.75 169.34 24.04 158.24 86.54 46.62 31.50 47.02 8.95 19.37 1.61 73.51 35.11 54.74 205.88 63.11 34.08 0.99 0.96 0.09 61.44 3.60 2.88 2001 3.06 1.14 1.89 16.07 1.39 0.41 20.62 156.66 43.57 16.01 27.

18% 0.00% 3.02% 0.75% 4.57% 0.41% 1.25% 2.43% 0.47% 0.67% 0.00% 4. ECB) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0.04% 0.73% 0.25% 0.98% 7.67% 4.66% 0.69% 0.97% 6.17% 1.33% 0.14% 1.14% 1.11% 0.00% 0.65% 0.00% 1.Table B.44% 9.17% 0.72% 0.01% 0.76% 0.21% 0.31% 0.82% 1.78% 1.85% 0.66% 25.88% 1.75% 0.87% 0.88% 0.59% 0.02% 1.24% 0.74% 1.99% 1.46% 0.42% 1.14% 0.69% 1.58% 1.64% 0.68% 1.20% 0.42% 1.10% 0.07% 0.73% 0.22% 0.22% 3.37% 0.18% 8.50% 0.06% 0.44% 1.51% 0.00% 0.86% 0.91% 70.71% 0.84% 0.00% 0.15% 0.41% 0.74% 0.43% 0.00% 0.74% 1.25% 5.92% 1.22% 0.01% 1.55% 0.34% 2.00% 0.50% 1.35% 2.42% 0.33% 0.61% 0.03% 0.30% 0.70% 9.00% 0.58% 0.08% 1.59% 4.59% 0.23% 1.41% 0.08% 1.00% 0.38% 0.00% 0.87% 0.23% 0.53% 0.37% 0.13% 0.48% 0.69% 0.88% 0.33% 0.46% 1.64% 1.89% 3.00% 1.72% 0.71% 0.77% 0.00% 0.46% 1.75% 0.23% 0.56% 0.06% 1.40% 2.02% 5.63% 0.32% 0.04% 0.10% 0.17% 1.10% 0.05% 0.33% 1.82% 0.34% 11.94% 0.78% 1.77% 0.23% 8.94% 3.27% 2.79% 1.02% 5.09% 0.82% 0.56% 0.35% 0.27% 0.71% 0.29% 0.16% 2.02% 1.00% 2.54% 0.41% 1.46% 0.59% 4.39% 1.46% 0.00% 0.57% 1.10% 0.90% 0.86% 0.32% 0.04% 0.60% 1.01% 0.30% 0.05% 0.58% 0.26% 48 .35% 4.56% 0.49% 6.67% 1.86% 0.42% 1.00% 0.00% 0.16% 8.89% 39.51% 0.27% 0.26% 0.03% 0.42% 0.37% 0.61% 0.45% 5.16% 0.87% 0.53% 7.94% 0.68% 0.00% 0.41% 1.85% 0.49% 0.44% 1.23% 0.11% 1.91% 0.87% 0.74% 0.32% 0.56% 1.47% 0.32% 0.55% 1.50% 0.8: Gross issuance of listed shares as percentage GDP (Source: national central banks.29% 0.35% 2.38% 0.45% 0.67% 0.42% 1.00% 0.86% 0.28% 1.97% 0.88% 1.11% 1.45% 1.03% 7.23% 0.63% 1.00% 0.21% 0.23% 2.50% 2.87% 0.01% 3.15% 0.63% 0.99% 2.05% 0.69% 0.39% 1.72% 27.75% 0.13% 0.45% 0.32% 0.88% 6.47% 0.72% 0.24% 3.33% 1.22% 3.00% 0.44% 0.33% 0.44% 1.67% 0.90% 4.05% 0.28% 5.00% 0.51% 1.45% 0.48% 0.21% 3.75% 1.25% 0.63% 0.71% 1.01% 0.30% 0.37% 0.92% 2.99% 0.16% 2.65% 13.07% 4.99% 1.77% 1.56% 2.70% 1.22% 1.91% 1.47% 1.95% 25.45% 0.50% 3.18% 1.05% 1.35% 0.56% 0.36% 0.63% 0.42% 0.65% 0.49% 0.61% 0.05% 16.71% 0.75% 1.16% 0.90% 1.80% 3.00% 2.06% 0.15% 5.00% 1.16% 7.18% 0.00% 2.80% 0.91% 1.73% 0.38% 4.07% 0.44% 0.

04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.38% 0.98% 0.30% 0.55% 0.00% 0.01% 0.17% 0.10% 0.52% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.28% 0.26% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.04% 0.03% 0.21% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.26% 0.00% 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 2. Jay Ritter IPO data.00% 0.06% 0.00% 0.05% 0.03% 0.00% 0.Table B.00% 0.49% 0.05% 0.20% 0.03% 0.12% 0.00% 0.12% 0.46% 0.00% 0.16% 1.02% 0.14% 0.06% 0.27% 0.01% 0.43% 0.01% 0.00% 0.05% 0.91% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.18% 49 .83% 0.18% 0.17% 0.00% 0.02% 0.15% 0.02% 0.00% 0.01% 0.08% 0.00% 0.14% 1.15% 1.06% 0.35% 0.9: IPOs as percentage GDP (Source: EVCA yearbooks 2012.01% 0.00% 0.19% 0.00% 0.66% 0.00% 0.13% 1.03% 0.16% 2.11% 0.00% 0.60% 0.03% 0.21% 0.35% 0.00% 0.10% 0.31% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.17% 0.03% 0.02% 0.54% 0.18% 0.16% 0.33% 0. Kaneko and Pettway’s Japanese IPO Database) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States - - - - - - - - - - - - 0.06% 0.00% 0.12% 0.01% 0.

