Jonathan Haskel Annarosa Pesole Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London Productivity and Innovation in UK Financial Services: An Intangible Assets Approach

Financial services innovation Important –In what other industry has innovation destroyed all of Western capitalism? Innovation: controversial –Greenspan: very innovative, vg –Buffet: very innovative: vb –Volcker: only one useful innovation in financial services in 30 years Empirical studies of financial services innovation –Cohen (1995) survey of innovation books and articles = 357 Of which, referring to financial services = –Thin on the ground: Frame/White JEcLit review, Pre 1998: : 23

What is bank output? Production function studies Elyasiani and Mehdian (1990a, 1990b): output = loans input = deposits Berger and Humphrey (1992), Prasad and Harker (1997) output = (deposits + loans)

If we are not sure about output, try some other measures… Patents in financial services –UK: 0 –US: Lerner (2002) Feb71-Feb2000, 445 Of which, in universities: 4 (Coca Cola alone has 800 patents) R&D –UK: BERD R&D intensity Furniture manufacturing = 0.3% Finance = 0.02% –US: Lerner (2006), R&D in Citibank accounts, =0

Studies of financial innovation Categorisation of innovations, Frame White (2004) –new products (e.g., subprime mortgages) or services (e.g., ATM, debit and pre-paid cards and internet banking for transactions). –new production processes e.g. credit scoring, electronic processing –new organizational forms (e.g., Internet-only banks). Innovation counts of new products –Lerner (2002), new products via search for news stories in WSJ, Case studies

Studies of financial innov’n, contd Tufano (1989) –58 financial innovations, , innovative corporate or mortgage- backed securities, from literature searches or industry experts. Findings –Developing a new financial product requires “an investment of $50,000 to $5 million, which includes (a) payments for legal, accounting, regulatory, and tax advice, (b) time spent educating issuers, investors, and traders, (c) investments in computer systems for pricing and trading, and (d) capital and personnel commitments to support market-making. –In addition, investment banks that innovate typically pay $1 million annually to staff product development groups with two to six bankers.”. –Imitation of innovation very fast: the mean number of days until a rival entered with an imitative product was 77.6 days and 35 of the products surveyed were imitated within a year of initial marketisation.

Implications of innovation findings for growth accounting Spillovers important –Fast entry Tufano (1989), no patents (Lerner, 2002). –Needs a framework which accommodates this, TFP Innovation requires upfront investment wider than R&D –product development (which might be thought of as “R&D” in a manufacturing context) –but also marketing, Software Training of staff –not captured by reported R&D Innovation in organisational form Importance of IT, –hardware and –software

Intangible approach to innovation Intangible capital is knowledge capital from spending on knowledge Knowledge spending categories –R&D (measured in practice as scientific) Plus –Software –Design and non-R&D product development –Branding and reputation –Firm-provided human capital –Organisational capital Headings resonate with case studies Rest of talk –Measurement –Results and implications of growth accounting

Output measurement

Output of a bank Two views –Provision of finance: taking the supply of loanable funds e.g. from rural areas, to the demand in cities. Underlies production function view loans= f(deposits) –Provision of financial services: Safekeeping, transactions services Loan services: screening Transfer of risk How to measure services? Priced Unpriced

Measuring unpriced services to borrowers A bank/ financial intermediary must –offer depositors implicitly priced services, S D, –In return that deposit their money Y D, for one period and earn r DEP –Alternative: put it elsewhere at market return to depositors of r M, D. –Arbitrage condition –Y D t-1 (1+r MKT, D ) = S D t + Y D t (1+r DEP ) –So: –S D = Y D (r MKT,DEP -r DEP +  D )

Implicit services to lenders Similar arbitrage condition –Y L t-1 (1+r MKT, L ) = -S L t + Y L t (1+r L ) –S L = Y L (r L -r MKT,L +  L ) So total value of bank services is V E +S L + S D =V E +Y D (r MKT,DEP -r DEP +  D )+Y L (r L -r MKT,L +  L ) –Implications Collect data on directly charged services Implicit charge inferred from margins –Deflators UK uses GDP deflator, but adjusted for productivity

