Costing in Banks Jmib 6 04

8/2/2019 Costing in Banks Jmib 6 04

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/costing-in-banks-jmib-6-04 1/20

Journal of Money, Investment and BankingISSN 1450-288X Issue 6 (2008)© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2008http://www.eurojournals.com/finance.htm

Costing the Banking Services: A Management

Accounting Approach

Jordi Carenys

Professor at the Management Control Department. EADA Business School

EADA, c/o Aragó 204, 08011 Barcelona, Spain

E-mail: [email protected]: 934 520 844; Fax: 933 237 317

Web: www.eada.edu

Xavier Sales

Professor at the Management Control Department. EADA Business School

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

The present study aims to outline the characteristics of the cost systems used inbanking institutions. It does so by describing the partial costs and full cost systems inbanking institutions. It then looks at the limitations of these approaches to the currentcompetitive conditions and goes on to consider the applicability of the activity basedcosting system in the allocation of indirect transformation costs to branches, products andcustomers. Finally, we will look at the findings of a questionnaire to Spanish savings banksin order to evaluate how widespread these systems are and how they are used in savingsbanks. We found that direct costs systems predominate in customer and products entrieswhereas full costs systems are much more widespread in the case of branches. Furthermore,we also found that the use of activity based costs systems is very limited.

Keywords: Saving banks Cost structure Management accounting Cost systems Activitybased costing.

JEL Classification Codes: M41 – Accounting G21 - Banks; Other Depository Institutions.

1. IntroductionHistorically, management accounting in banking institutions was introduced considerably later incomparison with companies in other sectors. There are a number of reasons for this limiteddevelopment. This was due, on the one hand, to external causes. For example, it was not until the 80'sthat competitive conditions in the banking sector fostered the development of accounting managementplanning and control systems. On the other hand, there were also internal conditions that had to do withthe nature of the banking business and the operations that these companies carry out, which differsignificantly to those of other sectors. This hindered the transfer of models that had basically beendeveloped for industrial companies to the financial sector.

As regards internal factors, the accounting regulations set down by regulating bodies of thebanking system have traditionally been the starting point from which banking institutions have drawnup their accounting information. The purpose of he latter was clearly to address the needs of central



Journal of Money, Investment and Banking - Issue 6 (2008) 35

banks that used this accounting information in order to supervise and control the solvency of thefinancial system and to control the relevant variables of monetary policy (Túa and Larriba, 1986, p.37;Cates, 1997, p.51-56; Kimball, 1997, p.24). Furthermore, the environment in which these companieshad traditionally operated had been sufficiently stable in order for them not to see the need to improvetheir management accounting systems (AECA, 1994a, p.12-13).

On an internal level, Waden-Berghe (1990, p.569) Rouach and Naulleau (1992, p. 101-102) andCarmona (1994, p.210) point out that the characteristic features of the products and the production

process of banks hinder the application of management accounting techniques: the intermediationfunction they carry out, the permanence on the balance sheet of the main sources of income andexpenses, the problematic definition of outputs and input, given that there is no difference between thenature of the raw material obtained via financial markets or deposit taking and the final product (loans),the fixed cost and marginal revenue syndrome, the difficulty in allocating indirect costs to cost objectsor the diffuse figure of the customer-supplier.

However, the deep transformation of the banking system, and, more specifically, deregulation,disintermediation and innovation processes, have ushered in changes to the competitive behaviour andthe information needs of banking institutions. We can therefore assume that the accounting systems of these companies have most probably also evolved and established new conceptual frameworks 1. As aconsequence of growing competition in the banking sector and the reduction of financial margins,

banking institutions have had to give increasingly greater importance to the planning and control of their non financial costs, which has opened up the debate around the adequacy of the costs systemscurrently in use in these companies (Scias, 1985, p. 48; Kimball, 1993, p. 5-20; Bos, Bruggink et al.,1994, p.12; Carmona, 1994, p. 213). This essay aims to analyse the characteristics of the costs systemsof Spanish savings banks which operate in the universal retail banking segment. In the first place, wewill look at the different theoretical models that will enable us to analyse the financial intermediationactivity from a microeconomic viewpoint. Secondly, we will go on to describe the characteristics of non financial costs in banking institutions, given that they influence the application of managementaccounting in these companies. Thirdly, we will put forward a costs classification in savings banks thatfacilitates the allocation of their non financial costs to different cost objects (centre of responsibility,products, customers and activities). Based on the above, we can then go on to assess the use of

different costing systems, looking at both traditional costing systems (partial and full) as well asactivity based costing. The study finishes by presenting the results of a questionnaire given to the headsof management control of Spanish savings banks with the aim of finding out which costing systems arecurrently in use and how they are likely to evolve in the future.