02% 0.12% 0.09% 0.13% 0.03% 0.07% 0.04% 0.07% 0.07% 0.04% 0.02% 0.04% 0.04% 0.12% 0.04% 0.00% 0.10% 0.04% 0.19% 50 .02% 0.05% 0.10% 0.02% 0.07% 0.14% 0.03% 0. Japan Venture Research) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 0.10: Venture capital investment as percentage of GDP (source: EVCA.04% 0.05% 0.03% 0.09% 0.08% 0.06% 0.02% 0.06% 0.17% 0.02% 0.07% 0.36% 0.05% 0.07% 0.10% 0.05% 0.19% 0.05% 0.10% 0.10% 0.05% 0.09% 0.03% 0.03% 0.05% 0.03% 0.03% 0.07% 0.09% 0.01% 0.10% 0.18% 0.20% 0.08% 0.03% 0.09% 0.08% 0.08% 0.01% 0.10% 0.08% 0.03% 0.01% 0.01% 0.16% 0.15% 0.03% 0.15% 0.08% 0.08% 0.04% 0.07% 0.00% 0.06% 0.03% 0.09% 0.02% 0.04% 0.07% 0.01% 0.09% 0.14% 0.00% 0.14% 0.09% 0.29% 0.55% 0.05% 0.03% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.19% 0.00% 0.03% 0.37% 0.06% 0.06% 0.21% 0.13% 0.13% 0.23% 0.03% 0.00% 0.05% 0.07% 0.01% 0.06% 1.13% 0.04% 0.03% 0.08% 0.04% 0. NVCA.04% 0.29% 0.01% 0.12% 0.11% 0.06% 0.02% 0.13% 0.08% 0.02% 0.11% 0.21% 0.11% 0.07% 0.02% 0.03% 0.00% 0.09% 0.11% 0.04% 0.01% 0.17% 0.11% 0.40% 0.01% 0.08% 0.06% 0.34% 0.05% 0.07% 0.Table B.15% 0.11% 0.02% 0.17% 0.05% 0.00% 0.11% 0.18% 0.05% 0.00% 0.03% 0.22% 0.11% 0.04% 0.00% 0.01% 0.04% 0.13% 0.05% 0.11% 0.04% 0.03% 0.02% 0.08% 0.10% 0.04% 0.05% 0.04% 0.02% 0.20% 0.10% 0.04% 0.08% 0.21% 0.01% 0.05% 0.00% 0.16% 0.02% 0.04% 0.04% 0.02% 0.16% 0.10% 0.02% 0.08% 0.02% 0.01% 0.08% 0.01% 0.11% 0.09% 0.22% 0.10% 0.06% 0.00% 0.01% 0.19% 0.13% 0.03% 0.00% 0.13% 0.09% 0.04% 0.12% 0.01% 0.04% 0.04% 0.48% 0.02% 0.13% 0.29% 0.12% 0.06% 0.03% 0.07% 0.04% 0.04% 0.06% 0.14% 0.01% 0.12% 0.06% 0.01% 0.03% 0.01% 0.09% 0.10% 0.13% 0.08% 0.03% 0.09% 0.22% 0.14% 0.15% 0.22% 0.05% 0.08% 0.05% 0.21% 0.01% 0.07% 0.06% 0.04% 0.03% 0.09% 0.18% 0.00% 0.03% 0.09% 0.04% 0.03% 0.18% 0.16% 0.01% 0.04% 0.10% 0.12% 0.03% 0.02% 0.12% 0.20% 0.08% 0.09% 0.06% 0.16% 0.05% 0.04% 0.07% 0.03% 0.14% 0.06% 0.02% 0.03% 0.11% 0.38% 0.04% 0.06% 0.01% 0.06% 0.03% 0.03% 0.11% 0.09% 0.05% 0.22% 0.03% 0.79% 0.05% 0.08% 0.01% 0.09% 0.07% 0.00% 0.11% 0.20% 0.06% 0.06% 0.04% 0.23% 0.25% 0.02% 0.05% 0.05% 0.30% 0.01% 0.05% 0.10% 0.04% 0.07% 0.04% 0.23% 0.05% 0.05% 0.04% 0.08% 0.07% 0.00% 0.16% 0.17% 0.03% 0.18% 0.03% 0.02% 0.21% 0.04% 0.21% 0.19% 0.12% 0.00% 0.12% 0.25% 0.09% 0.17% 0.10% 0.09% 0.02% 0.04% 0.13% 0.05% 0.19% 0.14% 0.05% 0.06% 0.

20% 2010 1.92% 7.92% 5.08% 6.02% 2006 2.90% 7.31% 11.15% 5.24% 26.34% 2.75% 3.47% 4.31% 2.83% 1.06% 6.52% 7.25% 1.Table B.08% 5.77% 1.74% 2005 3.23% 3.77% 4.37% 1.46% 5.75% 5.41% 10.15% 1.05% 1.51% 1.04% 2007 3.08% 4.99% 11.48% 2.57% 2.66% 12.57% - 7.63% 3.27% 1.72% 6.59% 0.24% 0.70% 0.00% 1.17% 1.86% 2004 1.41% 4.05% 2.01% 0.94% 1.22% 0.30% 2.72% 6.18% 2.43% 2.52% 3.07% 3.90% 3.39% 5.98% 3.39% 10.41% 3.23% 27.54% 2.32% 11.67% 1.19% 1.27% - 2.56% 2.36% - 2008 3.59% 4.59% 6.99% 1.26% 12.11% 1.92% 7.25% 8.24% 1.99% 1.70% 6.11: Mergers and acquisitions as percentage GDP (Source: EVCA yearbook 2012.53% 6. Thomson Reuters) Country Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 1995 - 1996 - 1997 - 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 51 2003 1.00% 4.70% 4.72% 1.71% 3.46% 30.61% 2011 2.09% 1.25% 4.20% .77% 2.98% 8.61% 0.47% 1.50% 0.27% 4.64% 2.30% 1.26% 0.35% 4.46% 3.96% 9.07% 2.95% - 1.88% 4.46% 0.44% 5.41% 1.37% 4.12% 1.14% 0.89% 1.13% 4.28% 2.34% 3.76% 2.40% 8.24% 6.59% 9.69% 4.56% 2.44% 2.14% 4.76% 0.81% 1.80% 3.97% 1.39% 4.50% 2009 1.

26% 3.14% 0.33% 1.06% 0.81% 0.93% 0.95% 0.97% 1.77% 1.31% 0.71% 1.58% 13.18% 0.09% 1.27% 0.69% 2.15% 1.62% 0.24% 0.24% 0.15% 0.81% 0.15% 20.14% 2.75% 1.66% 3.73% 0.72% 5.18% 0.11% 0.06% 1.01% 2.20% 83.63% 0.48% 0.58% 1.58% 1.40% 0.06% 0.38% 4.08% 2.74% 1.23% 0.32% 0.87% 0.19% 2.02% 1.84% 4.25% 0.02% 1.86% 0.85% 0.26% 0.10% 3.49% 0.49% 2.47% 1.17% 0.96% 0.11% 4.68% 1.71% 7.00% 0.82% 0.66% 0.25% 0.00% 0.07% 0.51% 0.47% 2.02% 0.10% 1.05% 0.64% 6.65% 0.71% 0.14% 0.23% 1.66% 0.60% 1.18% 0.07% 0.18% 0.66% 2.46% 1.11% 2.41% 2.02% 0.99% 0.89% 0.04% - 1.93% 0.86% 0.10% 1.05% 0.31% 0.20% 6.65% 2.02% 0.00% 1.14% 8.67% 1.07% - - - - - 2.86% 1.12: Cross-border mergers and acquisitions as percentage GDP (Source: Unctad) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 0.15% 0.92% 4.04% 0.41% 9.54% 0.59% 0.26% 0.45% 0.69% 1.41% 1.19% 1.35% 0.32% 0.36% 0.55% 0.37% - 5.07% 0.83% 1.11% 0.31% 0.06% 2.35% 3.82% 5.02% 1.48% 2.71% 3.14% - 52 .30% 1.57% 13.81% 8.45% 0.09% 14.88% 0.02% 2.68% 0.20% 0.49% 0.36% 2.03% 0.87% 0.72% 8.15% 0.05% 0.00% 