Inputs in financial services

Spending on R&D Method –follow own-account software method –pick “knowledge occupations” from labour force data in financial services –Spending = (wage bill X overheads X fraction of time on research) Knowledge occupations –Informed by interviews with banks on occupational classification of new product developers –Broad headings Researchers (new products) Software (new software) Managers (organisational investment)

“R&D” spend in fin’l services 1.Software and manage spend dominates researcher spend, other very small. Suggests software and organisational capital likely important? 2.BERD look to understate R&D spend. 3.Relative to other sectors big ticket items in financial services are 1.Software 2.Organisational capital

Financial services, excluding intangibles –Capital deepening about 10% of FinSv LPG –Much Cap deepening from tangible ICT = hardware, accords with case studies –higher TFPG = most innovative? –TFPG/LPG= 48%, not much one can say about innovation, unless its all free knowledge spillovers

Financial services, including intangibles –Cap deepening now 25% of LPG, up from 10% –Capital deepening ½ tang and ½ intang –FinSvs still has highest TFPG –TFPG/LPG= 29%, down from 48% without intang

Conclusion Relatively little work on financial services (patents, R&D absent) –What there is suggests: Knowledge spillovers important New financial products need investment and co-investment in –Training –IT (software, hardware) –Marketing New organisational forms seem important e.g. internet only banks. Suggests investment in organisational capital Intangibles framework –Calculates “wider” knowledge spending –Many measurement issues but results so far suggest: Using this approach changes TFPG from around 50% of LPG to 31% of LPG Raises capital deepening in financial services from 10% of LPG to 25% of LPG –½ of that capital deepening is hardware –½ is intangibles, of which 1/3 rd software, 1/3 rd organisational investment Future work –Better measures of intangible investment, deflators, depreciation etc. –TFP with imperfect competition

Spares

Intangible spend 1.Emp’t and value added: fin svcs = ¼ to ½ size of manufacturing 2.Intangibles 1.Software, branding: fin svcs spends more or equal to manufacturing. Note 2006 software. 2.Org capital: fin svcs = ¾ of manufacturing 3.Training, design, R&D: figures more in proportion with manufacturing.

Research occupations (and 2008 employment) Researchers (33,012) –“management consultants, actuaries, economists and statisticians” –Design and development engineers –Scientific researchers –Social Science researchers –Researchers nec Other researchers” (5,042) –engineers –Bio scientists, chemists Note we exclude SOC group 3, “financial technicians (brokers, analysts, adviser, etc)”, interviews show they do mostly sales Software: follow ONS data (40,619) Management (288, 224) –Bought in: consulting –Own account “Financial Institution Managers” described as workers who “..plan, organise, direct and co-ordinate the activities and resources of banks, building societies, insurance companies and post offices”.

“R&D” spend in fin’l services 1.Base case: 1.6 overheads, 50% researcher time, 20% manag time, ONS software 2.Software and manage spend dominates researcher spend, other very small. Suggests software and organisational capital likely important? 3.DIUS scoreboard/BERD look to understate R&D spend.

Intangible spend 1.Emp’t and value added: fin svcs = ¼ to ½ size of manufacturing 2.Intangibles 1.Software, branding: fin svcs spends more or equal to manufacturing. Note 2006 software. 2.Org capital: fin svcs = ¾ of manufacturing 3.Training, design, R&D: figures more in proportion with manufacturing.

Financial services, excluding intangibles –Much Cap deepening from tangible ICT = hardware, accords with case studies –higher TFPG = most innovative? –TFPG/LPG= 48%, not much one can say about innovation, unless its all free knowledge spillovers

Financial services, including intangibles –Cap deepening almost equal between tang and intang –FinSvs still has highest TFPG –TFPG/LPG= 29%, down from 48% without intang

Intangible capital contribution by asset Of intang capital deepening: 1/3rd software 1/3rd organisational