2. The Production Process in Banking InstitutionsThis section aims to present an overview of the different theoretical approaches that interpret theproductive process of banking institutions. According to Bergés and Soria (1993, p. 17-23) the modelsthat explain the productive process of banking institutions can be grouped into three groups: partialdecision models, portfolio theory and services production. Let's look at these in more detail.

2.1. Partial Decision Models

Partial models focus either on the assets and investment decisions (loans versus the treasury) or on thecomposition of the liability structure (capital versus deposits), considering the other part of the balancesheet as an external or exogenous variable. In these models, the banking institution's balance sheet is

1 We can identify various evolution stages in bank accounting and management; for example, Chisholm and Duncan (1985, p.27-33) have divided itshistorical evolution into three stages, Faletti (1986, p.88-95) refers to four stages, Rezaee (1991, p.26-28) and Roosevelt and Johnson (1986, p.30-31)have established five stages, and Ernst & Young (1995, p.25-31) outline up to 11 phases. Having said this, the different number of stages by differentauthors reflect differences in nuances but not in fundamental aspects because the evolution of information drawn up by management accounting inbanking institutions may be seen as a continuous process rooted in financial accounting that is evolving towards objectives that are more and morerelated with tactical and strategic decision making.



36 Journal of Money, Investment and Banking – Issue 6 (2008)

viewed as the key element, because each of its components is modelled individually (Santomero, 2000,p.4). When loans are regarded as outputs of the banking institution, it is assumed that, given a certainlevel of exogenously determined deposits, which are not subject to optimization, the company'smanagement decision is focused on determining what proportion of deposited funds will be allocatedto the provision of loans and what proportion will be kept in the treasury. This is due to the fact that thebanking institution needs to maintain a certain level of liquid reserves in order to address possiblewithdrawals of deposits. Obviously, maintenance of this treasury will generate an opportunity cost, so

banking institutions will have to minimise this opportunity cost by maintaining the treasury at aminimum level. However, if the treasury that is kept is insufficient, the company exposes itself to ahigh liquidity risk (Baltensperger, 1980, p.3; and Swank, 1996, p.176).

When deposits are regarded as outputs, the problem focuses on determining the optimumbalance between deposits and equity (Swank, 1996, p.177). According to this approach, a situation of insolvency could be brought on not only by the mass withdrawal of customer deposits, but also if thevalue of assets drops below that of liabilities. This scenario is less and less likely the fewer thedeposits. It can therefore be minimised by increasing the volume of equity (Baltensperger, 1980, p.10-11; Swank, 1996, p.177). However, given that the opportunity cost of equity is greater than thefinancial cost generated by deposits, in order to maximise profitability the bank need to minimise thebank's own funds, which increases the possibility of an insolvency scenario and of meeting the ensuing

costs associated with it (Baltensperger, 1980, p.13).

2.2. Portfolio Theory Based Models

The previous models seek to address the structure of assets or liability management whilst consideringthe other part of the balance sheet as exogenous. A comprehensive theory of the productive process of banking institutions needs to simultaneously account for the structure of assets and liabilities. Theefficient portfolios selection model for banking institutions put forward by Markowitz (1959) anddeveloped by Pyle (1971, p.737-747) concomitantly looks at decisions concerning assets as well asliabilities and gives us a more comprehensive view of the interrelations between assets and liabilities.Having said this, it must be acknowledged that although portfolio theory overcomes the limitations of partial models by determining optimum treasury, loans and deposits levels together, it still has its

drawbacks. The most relevant to this study has to do with the fact that both partial models and portfolioselection theory regard non-financial costs as irrelevant when it comes to estimating the output leveland composition of banking institutions (Swank, 1996, p. 194).