2.70% 0.11% 2.06% 3.05% 0.64% 2.22% 1.72% 6.10% 0.01% 0.14% 0.21% -6.33% 0.62% 0.01% 0.24% 0.35% 3.21% 7.27% 4.43% 2.Table B.22% 1.89% 34.42% 0.01% 0.08% 4.46% 1.28% 3.54% 2.61% 0.49% 0.90% 15.54% 1.11% 3.27% 10.51% 1.90% 2.16% 1.30% 0.72% 3.76% -0.51% 2.16% 0.60% 5.41% 1.17% 1.31% 1.26% 0.48% 0.26% -0.34% 2.96% -0.09% 0.54% 0.86% 0.51% 0.94% 0.15% 2.17% 1.47% 0.62% 1.71% 0.86% 0.65% 0.27% 1.28% 0.45% 1.15% 0.10% 0.18% 9.64% 1.84% 0.21% 0.39% 1.53% 0.21% 3.57% 1.00% 2.63% 0.47% 1.57% 3.15% 0.40% 1.03% 0.83% 0.44% -3.71% 0.26% 6.97% 1.10% - 0.02% 0.35% 4.96% 0.30% 5.98% 1.42% 0.66% 1.11% 0.53% 0.04% 1.12% 3.08% 0.37% 1.28% 0.80% 1.57% 0.31% 1.23% 0.47% 2.76% 0.23% 1.24% 0.04% 1.83% 5.78% 2.63% 0.32% 0.05% 2.48% 0.74% 1.37% 0.21% 0.20% 3.16% 0.39% 0.94% 2.09% 2.15% 0.66% 2.28% 1.80% 1.28% 1.71% -0.39% 0.41% 0.18% 3.25% - 0.98% 0.38% 1.31% 1.19% 0.29% 6.36% 0.39% 1.11% 0.53% 0.29% 0.71% 0.50% 0.05% 0.54% 0.43% 2.46% 0.06% 1.77% 0.96% 0.31% 1.15% 0.85% -0.63% 0.78% 0.13% 0.58% 1.06% 0.97% 0.11% 0.40% 0.37% 1.15% 0.86% 0.41% 2.04% 0.36% 0.14% 1.13% 5.57% 0.94% 23.48% 0.18% 0.19% 0.60% 0.68% 3.13% 0.33% - 1.37% 0.01% - 0.54% 2.28% -1.16% 5.40% 5.60% 0.44% 1.20% 0.48% 1.13% 4.92% 0.07% 0.65% 2.07% 0.07% 1.15% 1.53% 0.33% 0.93% 0.16% 5.28% 0.65% 0.89% 0.09% 0.29% 3.35% 0.36% 1.05% 1.49% 0.58% 0.76% 2.36% 3.23% 21.99% 0.30% 6.21% 0.61% 0.58% 0.66% 1.46% 0.84% 1.30% 3.90% 1.01% 3.99% 6.36% - 1.37% 1.61% 0.43% 9.27% 13.00% 0.50% 20.90% 1.09% 0.08% 3.89% 1.71% 4.46% 0.04% 2.72% 0.95% 4.48% 2.02% 1.71% 0.37% 0.30% 0.16% 0.29% 2.52% 3.88% 2.08% 9.53% 1.65% 10.04% 0.63% 13.49% 4.22% 0.14% 4.09% -0.62% 2.19% 0.38% 0.58% 0.31% 0.34% 0.76% 1.37% 0.50% 0.85% 0.01% 2.09% 2.19% 2.65% 0.05% 2.01% 0.12% 1.07% 5.02% 1.12% 18.84% 0.04% 4.99% 0.87% 0.26% 0.46% 17.85% 0.64% 1.21% 2.12% 0.07% 0.53% 1.11% 0.16% 0.55% 0.16% 2.28% 8.48% 1.60% 2.76% 0.15% -0.69% 0.67% 6.15% 0.05% 1.18% -0.19% 2.66% 0.

16 0.00 0.89 2.36 2.20 0.12 1.39 2.90 1.99 2.48 3.51 1.65 1.35 0.97 1.94 1.18 2.52 2.44 1.55 0.71 2.56 1.15 1.03 0.60 1.64 0.66 1.54 2.68 0.43 0.98 1.86 1.74 2.53 2.59 0.82 1.99 1.68 2.73 2.06 1.83 1.03 1.08 2.60 2.74 0.77 1.57 0.01 1.42 3.56 0.56 2.25 0.13 2.48 0.00 1.65 1.66 1.76 0.40 0.21 2.59 0.21 0.40 2.74 1.67 3.96 2.82 1.86 1.67 0.65 2.04 0.33 0.65 1.88 0.28 1.59 0.59 2.99 2.12 1.19 2.40 2.72 1.66 0.28 2.58 2.69 0.75 2.07 1.88 1.42 0.77 0.53 2.60 2.86 2.72 0.46 0.95 3.80 1.48 2.67 1.81 1.21 0.63 0.54 1.38 1.44 1.65 1.48 3.63 1.44 2.74 1.37 0.40 2.83 1.25 0.28 0.08 2.06 1.27 2.04 0.38 1.61 0.20 0.86 1.84 1.71 0.39 1.72 1.19 2.14 0.49 2.34 0.95 1.74 1.09 1.86 1.52 3.28 0.19 1.10 1.72 1.90 1.41 2.71 1.88 2.34 1.57 0.55 3.80 2.55 2.41 2.63 0.72 2.57 2.66 2.58 2.81 1.64 1.93 1.58 1.20 0.46 2.17 0.82 1.46 1.84 1.01 1.88 1.00 2.62 0.63 1.07 2.65 1.25 0.59 2.80 1.91 0.42 2.37 2.84 2.89 2.56 1.76 0.83 0.96 2.43 3.81 1.93 2.43 1.62 2.05 1.32 0.74 1.56 2.60 1.63 0.30 0.76 2.36 2.45 3.56 2.28 2.66 1.41 2.13 0.62 2.22 1.87 2.99 1.05 0.33 0.83 3.64 1.81 1.33 1.61 1.42 3.76 0.09 1.93 2.99 1.71 0.75 0.50 2.92 2.Table B.34 2.62 1.64 1.61 1.55 2.99 0.63 1.47 2.18 0.33 2.18 1.57 2.52 3.62 0.02 0.62 0.67 2.76 1.79 1.51 2.36 0.06 1.74 0.11 0.29 0.91 1.54 0.85 2.58 1.99 2.08 1.72 1.31 0. National Central Banks.11 2.31 2.54 2.57 2.25 0.70 0.87 1.57 3.13 0.87 0.03 1.28 0.09 0.93 3.65 1.75 0.89 1.83 0.67 1.30 2.42 3.13: Household financial assets as fraction of GDP (Source: Eurostat.21 0.50 0.40 3.42 0.41 0.83 1.02 1.77 1.16 2.78 0.83 1.24 0.77 0.63 0. OECD) Row Labels 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States 1.81 2.60 2.54 0.50 0.95 3.05 1.50 2.85 0.55 0.10 3.44 3.57 0.95 1.52 0.69 1.92 0.67 3.76 1.87 1.51 3.34 0.75 1.67 1.77 1.56 1.23 2.85 3.85 2.24 1.02 1.84 0.67 2.73 0.21 1.76 0.01 2.11 1.81 1.68 2.23 1.48 2.36 2.60 2.70 0.46 3.11 1.13 2.77 2.22 0.86 1.50 1.68 0.90 0.59 2.07 0.33 0.96 3.09 2.41 1.62 0.86 2.92 3.68 2.61 1.67 0.13 0.12 1.26 2.28 1.43 2.50 2.32 3.35 2.35 2.54 2.80 0.00 2.01 0.94 0.24 0.59 0.53 2.68 1.80 1.49 0.22 1.48 0.67 0.41 1.70 2.85 1.39 0.92 0.61 2.16 0.82 0.80 2.72 2.75 0.45 1.02 0.77 0.53 1.96 3.21 2.63 0.11 1.76 2.83 0.30 0.93 0.88 1.89 1.88 0.13 3.04 0.87 0.78 1.39 1.98 1.13 1.69 1.46 0.86 0.90 0.58 3.96 1.33 0.85 2.64 2.11 1.99 2.03 0.11 3.51 2.93 3.66 2.40 3.74 0.63 2.68 2.42 2.86 1.94 1.16 0.62 1.45 1.58 0.13 0.21 0.66 1.79 1.47 1.28 0.85 1.27 0.31 1.51 1.66 2.68 1.48 0.27 53 .80 1.55 1.57 1.79 1.56 2.15 1.39 2.08 1.27 0.54 3.39 3.60 1.78 0.45 3.

