Test results of crosssectional dependence.
Abstract
In this study, the longrun relation among credit expansion and liquidity risk was analyzed by using data of 20 banks in Turkish banking sector for the period 2014.Q1–2017.Q4. In the analysis, dynamic panel cointegration methodology which depends on crosssectional dependence and homogeneity was adopted in order to determine whether there is a longrun relation between variables. As a result of the cointegration analysis, a longrun relation was found between liquidity risk and credit expansion. Also, the result indicates that credit expansion positively affects liquidity risk. This result suggests that the banks may constrain their credit growth in the long term in order to decrease liquidity risk.
Keywords
 panel data models
 financial econometrics
 banks
 financial risk
 risk management
 cointegration analysis
1. Introduction
Liquidity risk, which is an important measure of the bank’s success in the long run, is the ability to pay liabilities and swap debts when needed. Banks should keep optimal liquid assets to meet their loan activities, investments, and depositors’ demands on time and adequately. In this respect, banks try to balance this situation. As a result, the bank is exposed to liquidity risk. Thanks to the liquidity risk management, it is ensured that banks continue their effectiveness against new risks that may arise due to changes in the operating environment or increases in the current risk level [1]. On the other hand, credit is the debt given to real persons and corporations within the framework of contracts. It is one of the important financial instruments that cause economic growth by gaining investors’ savings to the economy and increasing private consumption expenditures [2].
Total amount of credits given by the Turkish banking sector have been increasing rapidly in the last decade. This situation was shown in Figure 1. However, there is a risk that the bank loan client is not able to meet the obligations of the agreement. In this case, it is expected that there will be a decrease in the income and capital of banks and an increase in expenses and losses [3].
Banks should have liquid funds in their hands in order to meet their credit activities on time and adequately. If they do not hold this fund, the liquidity risk will increase. Increasing liquidity risk will increase financial vulnerability and economic instability. Therefore, in this study, the longterm relationship between credit expansion and liquidity risk is investigated with a panel cointegration analysis. The rest of this study is organized as follows. In the second section, literature on credit expansion is given. The third section introduces the data set and variables used in this study. The fourth section examines the results of the econometric method used, and the last section concludes.
2. Literature on credit expansion
Credits can have positive and negative effects on the economy. For this purpose, studies conducted on credit expansion in Turkey were examined. Orhangazi explored the relation between capital inflows and credit expansion by using logit model. According to the findings, net private capital flows effect positively credit expansion by controlling other determinants [4]. Kara et al. made a crosscountry comparison of credit growth by calculating a ratio of net credit use with respect to national income. They suggested a stable ratio of net credit relative to GDP that decreases slowly credit growth in the longterm period [5]. Kılıç examined relation between consumer credits and current account deficit. Time series methodology was adopted in order to find longrun dynamics. The study’s results indicate one way Granger causality between consumer credits and current account deficit [6]. Karahan and Uslu analyzed relationship between credits extended by deposit banks to the private sector and current accounts deficit by using ARDL approach within time series framework. They found longterm relationship between variables [7]. Güneş and Yıldırım analyzed longrun relationship between credit expansion and current account deficit by using Johansen cointegration test. The results indicate existence of cointegration relation between vehicle and corporate loans and current account deficit [8]. Kılıç and Torun studied causality relation between consumer credits and inflation by using Granger causality test. The findings of the study gave evidence on twoway Granger causality relation between individual credit cards and inflation [9]. Köroğlu analyzed relation between credit expansion and current account deficit by using Granger causality test. He found oneway causality relation that credit expansion causes current account deficit [10]. Varlık investigated the effect of net and gross capital inflows and their components on credit boom by using logit model. The findings addressed that net and gross foreign direct investment inflows are negatively correlated with credit boom [11].
There is an extensive literature in Turkey examining the impact of credit expansion on macroeconomic factors. However, there is no study investigating the effect of credit expansion on liquidity risk by directly considering banks. The aim of this study is to fill this gap in the literature by using the panel data approach.
3. Data
This study examines longrun relation among liquidity risk and credit expansion. For this purpose, quarterly panel data was used in order to conduct analysis. Selected variables of 20 Turkish banks from 2014.Q1 to 2017.Q4 were obtained from the database of The Banks Association of Turkey in order to calculate liquidity risk and credit expansion from banks’ balance sheet. The banks used in the study can be analyzed in three different groups. These are stateowned deposit banks, privateowned deposit banks, and foreign banks. Halkbank, Ziraat Bank, and Vakıf Bank were taken as stateowned deposit banks. Akbank, Fibabank, Şekerbank, Turkish Bank, Turkish Economy Bank, İş Bank, and Yapı Kredi Bank were used as privateowned deposit banks. Alternatif Bank, Arab Turkish Bank, Burgan Bank, Denizbank, ICBC Turkey Bank, ING Bank, QNB Finansbank, and Garanti BBVA Bank were taken as foreign banks. These banks constitute the units of the panel data set.
