Enhancing bank performance through branches or representative offices? Evidence from European banks

We investigate the impact of geographic integration and the level of multinationality by expansion as a foreign branch or representative office on the parent bank performance of 45 European banks during 2000–2007. We use breadth and depth to proxy for the level of multinationality in measuring a parent bank performance. We find that for foreign expansion as a branch, both dimensions (breadth and depth) have a positive impact on a bank's return on assets (ROA). For return on equity (ROE) and Tobin's Q, only depth is positively associated with a bank's ROE while breadth is positively correlated with a bank's Tobin's Q. However, the impact from expansion as a representative office is different; breadth and depth only have a positive impact on bank ROA performance in one of the six models. In terms of cost control, a representative office strategy is better able to control costs than a branching strategy. The model goodness of fit statistics suggest that variables associated with branching better explain the performance variables than similar variables associated with representative offices in terms of profitability. The results are opposite for net interest margin and cost ratio. Overall, our findings suggest that a branching strategy is a more effective strategy in enhancing a bank's profitability while a representative office strategy controls costs better.

► Use the “breadth” and “depth” to study bank performance in branch and representative office expansion.
► For foreign expansion as a branch, both breadth and depth have a positive impact on a bank's ROA.
► Depth is positively associated with a bank's ROE while breadth is positively correlated with a bank's Tobin's Q.
► Branching is a more effective strategy in enhancing a bank's performance than using representative offices.