64 0.06 0.11 0.58 0.56 0.57 0.07 0.22 0.66 0.23 1.56 0.65 1.47 0.19 0.76 0.35 0.10 0.07 0.45 0.67 0.77 0.75 0.24 0.72 0.32 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.45 54 .67 0.22 0.37 0.36 0.21 0.10 0.39 1.17 0.38 0.29 0.14 0.33 0.54 0.71 0.45 0.46 0.70 0.55 0.69 0.23 0.70 1.66 0.48 0.31 0.59 0.22 0.06 0.56 0.22 0.48 0.57 0.57 0.65 0.26 1.32 0.61 0.25 0.81 0.23 0.58 0.06 0.64 0.36 0.70 0.57 1.64 1.57 0.63 0.46 0.36 0.66 0.16 0.14: Household deposits as a fraction of GDP (Source: Eurostat.66 0.90 0.17 1.28 0.39 0.61 0.57 0.54 0.84 0.20 1.69 0.71 0.67 0.60 1.43 0.21 0.58 0.78 0.74 0.39 0.47 0.37 0.56 0.13 0.33 0.53 0.49 0.44 0.60 1.73 0.28 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.66 1.36 0.30 0.67 0.11 0.37 0.67 0.56 0.47 0.36 0.38 0.57 0.80 0.25 0.26 0.17 1.17 0.59 0.46 0.70 0.26 0.39 0.54 0.70 0.40 0.14 0.56 0.57 0.40 0.70 0.89 0.29 0.20 0.55 0.24 0.27 0.45 0.72 0.13 0.73 0.58 0.22 0.63 0.52 0.19 0.63 1.17 1.56 1.43 0.28 0.54 0.30 0.73 0.66 0.48 0.21 0.76 0.71 0.55 0.17 0.27 0.23 0.65 1.88 0.15 0.58 0.30 0.53 0.75 0.63 0.28 0.88 0.30 0.52 0.45 0.33 0.38 0.22 0.35 0.48 0.15 0.61 0.67 1.25 0.59 0.18 0.28 1.72 0.44 0.79 0.25 0.36 0.66 0.28 0.24 0.73 0.83 0.24 0.60 1.26 0.67 0.41 0.60 0.53 0.17 0.45 0.57 0.25 0.71 0.26 0.72 0.34 0.72 0.60 0.57 0.58 0.48 0.66 0.47 0.49 0.53 1.46 0.29 0.28 0.58 0.25 0.83 0.15 0.89 0.42 0.12 0.22 0.58 1.41 0.07 0.23 0.48 0.63 0.23 0.68 1. National Central banks.68 0.63 0.43 0.28 0.60 0.67 0.58 0.59 0.21 0.45 0.27 0.77 0.69 0.39 0.69 1.57 0.39 0.09 0.76 0.14 0.82 0.76 0.30 0.78 0.04 0.20 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.63 0.55 0.44 0.54 0.35 0.65 0.30 0.64 0.71 0.15 0.20 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.31 0.61 0.63 0.56 0.32 0.35 0.72 0.36 1.38 0.23 0.34 0.19 0.40 0.54 1.25 0.68 0.60 0.61 0.82 0.31 0.56 0.72 0.36 0.67 0.11 0.24 0.76 0.28 0.55 1.36 0.46 0.63 0.60 0.37 0.65 0.64 0.27 0.21 0.65 0.15 0.60 0.60 0.17 0.32 0.26 0.35 0.74 0.11 0.41 0.75 0.66 1.56 0.54 0.55 0.25 0.58 0.73 0.09 0.28 0.39 0.11 0.31 1.39 0.Table B.11 0.50 0.57 1.21 0.34 0.72 0.27 0.63 0.24 0.71 0.71 1.06 0.44 0.73 0.66 0.18 0.13 0.06 0.31 0.52 0.36 0.36 0.60 0.42 0.58 0.19 0.33 0.79 0.56 1.84 0.25 0.32 1.11 0.25 0.70 0.68 1.39 0.54 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.61 0.62 0.57 1.42 0.50 0.56 0.27 0.80 0.56 0.47 0.70 0.50 0.82 0.42 0.22 0.38 0.63 1.55 0.68 0.12 0.41 1.39 0.71 0.59 0. OECD) Row Labels 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States 0.19 1.64 0.17 0.47 0.47 0.40 0.71 0.83 0.58 0.34 0.54 0.24 0.22 0.54 0.63 0.43 0.20 0.49 0.52 1.12 0.23 0.39 0.59 0.51 0.62 0.32 0.58 0.70 0.64 0.05 0.19 0.22 0.08 0.58 0.

55 0.39 0.60 0.64 0.76 0.34 0.15: Household shares and other equity as a fraction of GDP (Source: Eurostat.49 0.24 0.21 0.13 0.05 0.34 0.36 0.71 1.58 0.46 0.32 0.49 0.89 0.15 0.57 0.39 0.64 0.25 0.27 0.06 0.35 0.55 0.15 0.48 1.38 0.30 0.43 0.71 0.44 0.89 0.30 0.76 0.67 0.17 0.36 0.27 0.87 0.39 0.35 0.32 0.32 0.25 0.96 0.03 0.32 0.19 0.32 0.48 0.52 1.59 0.38 0.30 0.42 0.54 0.19 0.12 0.38 0.99 0.50 0.27 0.33 0.25 1.57 0.51 0.47 0.82 0.34 0.30 0.95 0.34 0.23 0.49 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.82 0.80 0.38 0.34 0.29 0.92 0.50 0.33 0.53 0.69 0.17 0.12 0.24 0.30 0.19 0.34 1.33 0.67 0.08 0.69 0.70 0.72 0.65 0.48 0.58 0.35 0.48 0.43 0.25 0.41 0.42 1.45 1.47 1.42 0.44 1.54 0.54 0.59 1.66 0.24 0.50 0.41 0.22 0.37 0.07 0.21 0.47 1.44 0.48 0.23 0.58 0.81 0.17 0.31 0.47 0.56 0.31 0.07 0.20 0.72 0.66 0.49 0.76 0.31 0.20 0.16 0.68 0.23 0.20 0.19 0.49 0.26 0.44 0.94 0.04 0.37 0.34 0.50 0.37 0.48 0.29 0.76 0.48 0.46 0.27 0.42 0.19 0.35 0.44 0.45 0.08 0.35 0.93 0.27 0.40 0.44 0.48 0.37 0.30 0.44 0.18 0.47 0.38 0.84 0.71 0.35 0.73 0.89 0.59 0.07 0.24 0.46 0.50 0.12 0.39 0.10 0.73 0.16 0.37 0.14 0.32 0.36 0.31 1.15 0.29 0.47 0.34 0.64 0.09 0.28 0.48 0.81 0.04 0.40 1.06 0.37 0.76 0.23 0.19 0.38 0.76 0.75 0.72 0.32 0.59 0.21 0.18 0.38 0.22 0.54 0.52 0.23 0.22 0.71 0.11 0.40 0.04 0.13 0.40 1.78 0.57 0.27 0.33 0.41 0.45 0.11 0.41 0.34 0.61 0.35 1.55 0.04 0.89 0.14 0.39 0.20 0.41 0.24 0.48 0.80 0.26 0.65 0.78 0.16 0.95 0.61 0.16 0.24 1.32 0.50 0.43 0.56 0.35 0.25 0.58 0.44 0.Table B.26 0.81 0.36 0.90 0.13 0.51 0.88 0.29 0.47 0.60 0.65 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.72 0.69 0.27 0.42 0.29 0.35 1.83 0.42 1.23 1.37 0.83 1.74 0.34 0.40 0.49 0.97 0.28 0.55 0.81 0.16 0.53 0.52 0.19 0.39 0.28 0.33 0.22 0.21 0.06 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.74 0.37 0.64 0.33 0.83 0.38 0.41 0.05 0.34 0.53 0.33 0.42 0.32 0.63 0.35 0.49 0.41 55 .06 0.33 1.55 0.70 0.13 0. National Central banks.04 0.07 0.62 0.05 0.48 0.29 0.38 0.74 0.66 0.31 0.18 0.57 0.20 0.49 0.28 0.72 0.55 0.43 0.33 0.65 0.48 0.05 0.49 0.38 1.63 0.36 0.60 0.04 0.36 0.65 0.42 0.44 0.49 0.28 0.43 0.50 0.07 0.58 0.28 0.17 0.56 0.25 0.57 0.42 0.46 0.20 0.46 1.66 1.88 0.81 0.60 0.42 1.52 0.39 0.44 0.35 0.06 0.39 0.66 1.23 0.19 0.54 0.34 0.31 0.38 0.30 0.66 0.68 0.52 0.41 0.15 0.73 0.50 0.65 0.63 0.76 0.53 0.72 0.24 0.61 1.30 0.28 0.34 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.68 0.37 0.08 0.17 0.60 0.31 0.30 0.07 0.40 0.18 0.42 0.24 0.42 1.67 0.43 0.44 0.27 0.38 0.62 0.26 0.82 0.20 0.23 0.44 0.67 0.32 0.34 0.32 0.48 0. OECD) Row Labels 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States 0.47 1.57 1.47 0.58 0.59 0.68 0.31 0.