In this study, the ratio of the difference of loans and receivables from deposits to total assets was used as a measure of liquidity risk (
The increase in credits, which causes an increase in production, income, exports, and profits of the financial sector, is expressed as credit expansion. Credit expansion (
4. Methodology
The main purpose of this study is to explore longrun relationship among liquidity risk and credit expansion in the Turkish banking sector. This study adopts dynamic panel econometric methodology. It consists of four steps. First, the crosssectional dependence of the units (banks) is investigated with the Pesaran CDLM test developed by Pesaran [14]. Second, Delta tests are applied to analyze whether the parameters change according to the units. Third, CIPS panel unit root test developed by Pesaran [15] is used to determine order of the integration of the variables. Finally, panel cointegration test developed by Westerlund [16] is conducted in order to explore the existence of the longrun relationship among the variables. In this section, theoretical background of methodology is explained.
4.1 Investigation of crosssectional dependence
One of the important concepts that affects the choice of method to be used in dynamic panel data analysis is interunits correlation. The interunits correlation, in other words, crosssectional dependence is the simultaneous correlation of series that may occur due to excluded, observed common factors, spatial spillover effects, and all common effects observed or not observed [17].
Model for panel data analysis can be written as in Eq. (3) [18]:
where
The null hypothesis (
Rejecting the null hypothesis shows existence of the crosssectional dependence. Pesaran [14] proposed a simple crosssectional dependence test that can be applied to heterogeneous panel series with both stationary and unit roots [14]. The test statistic,
where
4.2 Investigation of homogeneity
Homogeneity means that constant and slope parameters do not change according to the units. Delta test which is an extension of Swamy S test is used to test homogeneity of parameters in this study. The purpose of the Swamy S test is to explore whether there is a difference between OLS estimator and weighted average matrices of within estimator. OLS estimator does not take into account panel structure of units. Conversely, within estimator considers panelspecific estimates with weighted average of parameters.
The null hypothesis of Swamy S test is
Test statistic of Swamy [21] can be written as Eq. (5):
Pesaran and Yamagata [22] developed Swamy test by two different test statistics [22]. These two statistics differ according to the size of sample. They are delta (
in which
4.3 Investigation of unit roots
The first factor to be considered in panel unit root tests is whether the units forming the panel are correlated to each other. According to the existence of correlation between units, panel unit root tests are divided into two as first and secondgeneration tests. Levin et al., Harris and Tzavalis, Breitung and Hadri are firstgeneration unit root tests that do not take into account crosssectional dependence [24, 25, 26, 27]. In these tests, all units are assumed to have a common autoregressive parameter. However, an autoregressive parameter changing according to the units is a more realistic approach. The secondgeneration unit root tests have been developed for this purpose. They deal with crosssectional dependence in three different ways. First, firstgeneration unit root tests were transformed by reducing the correlation between the units by taking the difference from the crosssectional averages, but unable to eliminate some types of correlation. As a result, these versions of tests are not used much in the literature [28]. Second, there are panel unit root tests such as the multivariate augmented DickeyFuller (MADF) panel unit root test and seemingly unrelated augmented DickeyFuller (SURADF) panel unit root test based on system estimation [29, 30, 31, 32]. Third, there are panel unit root tests that eliminate crosssectional dependence by modeling it via common factor [15, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].
In this study, since the crosssectional dependence was determined among the banks forming the panel, the stationarity of the series was tested by using the secondgeneration panel unit root tests. Crosssectionally augmented Im, Pesaran, and Shin (CIPS) unit root test developed by Pesaran [15] was used to in order to determine stationarity of the series. CIPS unit root test is an extension of Im, Pesaran, and Shin (2003) unit root test. This method adds crosssectional averages of the lagged series and first differences of series as factors to DF or ADF regression to eliminate correlation between units [15]. Dynamic heterogenous panel data model without autocorrelation is as Eq. (9).
where
in which
The unit root hypothesis of interest is:
where
4.4 Investigation of longrun relationship
Cointegration is the longrun equilibrium relationship between the variables despite permanent shocks affecting the system. Panel cointegration tests were developed to investigate longrun relationship in the panel data. They can be divided into two according to the existence of crosssectional dependence. Firstgeneration panel cointegration tests (Kao (1999); Pedroni (1999, 2004); McCoskey and Kao (1998); [16]) do not take into account correlation between units, while secondgeneration tests [16] with bootstrapping critical values (Gengenbach, Urbain and Westerlund (2016)) do. In this study, Westerlund [16] cointegration test was used to investigate longrun relationship between variables.