Conclusion Subject: innovation, productivity and total factor productivity in financial services revisited –Relatively little work on financial services (patents, R&D absent) –What there is suggests: Knowledge spillovers important New financial products need investment in development but also co-investment in –Training –IT (software, hardware) –Marketing New organisational forms seem important e.g. internet only banks. Suggests investment in organisational capital Chosen method –Extended growth accounting –Calculating “wider” knowledge spending –software, training, marketing and organisational capital –Many measurement issues but results so far suggest: Using this approach changes TFPG from around 50% of LPG to 31% of LPG Raises capital deepening in financial services from 10% of LPG to 25% of LPG –½ of that capital deepening is hardware –½ is intangibles, of which 1/3 rd software, 1/3 rd organisational investment Future work –Better measures of intangible investment, deflators, depreciation etc. –TFP with imperfect competition

Output in fin svcs Financial intermediaries: mostly banks

Output of a bank Two views –Provision of finance: taking the supply of loanable funds e.g. from rural areas, to the demand in cities. Underlies production function view loans= f(deposits) –Provision of financial services: Safekeeping Transactions services Loan services: screening, Transfer of risk –Underlies theory of banking: banks exist »To provide safeguarding services »because asym infor prevents savers lending directly to borrowers

Output of bank, contd Usually we measure value by revenues generated e.g. sales of airtickets. Main problem here: banks don’t charge explicitly for many services e.g. “Free” banking So empirical question is to get value from implicit charges. Total value is explicit + implicit service charges to lenders and depositors V=VEXP+ SL+SD

Implicit services to borrowers A bank/ financial intermediary must –offer its depositors a flow of implicitly priced services, S D, –induce them to deposit their money Y D, for a period with the bank –not put it elsewhere at market return to depositors of r M, D. –Arbitrage condition –Y D t-1 (1+r MKT, D ) = S D t + Y D t (1+r DEP ) –Where rDEP is the interest, which may be zero, offered by the bank to the depositors. Hence we can write the implicitly value of services offered to depositors SD as –S D = Y D (r MKT,DEP -r DEP +  D )

Implicit services to lenders Similar arbitrage condition –Y L t-1 (1+r MKT, L ) = -S L t + Y L t (1+r L ) –S L = Y L (r L -r MKT,L +  L ) So total value of bank services is V E +S L + S D =V E +Y D (r MKT,DEP -r DEP +  D )+Y L (r L -r MKT,L +  L )

Value of bank services total value of bank services is V E +S L + S D =V E +Y D (r MKT,DEP -r DEP +  D )+Y L (r L -r MKT,L +  L ) Points –Production function literature: are deposits/loans inputs or outputs? Neither, but value of services related to them –National Accounts approach Define FISIM= Y D (r F -r DEP )+Y L (r L -r F ), r F = risk-free SNA1993/post BB2008, Nat Accounts value bank svcs = V E + FISIM Reconclies with approach here if –Capital gains zero –r MKT is risk-free rate »Fine if bank can obtain its funds to lend at risk-free rate and depositors face r F as alternative to depositing »If banks raises money from shareholders, then shareholders have to take risk, so banks have to pay for that. Hence FISIM overstates services to lenders because that margin also includes payments to shareholders

Volume of financial services Some volumes collected directly e.g. insurance policies written FISIM deflated by GDP deflator V E = payments for explicit services, deflated by –financial services average earnings index –excluding bonuses –adjusted for productivity In the data, 32% of sector J is deflated by this adjustment then everything else constant, real output in J grows by 0.27%pa

Growth accounting Purpose: investigate innovation in a structured way –Innovation can be defined any way: we suggest effect on growth of commercialisation of new knowledge New knowledge comes from own investment and spillovers of knowledge Innovation = contribution of new knowledge to growth + TFPG Without intang = With intangibles

To measure Nominal investment data on tangibles and intang’s Perpetual inventory assumption Needs deprecation and deflators Rental price of assets from user-cost of capital theory plus profit exhaustion assumption

To measure, contd Adjust GDP for intangibles –Intangibles used to be intermediates, now are investment –We have seen that income side rises, with extra (rental) payments for this income –And GDP on output side rises with extra investment Allow for labour quality