60 0.18 0.62 1.74 0.74 0.59 1.33 0.29 1.23 0.62 0.01 1.50 0.02 0.55 1.85 0.27 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.35 0.11 1.58 0.55 1.09 0.60 0.05 0.10 0.25 0.10 0.67 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.52 1.40 1.23 0.76 0.21 0.00 0.01 1.08 0.24 0.53 1.41 0.00 0.46 0.58 0.83 0.26 0.90 0.04 0.20 0.04 0.62 0.02 0.00 0.86 0.12 0.00 0.10 0.44 0.06 0.02 0.22 0.03 0.09 0.25 0.01 0.03 0.30 0.14 1.06 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.13 1.02 0.45 0.02 0.14 0.61 1.10 0.00 1.69 0.29 0.21 0.42 0.85 1.51 0.51 0.01 0.02 0.14 1.51 0.30 0.22 0.04 0.19 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.81 1.01 56 .77 0.38 0.27 0.49 1.28 0.05 0.74 0.12 0.01 0.63 0.06 0.10 0.90 0.24 0.24 0.11 0.58 0.11 0.19 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.67 0.28 0.26 0.44 0.43 0.67 0.24 0.26 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.00 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.08 0.82 0.09 0.27 0.23 0.03 0.63 1.03 0.80 0.08 0.69 0.09 0.11 0.24 0.66 0.18 0. OECD) Row Labels 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia EU Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom United States 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.59 0.51 0.21 0.74 0.25 0.02 0.76 0.28 0.14 1.04 0.09 0.14 0.60 0.89 0.57 0.Table B.01 0.21 1.73 0.43 0.66 0.01 0.22 0.60 0.04 0.02 0.18 0.07 0.23 0.01 0.09 0.20 0.58 1.24 0.69 0.04 0.00 1.06 0.82 0.39 0.03 0.12 0.64 0.23 0.85 0.33 0.22 1.60 0.06 0.84 0.31 0.57 0.21 0.07 0.52 0.09 0.60 0.85 0.85 0.23 0.68 0.05 0.07 0.40 0.15 0.03 0.29 0.20 0.05 0.47 0.05 0.72 0.15 0.00 1.01 0.29 0.20 0.03 0.25 0.64 0.10 1.06 0. National Central banks.33 0.20 0.38 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.55 0.06 0.44 0.31 0.45 0.31 1.23 0.24 0.62 1.05 0.35 0.88 1.83 0.64 0.68 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.70 0.05 0.60 0.18 0.11 0.52 0.32 0.32 0.65 1.32 0.01 1.01 0.84 0.08 0.33 0.40 0.10 0.84 0.74 0.03 0.96 0.20 1.55 0.40 0.18 0.25 1.32 0.01 0.85 0.64 0.08 0.87 0.17 0.15 0.25 0.11 1.58 0.62 1.04 0.47 0.14 0.33 0.46 0.71 0.55 0.42 0.66 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.70 0.05 0.18 0.84 1.66 0.70 0.02 0.05 0.17 1.01 0.25 0.05 0.10 0.40 0.21 0.56 0.23 0.20 0.04 0.44 0.22 0.07 0.01 0.52 1.19 0.24 0.01 0.01 1.41 1.26 0.27 0.27 0.83 0.65 0.12 1.24 0.41 0.05 0.29 0.12 0.43 0.82 0.27 0.30 0.05 0.03 0.24 0.67 0.56 0.00 1.01 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.77 0.22 0.22 0.01 0.25 1.51 1.72 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.02 0.98 0.66 1.12 0.23 0.04 0.39 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.89 0.39 0.10 0.23 0.67 0.02 0.43 0.37 0.01 0.33 0.02 0.06 0.26 0.89 0.30 0.70 0.55 0.40 0.58 0.48 0.60 1.03 0.03 0.04 0.84 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.04 0.01 1.65 0.02 0.02 0.66 1.24 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.37 0.03 0.01 0.50 0.23 1.05 0.07 0.22 0.25 0.17 0.54 0.52 0.25 0.15 0.60 0.13 0.25 0.01 0.16: Household insurance and technical reserves as a fraction of GDP (Source: Eurostat.04 0.69 0.43 1.94 0.04 0.72 0.04 0.46 1.25 0.66 0.02 0.49 0.07 0.01 0.20 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.36 0.66 1.04 0.