Westerlund [16] is an errorcorrection based panel cointegration test. In the test, the presence of longrun relationship is explored by deciding whether each unit has its own error correction [16]. So rejecting hypothesis of interest shows that there is not error correction and it means absence of the longrun relationship between variables. Error correction model is shown in Eq. (14) [41]:
Eq. (14) can be rewritten as below:
where
in which
The rejection of the hypothesis of interest (
where
5. Empirical results
The aim of this study is to examine the longterm relationship between liquidity risk and credit expansion for the period from 2014.Q1 to 2017.Q4 using data from 20 banks in the Turkish banking sector. Since biased results can be obtained due to correlation between units forming panel data, the presence of crosssectional dependence should be tested first. In this context, the presence of crosssectional dependence of residuals obtained from error correction model and crosssectional dependence of the liquidity risk and credit expansion variables were tested by Pesaran [14] CD test. The test results are given in Table 1.
LR  CE  Model  

Statistic  pValue  Statistic  pValue  Statistic  pValue  
CD [14]  3.88  0.000  3.84  0.000  0.54  0.589 
According to the results represented in Table 1, the null hypothesis of crosssectional dependence test states no correlation between units. There is enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis at 1% significance level for variables. It means that secondgeneration unit root tests are more appropriate in order to decide whether variables are stationary or not. However, test result for the residuals obtained from error correction model fails to reject the null hypothesis at any significance level. This result provides support for presence of crosssectional independence in the error correction model. In this case, firstgeneration panel cointegration tests should be used. Westerlund [16] was chosen to explore longrun dynamics. However, Homogeneity tests should be realized before applying Westerlund [16]. If panel is homogenous then Westerlund’s [16] results are valid. For this purpose, Pesaran and Yamagata [22] homogeneity test was applied to error correction model. Test results are given in Table 2.
Statistic  pValue  


−0.417  0.676 

−0.590  0.555 
There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis of homogeneity tests at any significance level with respect to results presented in Table 2. The results indicate strong evidence for homogeneity of slope coefficients. Therefore, Westerlund [16] is suitable to explore cointegration relation if variables are nonstationary. Pesaran [15] CIPS unit root test was used in order to examine stationarity of variables. Table 3 reports results of the CIPS unit root test for level and first difference of variables.
The test results in Table 3 fail to reject the null hypothesis of CIPS unit root test in level of all variables. This result gives evidence of nonstationarity of variables. It means that a shock in the economy has permanent effect on liquidity risk and credit expansion. However, the results provide support for stationarity of variables after differencing them. Liquidity risk and credit expansion are integrated of order 1 (I(1)). Due to integration level of variables, panel cointegration relation can be analyzed. Selection of appropriate panel cointegration method depends on crosssectional dependence and homogeneity of residuals. Westerlund [16] cointegration test was chosen due to homogeneity and crosssectional independence of residuals. Westerlund’s [16] null hypothesis indicates that there is not longterm relation between variables. Four statistics were calculated in Westerlund [16]. Test results were given in Table 4.
Test statistic  Test value  zValue  pValue 


−2.943  −5.785  0.000 

−14.235  −5.804  0.000 

−10.502  −3.857  0.000 

−7.343  −2.912  0.002 
Westerlund [16] cointegration test results show rejection of the null hypothesis for all statistics. It points out that there is a longterm relationship between liquidity risk and credit expansion. Since the variables are cointegrated, longrun relationship can be estimated. Eq. (18) was estimated by the PDOLS estimation method developed by Kao and Chiang [42] in order to investigate the effect of credit expansion on liquidity risk in the long run. The estimation results were given in Table 5.
The Wald statistics in Table 5 is significant at 1% level. It means that model is generally significant. The estimated parameter is the longterm parameter and it is statistically significant at 1% level. Therefore, the credit expansion affects the liquidity risk in the long run. This means that 1% increase in credit expansion increases liquidity risk by 1.31%.