67 0.84 1.73 3.59 4.74 0.82 32.72 1.44 1.70 3.85 0.01 5.37 2.08 4.53 2.75 3.61 3.24 3.37 3.52 0.80 25.62 0.18 2.63 32.74 3.02 1.70 3.78 1.31 2.50 3.83 1.27 1.13 0.48 0.80 0.43 0.00 2.98 1.14 5.36 4.62 3.81 1.44 0.97 1.62 4.53 1.04 0.89 0.94 1.42 3.67 1.94 5.24 1.97 2.21 2.48 0.47 0.79 0.91 1.94 3.18 1.98 29.46 3.09 0.58 1.63 1.50 1.82 0.31 3.52 0.98 1.34 1.36 1.38 3.14 8.06 3.62 2.63 2.04 3.19 2.22 1.12 2.15 1.22 0.59 2.86 3.89 0.83 1.00 0.85 2.19 1.51 31.20 2.70 1.27 1.19 3.47 1.09 1.40 2.43 3.04 3.72 30.00 1.22 0.15 4.32 36.50 0.84 5.88 3.77 1.61 0.12 4.06 2.48 0.49 0.37 0.58 0.77 2.04 0.47 0.74 0.29 3.60 1.86 3.34 0.73 3.93 1.24 0.11 2.13 8.69 1.80 1.65 3.65 2.60 0.39 31.20 2.51 0.25 7.84 1.33 2.02 3.29 0.81 2.60 28.00 1.32 4.77 0.34 2.47 0.49 2.74 1.89 1.44 2.65 4.45 0.49 32.23 3.51 3.55 2. Eurostat) Country 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom EU Japan United States 2.17 2.16 1.70 0.77 1.57 3.00 0.27 1.85 3.51 2.88 2.01 0.25 1.70 1.63 3.34 1.88 3.01 1.55 0.15 0.78 3.60 0.60 3.80 0.69 0.08 1.99 3.89 0.22 4.83 3.40 33.74 3.59 2.87 7.90 7.33 32.33 0.61 2.10 7.04 6.35 0.74 1.18 6.83 0.43 2.88 0.89 1.66 2.06 1.13 1.79 2.76 2.36 0. OECD.60 3.54 1.19 2.58 3.69 1.14 1.07 1.75 3.73 0.60 1.97 2.84 1.47 0.02 0.83 1.67 7.28 1.64 0.37 0.54 2.99 1. national central banks.93 2.18 3.36 5.91 0.52 0.66 0.09 1.62 0.33 0.99 3.47 1.10 1.95 1.19 1.03 1.57 2.17 8.95 5.98 2.38 0.44 3.56 2.64 1.67 1.76 5.57 2.30 1.70 3.48 0.56 0.41 3.47 0.92 1.71 3.75 4.18 1.14 2.60 2.41 0.60 1.99 4.24 2.50 3.53 4.09 2.50 0.95 4.62 2.20 1.56 2.21 9.55 2.47 0.13 1.17 2.05 2.96 1.13 2.37 2.36 2.82 57 .55 2.44 0.21 0.26 2.98 2.06 5.34 0.35 1.89 1.70 0.17 4.23 3.48 2.84 3.26 2.01 0.93 3.34 2.67 4.21 4.09 8.58 2.69 0.45 32.79 1.Table B.81 1.26 2.16 4.95 1.71 3.08 8.88 1.82 3.06 1.93 26.76 1.91 0.61 3.21 0.69 0.47 3.09 0.95 1.90 2.70 1.53 2.72 1.65 5.58 1.49 0.89 3.67 2.51 0.59 0.43 2.30 9.57 3.06 3.28 0.55 1.27 5.53 0.98 2.44 2.80 3.08 3.99 3.60 2.26 1.97 2.85 3.20 5.62 1.35 2.40 3.72 2.97 3.00 1.55 2.48 0.13 3.75 3.90 1.37 1.47 31.67 3.02 4.59 0.14 2.41 2.13 2.18 3.91 0.94 0.46 5.96 2.69 0.75 2.18 2.80 1.45 1.88 1.31 1.93 5.50 3.67 1.68 1.50 0.00 1.41 1.56 1.19 1.70 2.54 1.88 1.32 0.47 0.65 2.66 1.19 0.77 3.01 1.83 31.67 0.64 3.62 2.91 0.10 1.61 3.41 1.43 10.49 1.68 2.36 3.90 1.72 4.30 3.69 2.18 1.40 1.54 1.93 1.09 1.19 2.14 4.17: Size banking sector as fraction of GDP (source: ECB.53 1.85 5.21 3.99 0.46 2.49 0.60 0.25 0.46 29.50 0.53 0.09 0.81 0.11 7.39 1.

54 0.53 0.81 0.44 0.38 0.98 0.32 0.67 0.66 0.11 0.54 0.41 0.20 0.31 0.09 1.07 0.47 0.79 0.13 1.36 0.06 0.41 0.02 0.88 0.30 0.10 1.63 1.52 0.95 1.20 0.06 1.70 0.07 2.39 0.39 0.15 0.27 0.39 0.04 0.76 0.10 0.72 0.05 14.10 0.19 0.07 0.69 0.53 0.14 0.38 0.30 0.77 0.12 0.08 0.29 0.11 0.96 0.26 1.04 0.00 0.11 0.09 0.01 0.48 0.09 1.75 0.15 2.12 0.03 0.14 1.66 0.11 0.11 1.77 0.36 0.04 20.15 1.89 1.49 0.93 0.04 0.63 1.48 0.07 0.43 0.03 0.71 0.04 0.63 0.28 0.04 0.06 25.16 0.18 2.22 0.32 0.57 0.55 0.41 0.77 0.13 0.56 1.32 0.42 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.14 4.10 1.95 0.62 0.12 0.97 0.13 0.04 0.47 0.21 0.74 0.69 0.43 1.21 0.64 0.29 2.22 0.20 0.49 0.50 0.46 0.48 0.59 0.38 0.57 0.41 0.37 0.15 0.29 0.36 0.40 0.44 0.15 0.06 0.86 0.11 0.32 0.92 0.28 0.04 0.43 1.08 12.04 0.05 0.23 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.05 1.10 0.93 0.07 0.07 0.38 1.23 0.18 0.17 0.18: Banks’ foreign assets as fraction of GDP (source: BIS locational banking statistics) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden EU United Kingdom United States 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 0.07 0.54 1.13 0.10 0.52 0.58 0.05 0.52 0.17 0.05 3.04 0.10 0.32 0.28 0.53 0.39 0.03 23.21 0.09 0.94 0.20 0.05 0.16 1.75 1.15 0.03 0.51 1.82 0.57 0.04 2.07 0.11 0.09 0.77 0.06 2.84 0.94 0.05 0.07 0.15 0.49 0.14 0.16 0.32 0.33 0.91 0.16 0.03 0.06 3.35 1.07 0.60 1.08 0.38 0.09 0.09 0.20 1.31 0.33 0.08 1.06 2.43 0.60 0.04 0.11 0.49 0.33 0.11 0.78 0.15 0.04 0.37 0.48 0.04 0.54 0.50 0.11 1.08 0.49 1.Table B.17 0.09 0.13 0.72 1.18 0.12 0.11 0.64 0.87 0.55 0.11 0.12 0.33 0.76 0.09 0.81 0.13 4.06 22.22 0.69 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.90 0.44 0.08 0.49 0.04 22.15 0.31 0.09 1.43 0.03 20.24 0.02 24.96 0.58 0.03 0.57 0.43 0.05 25.51 0.24 0.23 0.04 0.14 0.55 0.34 0.23 0.23 2.51 0.26 0.04 0.39 0.17 0.11 3.17 0.40 0.61 1.30 0.53 0.55 0.11 0.02 0.58 0.06 3.43 0.60 1.45 0.08 0.08 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.42 1.08 0.12 0.52 0.30 0.31 0.57 0.06 0.72 0.68 0.24 58 .63 0.41 0.01 0.73 1.29 0.14 0.42 0.22 0.24 0.03 0.16 0.22 0.07 20.09 0.34 0.06 1.09 0.54 0.07 21.58 0.04 0.37 0.24 0.48 0.75 1.29 0.33 0.39 0.03 0.38 0.03 0.04 0.23 0.11 0.34 0.10 0.19 0.22 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.20 1.49 0.44 0.32 0.43 0.86 1.34 0.97 0.90 0.36 0.45 0.01 0.20 0.73 1.21 2.31 0.25 0.61 1.08 0.37 0.88 0.32 0.74 0.55 0.21 2.49 0.16 0.06 3.06 1.14 0.60 0.10 0.79 1.12 0.07 1.37 0.41 0.55 0.20 0.41 1.35 0.24 0.09 0.02 0.28 0.22 0.39 1.05 0.25 2.07 17.17 0.38 0.77 0.47 1.05 0.25 0.04 23.13 3.03 0.43 0.28 0.09 1.15 0.58 0.18 0.44 0.50 1.22 0.06 26.41 0.45 0.06 1.07 0.06 20.10 1.09 0.59 0.05 4.18 1.45 0.00 0.94 0.04 0.68 0.42 0.11 2.12 0.12 0.18 0.27 0.03 0.98 0.27 0.24 0.91 0.07 0.79 0.39 0.03 16.04 0.28 0.08 1.25 0.

cooperative banks.19: Assets of foreign-owned banks.Table B. and listed banks as fraction total banking assets (source: Bankscope) Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden EU United Kingdom United States 2005 26% 31% 63% 7% 90% 20% 74% 81% 8% 19% 11% 55% 51% 3% 2% 76% 75% 63% 32% 72% 15% 81% 79% 25% 2% 1% 2006 21% 31% 70% 8% 91% 19% 71% 79% 8% 13% 10% 56% 47% 3% 2% 76% 75% 70% 32% 73% 15% 88% 85% 24% 2% 1% 21% 12% 25% 13% Foreign Owned 2007 2008 2009 27% 30% 27% 32% 37% 35% 85% 88% 88% 10% 12% 12% 90% 95% 96% 17% 17% 20% 66% 98% 97% 75% 80% 77% 9% 8% 9% 10% 11% 11% 10% 10% 9% 57% 61% 61% 47% 59% 54% 7% 8% 9% 3% 4% 2% 76% 78% 76% 74% 66% 70% 68% 66% 64% 31% 24% 18% 72% 73% 75% 16% 16% 16% 88% 88% 85% 84% 84% 84% 24% 26% 26% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 28% 12% 34% 13% 27% 15% 2010 25% 32% 87% 12% 97% 18% 97% 89% 9% 10% 8% 60% 55% 10% 2% 70% 69% 64% 11% 73% 16% 84% 84% 25% 2% 1% 2011 34% 36% 85% 1% 96% 17% 95% 91% 8% 12% 8% 42% 60% 11% 1% 83% 73% 57% 8% 72% 13% 87% 95% 21% 1% 1% 28% 13% 27% 11% 2005 13% 0% 3% 5% 3% 0% 0% 21% 40% 12% 0% 0% 0% 16% 15% 0% 1% 4% 17% 3% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 0% 20% 0% 1% 2006 15% 0% 3% 4% 4% 0% 0% 21% 41% 16% 0% 0% 0% 19% 17% 0% 1% 4% 17% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 7% 0% 20% 0% 1% 2007 18% 0% 3% 4% 5% 0% 0% 32% 40% 15% 0% 0% 0% 19% 17% 0% 1% 5% 16% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 7% 0% 20% 0% 1% 59 Cooperative 2008 2009 16% 16% 0% 1% 3% 3% 3% 4% 7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 30% 40% 41% 16% 18% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 20% 21% 17% 17% 0% 0% 1% 1% 4% 4% 19% 19% 3% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 3% 6% 6% 0% 0% 22% 22% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2010 17% 0% 3% 3% 7% 0% 0% 19% 42% 16% 0% 0% 0% 23% 18% 0% 1% 3% 23% 3% 3% 0% 0% 4% 6% 0% 22% 0% 1% 2011 13% 0% 5% 0% 8% 0% 0% 16% 43% 16% 1% 0% 0% 20% 18% 0% 0% 3% 25% 3% 0% 0% 0% 4% 4% 0% 25% 0% 1% 2005 19% 59% 17% 61% 20% 67% 0% 18% 38% 15% 87% 32% 26% 53% 53% 8% 10% 60% 45% 88% 46% 23% 44% 22% 57% 93% 45% 57% 47% 2006 20% 59% 16% 60% 21% 67% 0% 20% 40% 34% 86% 35% 28% 55% 59% 7% 10% 49% 43% 85% 45% 25% 47% 22% 54% 90% 46% 52% 54% 2007 23% 60% 16% 61% 20% 69% 0% 11% 43% 37% 85% 35% 28% 69% 60% 7% 8% 54% 43% 82% 47% 24% 46% 22% 53% 92% 50% 61% 57% 2008 22% 50% 14% 61% 21% 69% 0% 8% 38% 41% 85% 33% 24% 72% 62% 6% 8% 56% 49% 80% 49% 24% 46% 22% 49% 94% 48% 60% 65% Listed 2009 23% 51% 14% 66% 20% 65% 0% 10% 45% 39% 85% 36% 27% 71% 65% 7% 10% 58% 43% 83% 49% 23% 41% 22% 50% 92% 51% 65% 67% 2010 25% 53% 16% 68% 20% 68% 0% 10% 44% 41% 86% 37% 26% 76% 65% 9% 11% 59% 52% 82% 49% 25% 41% 23% 62% 93% 53% 64% 71% 2011 39% 50% 24% 75% 24% 72% 0% 8% 44% 61% 91% 58% 28% 78% 67% 10% 17% 69% 52% 91% 57% 34% 47% 26% 68% 93% 58% 66% 73% .

052 1.98 74.80 61.574 1.08 98.13 73.369 158 1.15 55.466 136 954 230 2006 941 1.523 1.010 2.78 57.569 5.36 45.57 77.959 2.171 578 2.19 74.021 1.737 1.84 66.28 38.18 49.108 1.10 56.116 2.139 2.841 1.56 30.11 71.52 12.11 77.40 45.90 12.958 1.27 69.30 42.233 1.001 1.44 70.764 908 1.15 42.74 48.43 60.097 2.639 163 1.24 76.96 59.822 5.31 2009 47.96 64.073 1.05 56.95 43.55 45.75 78.22 70.07 82.49 60.89 96.59 25.746 3.855 612 1.833 3.004 870 1.885 1.13 39.009 911 717 2.135 410 1.16 98.67 57.010 1.27 61.037 954 1.570 1.47 70.64 82.39 48.02 41.67 24.613 4.62 64.38 40.50 57.56 82.30 72.896 3.04 46.04 79.07 2011 62.88 57.005 3.294 1.887 1.63 60.536 1.92 65.38 52.18 44.47 53.362 1.923 930 1.91 53.031 513 1.47 47.358 1.08 38.00 91.92 28.011 2.432 972 2.004 1.964 3.57 82.146 329 HHI 2008 925 2.01 39.69 86.95 82.616 1.529 2.422 636 2.33 78.226 676 2.441 1.62 44.20: Competition measures .525 1.677 770 1.946 2.00 48.39 83.62 77.47 79.327 3.231 992 684 2.01 89.796 956 2.062 384 2010 904 1.67 24.153 1.708 163 1.65 78.563 1.96 13.780 3.836 204 1.89 49.373 662 2.29 72.259 2.173 534 1.17 88.687 5.247 2.73 40.07 72.072 1.477 3.445 1.34 76.555 884 1.69 2006 46.25 41.96 43.43 59.83 74.48 43.88 78.511 1.394 2.860 1.822 929 2.725 1.07 62.192 6.37 48.435 878 1.65 59.692 1.307 1.81 46.53 19.435 1.032 1.484 2.45 60.539 1.04 52.86 73.283 2.16 70.417 1.80 53.62 29.210 1.01 56.83 40.03 78.840 2.26 100.670 722 1.21 35.615 1.032 418 2011 1.143 386 2009 872 1.109 432 2.790 1.01 28.29 59.179 3.457 1.03 43.07 96.21 46.47 51.56 53.037 1.60 60.62 70.462 1.89 37.76 75.478 1.351 639 1.47 82.75 89.677 3.161 2.286 1.93 11.40 40.48 52.652 851 1.28 73.91 85. 60 .53 83.753 1.868 3.70 11.931 1.516 1.81 40.45 60.99 2007 49.604 6.54 47.100 993 1.878 1.71 49.63 92.090 785 1.058 2.46 65.28 98.387 1.493 2.80 56.523 1.76 71.28 76.717 1.57 65.24 71.Table B.352 1.96 2005 1.918 2.00 79.23 30.36 55.14 43.44 50.824 2.831 1.18 49.503 5.230 132 820 296 2007 1.C3 and HHI (source: Bankscope)19 Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden EU United Kingdom United States 19 2005 51.322 1.71 2010 47.76 58.02 71.79 72.02 98.355 846 413 1.507 1.02 80.12 39.618 152 1.04 57.26 40.15 64.82 49.814 3.13 41.76 53.81 72.88 10.995 1.71 39.039 1.104 890 757 1.47 58.02 72.11 44.26 30.564 1.87 31.71 68.12 67.19 84.410 2.537 6.83 58.80 22.65 52.26 58.62 C3 2008 48.37 75.88 10.125 798 1.84 60.75 60.59 40.11 69.585 1.882 8.73 49.06 32.74 42. All values constructed using Bankscope data.093 422 C3 equals the aggregate size of the 3 largest banks relative to the size of all banks.42 64.56 66.53 69.503 1.71 58.03 56.56 40.365 662 2.16 53.45 51.84 56. HHI is the sum of per-bank market share squared.56 56.873 1.91 54.55 71.78 49.153 2.662 2.216 1.20 55.44 72.412 2.82 51.608 3.