6. Conclusion
Banks convert shortterm assets received from depositors to longterm debt for borrowers. Therefore, banks try to maximize their expected profits by considering the risks that may arise from their activities. The concept of risk here is the state of uncertainty, which is uncertain but effective on institutional goals. Liquidity risk is one of the important risks faced by banks. Therefore, many studies on liquidity risk have been conducted in the literature. However, while assets and liabilities are two important components that constitute a bank’s balance sheet, a panel study investigating longrun relation between credit expansion and liquidity risk has not been conducted in Turkey. This study aims to fill this gap in the literature. Panel cointegration approach was adopted in order to explore longrun dynamics. First, two important factors in panel methodology which are crosssectional dependence and homogeneity were investigated properly. Pesaran [14] CD test was applied to the variables and error correction model in order to decide whether there is a crosssectional dependence between units. The null hypothesis of Pesaran [14] CD test which states that there is a dependence between units was rejected for the variables, while it was not rejected for the model. It indicates that there is no crosssectional dependence in the residuals of error correction model. Similarly, Delta test for large and small samples were conducted in order to determine homogeneity. The null hypothesis of homogeneity was not rejected. It indicates homogeneity of constant and slope coefficients. This result shapes dynamic panel methodology structure of the study. While there is an evidence on crosssectional dependence in the variables, crosssectionally augmented ImPesaranShin panel unit root test was used to determine integration level of variables. One of the strengths of this test is that it takes the crosssectional averages of the lagged levels and first differences of the individual series instead of taking difference from the estimated common factors. According to the test results, variables were found to be nonstationary. Since the first order difference of both variables was stationary, existence of the longrun relation between two variables were explored by using Westerlund’s [16] paper. Four test statistics were calculated in order to decide whether there is a cointegration relation or not. The null hypothesis which shows longrun relation between variables was rejected according to the test statistics. It allows us to estimate longrun effects. Longrun relation model was estimated by using PDOLS estimator. Model was found statistically significant at 1% level. Also, coefficient of explanatory variable which is credit expansion is found statistically significant at 1% level. Sign of the coefficient is positive. It indicates positive correlation between variables. According to this correlation relation, a growth in credit expansion leads an increase in liquidity risk which affects the costs and returns of banks. This result shows importance of credit expansion on risk management. Because, uncontrolled credit expansion leads to the financial fragility of banks. This study’s findings suggest that the banks may limit their credit growth strategy in order to control liqudity risk [43].
References
 1.
Akkaya M, Azimli T. Türk Bankacılık Sektöründe Likidite Riski Yönetimi. Finans Politik & Ekonomik Yorumlar. 2018; 55 (638):3548  2.
Göçer İ, Mercan M, Bölükbaş M. Bankacılık Sektörü Kredilerinin İstihdam ve Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkileri:Türkiye Ekonomisi için Çoklu Yapısal Kırılmalı Eş Bütünleşme Analizi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2015; 33 (2):6584  3.
Altıntaş A. Kredi Kayıplarının Makroekonomik Değişkenlere Dayalı Olarak Tahmini ve Stres Testleri: Türk Bankacılık Sektörü İçin Ekonometrik Bir Yaklaşım. İstanbul: Türkiye Bankalar Birliği; 2012. p. 179  4.
Orhangazi Ö. Capital flows and credit expansions in Turkey. Review of Radical Political Economics. 2014; 46 (4):509516  5.
Kara H, Küçük H, Tiryaki ST, Yüksel C. In search of a reasonable credit growth rate for Turkey. Central Bank Review. 2014; 14 (1):114  6.
Kılıç C. Tüketici Kredileri ve Cari Açık Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye Örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 2015; 29 (2):407420  7.
Karahan P, Uslu NÇ. Kredi Hacmi ile Cari Açık Arasındaki İliski: Türkiye için Dinamik Bir Analiz. EconWorld Working Papers 16007. Eskişehir: WERI—World Economic Research Institute; 2016. DOI: 10.22440/EconWorld.WP.2016.007  8.
Güneş S, Yıldırım C. Kredi Genişlemesi İle Cari Açık Arasındaki İlişki:Türkiye Örneği. Aydın İktisat Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017; 2 (1):4360  9.
Kılıç F, Torun M. Bireysel Kredilerin Enflasyon Üzerindeki Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Yönetim Ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2018; 16 (1):1840  10.
Köroğlu E. Kredi Genişlemesinin Cari Açığa Etkisi: Türkiye Örneği. Bulletin of Economic Theory and Analysis. 2018; 3 (3):175193  11.
Varlık C. Türkiye Ekonomisinde Sermaye Girişlerinin Bileşenlerinin Aşırı Kredi Genişlemeleri Üzerindeki Etkileri. Uluslararası Yönetim İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi. 2020; 16 (2):219238  12.
Işık Ö, Belke M. Likidite Riskinin Belirleyicileri: Borsa İstanbul’a Kote Mevduat Bankalarından Kanıtlar. Ekonomi, Politika & Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2017; 2 (2):113126  13.
Işıl G, Özkan N. İslami Bankalarda Likidite Riski Yönetimi: Türkiye’de Katılım Bankacılığı Üzerine Ampirik Bir Uygulama. Uluslararası İslam Ekonomisi ve Finansı Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2015; 1 (2):2335  14.
Pesaran MH. General Diagnostic Tests for Cross Section Dependence in Panels. CESifoWorking Paper 1229; IZA Discussion Paper No. 1240. Bonn: IZAInstitute of Labor Economics; 2004  15.
Pesaran MH. A simple panel unit root test in the presence of crosssection dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2007; 22 :265312  16.
Westerlund J. Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 2007; 69 (6):709747  17.
Matyas L, Sevestre P. The Econometrics of Panel Data. 3rd ed. Berlin: Springer; 2008. p. 949  18.
Sarafidis V, Yamagata T, Robertson D. A test of cross section dependence for a linear dynamic panel model with regressors. Journal of Econometrics. 2009; 148 (2):149161  19.
De Soyos RE, Sarafidis V. Testing for crosssectional dependence in paneldata models. The Stata Journal. 2006; 6 (4):482496  20.
Hepaktan CE, Çınar S. OECD Ülkeleri Vergi Sistemi Esnekliğinin Panel Eşbütünleşme Testleri ile Analizi. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 2011; 4 (2): 133153  21.
Swamy PAVB. Statistical Inference in Random Coefficient Regression Models. New York: SpringerVerlag; 1971. p. 203  22.
Pesaran MH, Yamagata T. Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics. 2008; 142 : 5093  23.
Göçer İ. Ekonomik Büyümenin Belirleyicisi Olarak İhracat: Gelişmekte Olan Asya Ülkeleri İçin Yatay Kesit Bağımlılığı Altında Çoklu Yapısal Kırılmalı Panel Eşbütünleşme Analizi. Bankacılar Dergisi. 2013; 86 :2742  24.
Levin A, Lin CF, Chu CSJ. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finitesample properties. Journal of Econometrics. 2002; 108 :124  25.
Harris RDF, Tzavalis E. Inference for unit roots in dynamic panels where the time dimension is fixed. Journal of Econometrics. 1999; 91 :201226  26.
Breitung J. The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In: Baltagi BH, Fomby TB, Carter Hill R, editors. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels. Vol. 15. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2001. pp. 161178  27.
Hadri K. Testing for stationarity in heteregenous panel data. Econometrics Journal. 2000; 3 :148161  28.
Tatoğlu FY. İleri Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi. 2nd ed. İstanbul: Beta; 2018. p. 67  29.
Sarno L, Taylor MP. Real exchange rates under the current float: Unequivocal evidence of mean reversion. Economic Letters. 1998; 60 :131137  30.
Breuer J, McNown R, Wallace M. series specific unit root tests with panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. 2002; 64 (5):527546  31.
Chang Y. Nonlinear IV unit root tests in panels with crosssectional dependency. Journal of Econometrics. 2002; 110 (2):261292  32.
Chang Y. Bootstrap unit root tests in panels with crosssectional dependency. Journal of Econometrics. 2004; 120 (2):263293  33.
Phillips PCB, Sul D. Dynamic panel estimation and homogeneity testing under cross section dependence. Econometrics Journal. 2003; 6 :217259  34.
Moon HR, Perron B. Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors. Journal of Econometrics. 2004; 122 : 81126  35.
Bai J, Ng S. A panic attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica. 2004; 72 (4):11271177  36.
Bai J, Ng S. Panel unit root tests with crosssection dependence: A further investigation. Econometric Theory. 2010; 26 :10881114  37.
Breitung J, Das S. Panel unit root tests under crosssectional dependence. Statistica Neerlandica. 2005; 59 :414433  38.
Hadri K, Kurozumi E. A simple panel stationarity test in the presence of serial correlation and a common factor. Economics Letters. 2012; 115 (1):3134  39.
Pesaran MH, Smith VL, Yamagata T. Panel unit root tests in the presence of a multifactor error structure. Journal of Econometrics. 2013; 175 (2):94115  40.
Reese S, Westerlund J. Panicca: Panic on crosssection averages. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2016; 31 :961981  41.
Klein M. Inequality and household debt: A panel cointegration analysis. Empirica. 2015; 42 :391412  42.
Kao C, Chiang MH. On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In: Baltagi BH, Fomby TB, Carter Hill R, editors. Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels. Vol. 15. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2001. pp. 179222  43.
Alves AJ Jr, Dymski GA, Paula LF. Banking strategy and credit expansion: A postKeynesian approach. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2008; 32 (3):395420. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bem035