10 1.95 2.56 2.99 1.70 0.14 60.75 -1.91 66.08 86.50 1.37 50.81 0.48 43.12 63.95 46.44 0.04 2.50 57.94 5.56 59.95 0.43 1.65 47.34 1.90 1.83 2.29 0.70 0.68 39.98 3.01 68.60 49.76 Defined as net income over total assets .11 1.08 60.01 -0.17 0.06 4.69 0.68 55.15 2.73 56.19 66.48 0.81 1.50 0.43 1.25 55.91 48.48 0.25 56.10 68.00 0.74 1.42 69.66 66.73 0.54 53.97 2.35 61.25 66.16 0.82 1.07 1.41 59.96 0.09 Net Interest Margin 2010 0.41 0.88 61.20 0.17 -0.47 56.74 52.89 1.72 2.87 55.23 1. Net Interest Margin21.61 53.30 1.53 0.46 42.01 1.20 58.99 1.34 48.11 0.52 0.21 28.41 0.24 2.83 1.60 47.43 1.95 1.89 0.57 66.23 60.81 59.99 57.72 49.88 2.16 68.54 0.96 62.58 1.25 -0.27 3.45 111.05 2.36 51.43 57.33 0.29 1.38 68.14 0.07 4.57 2.01 3.24 0.42 74.25 54.83 0.29 1.04 0.21: Profitability .79 1.41 0.34 1.07 1.09 47.16 0.18 55.32 82.22 2.96 -4.11 4.49 55.90 1.data2080 / data2010 22 Defined as overheads over net interest revenue plus other operating income .53 1.58 39.91 -0.80 1.69 72.06 1.18 1.26 -4.09 1.98 5.82 0.34 4.96 64.44 0.92 52.09 1.05 2.44 0.59 74.81 1.08 1.97 0.86 .68 55.25 1.32 47.45 59.13 0.19 -0.00 5.26 2.10 1.12 2006 0.16 -9.44 0.08 2007 0.57 1.14 1.63 51.51 92.52 1.96 64.12 -3.35 -0.57 1.16 0.16 2.02 69.data2090 / (data2080 + data2085) 21 61 2011 2.80 68.42 1.85 69.19 37.85 33.30 -0.26 -0.79 0.80 50.03 0.45 1.31 2.30 1.94 78.23 0.03 2.10 57.92 0.56 63.14 0.52 0.53 2.57 1.28 1.09 52.12 1.41 0.06 0.79 1.51 -0.44 0.25 61.49 78.10 0.37 1.22 0.26 2009 0.79 1.39 -0.58 2.55 50.61 65.19 57.84 62.79 1.51 43.01 1.65 1.51 56.36 0.16 1.41 2007 1.30 60.36 0.19 2.14 53.01 53.32 0.75 71.35 82.97 4.26 1.56 1.70 1.62 0.36 0.35 0.78 70.24 0.28 1.87 1.18 54.42 66.11 -0.15 0.26 2.96 0.16 2007 60.35 0.03 1.91 39.55 2.53 0.61 66.82 0.74 1.68 1.36 2011 58.86 3.28 2.14 0.87 2.11 1.87 78.40 167.60 0.21 1.70 0.63 50.02 2.51 69.09 -0.51 1.70 2006 1.48 61.66 2.79 4.06 0.35 0.70 55.41 1.09 1.53 0.82 1.17 1.00 57.54 67.12 1.27 1.34 54.60 63.24 4.75 0.15 1.27 0.45 -0.30 0.25 0.82 1.38 61.51 2.32 4.23 1.00 1.88 1.56 0.77 2.39 0.31 93.54 1.35 0.03 52.73 64.14 1.12 1.54 0.12 56.27 1.29 0.18 -2.24 54.43 3.62 75.20 53.22 2006 60.90 0.66 2005 1.20 65.45 62.20 0.09 0.46 3.71 0.18 1.00 49.94 0.99 61.70 67.10 60.18 -0.14 0.86 3.96 1.22 2.67 1.22 48.07 2.34 70.83 1.31 57.08 3. Cost to income ratio22 (source: Bankscope) pre-tax ROA Austria Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Japan Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden EU United Kingdom United States 2005 0.25 50.92 53.00 0.14 48.51 64.61 63.97 53.92 58.05 2.21 2.45 2.68 57.59 0.02 1.37 3.70 62.86 2.26 55.85 71.62 2.72 46.15 0.51 66.36 0.43 0.66 66.15 -3.97 53.47 0.73 1.03 3.55 1.79 1.26 2.87 1.22 0.89 57.04 75.92 60.23 -0.Table B.00 0.63 2.18 -0.44 52.27 0.02 2.00 3.06 50.09 2.data2115 / data2025 Defined as net interest revenue over total earning assets .35 4.91 1.28 37.38 64.95 51.53 52.29 0.00 0.45 1.34 1.02 1.90 60.04 3.07 5.67 0.15 2.51 56.32 60.35 1.97 55.75 55.75 2.59 38.68 70.13 0.68 58.16 1.29 20 2008 2.38 2009 57.90 53.07 3.94 46.51 2.35 2.16 0.54 1.12 0.06 1.92 57.23 44.67 70.49 1.11 4.58 0.57 64.31 1.58 0.95 4.48 -0.45 1.44 -0.64 5.83 79.71 64.20 0.65 1.66 0.58 0.03 4.62 2.33 1.00 3.94 0.72 1.26 2.27 66.14 1.74 57.40 61.71 2.81 4.41 1.69 0.92 1.77 0.54 1.86 0.71 1.17 1.99 1.17 68.18 0.31 46.71 0.35 5.42 46.21 2010 56.28 3.88 1.23 1.14 52.54 0.22 2.26 0.78 2.21 1.36 0.75 0.46 62.55 59.73 55.68 1.41 0.53 55.24 61.78 1.59 2005 63.73 2.51 62.46 1.43 0.85 62.15 0.54 2011 0.12 44.22 3.85 3.36 2.65 0.91 0.14 0.13 1.20 1.94 65.54 68.32 82.24 61.70 0.20 1.53 51.65 2008 0.02 3.68 0.13 2.87 1.64 0.33 2.38 51.02 2.82 1.14 44.61 63.64 35.29 0.27 67.75 0.59 0.17 0.86 0.63 0.64 62.pre-tax ROA20.73 44.85 53.04 0.33 0.86 1.54 3.08 1.51 2009 2.21 0.49 41.65 5.76 1.48 0.34 1.85 2.79 0.62 3.84 0.43 53.04 0.18 1.85 0.47 1.90 51.65 1.32 61.78 Cost to income ratio 2010 2.29 65.50 1.65 1.52 70.17 2008 65.91 61.81 3.18 2.15 1.35 -0.37 48.12 0.12 1.99 0.25 3.91 0.