2.3. Models Based on the Production of Services and Real Resources

The provision of financial services entails transformation costs which are not contemplated in theabovementioned models. The services production model advocates that the production processes of banking institutions cannot be properly analysed by simply looking at the management of its optimalassets and liabilities structure, but that we also need to take into account the fact that both financialintermediation and the provision of other banking services generate transformation costs, which entailthe use of real resources both human and technological (Baltensperger, 1980, p. 27-29). The modelsdeveloped by Pesek, (1970, p. 357-385); Saving (1977, p. 289-303) and Sealey and Lindley (1977,p.1251-1266) are approaches based on production and cost functions, and enable us to study thebanking institution's behaviour from the point of view of profit maximisation. According to the abovemodels, the activity of banking institutions consists of providing a range of different financial services(both intermediation and other kinds of services), the production of which can be expressed inaccordance with a production function. The inputs of this production function are a combination of different types of factors consisting of real resources whereas the outputs are different possiblecombinations of assets, liabilities and services. Hence the production function, along with thebalancing of the accounts between assets, liquidity and liabilities, interest rates that are externally setby the market and legally established coefficients, make up the restrictions under which banking




institutions must operate and try to maximise their profits. These profits will ultimately depend on thedifference between revenue generated from the sale of their services on the one hand and the total costsof their inputs both financial and non financial on the other (Sealey and Lindley, 1977, p. 1255;Santomero, 2000, p.3).

The following sections will discuss the problematic of the costing structure of real resources inbanking institutions and look at how these are classified for management accounting purposes. Thiswill be followed by an overview of the different costing systems identified in the literature, partial

costs, full costs and activity based costing. And finally, we will present the findings of an empiricalresearch study concerning the costing systems used by Spanish savings banks.

3. The Cost Structure of Banking InstitutionsBefore we proceed to assess the different existing cost systems and their application to banking, wewould like to highlight some of the characteristic features of the banking business which influence thecost structure of its costing systems. These characteristic features can be summed up as follows(Sloane, 1991, p.76-79; Sapp, Rebischke et al., 1991, p.56-57):• Variable work load: the volume of operations fluctuates enormously from one moment to the

next, which obviates the problem of capacity management, given that at certain times there are

"peaks" whilst at other times there are "valleys" which means that these resources are underused.• High fixed costs: resources are usually allocated to covering "peaks" of activity. However, the

cost of these resources does not vary with the volume of transactions, because they have a largefixed component.

• Predictability of the activity: although the demand for services tends to be highly variable, it isrelatively easy to predict, because it follows a cyclic behaviour pattern, which offers thepossibility of turning part of fixed costs into variable ones by means of outsourcing.

• Mass services production activities: a comparison can be drawn between the high volume of repetitive operations in banking institutions and traditional industrial mass commoditymanufacturing, which facilitates the use of methodologies that originated in industry and thesetting up of a standard costing system.

• Joint production and an undefined product: the banking product is physically indefinable whichmakes it more complex to identify. For example, when a banking institution issues a loan to acustomer, the latter must open up a current account to meet the loan payments. If on top of thisthe customer orders a cheque book on his current account and takes out a life insurance policy,we have four interrelated products.

• Low cost traceability: given that we are dealing with joint production activities with elevatedfixed and indirect costs there are many resources that are shared by activities, customers, productsand centres of responsibility.

As far as we see it, the most significant factors that influence the applicability of different costsystems in banking institutions are on the one hand, the significant weight of indirect costs in relationto cost objects, which makes it difficult to trace them in relation to cost objects. Similarly, given that alarge part of the operations carried out by banking institutions are of a repetitive nature and susceptibleto standardisation, this makes it feasible to consider calculating the costs of these operations andallocating them to cost objects, and to introduce the use of standard costs as a planning and controlinstrument.

4. Costs Classification in Banking InstitutionsThe classification of the non financial costs of banking institutions may prove useful in studying theapplicability of different cost systems to banking institutions. Although we can make differentclassifications of these costs, the most relevant for our purposes is the difference between




transformation and overhead costs (AECA, 1994a, p.61-62): "transformation costs are costs that aregenerated in profit centres and in operational cost or general services centres. In general, the costs of these centres are directly or indirectly related to the consumption of products and services on the partof customers". At the same time, transformation costs can be divided into direct and indirect costs,depending on their relation to cost objects (AECA, 1994a, p.61):• Direct costs, are those costs that can be unequivocally and directly allocated to cost objects, in

other words their allocation is controlled economically in an individualised fashion.• Indirect costs, are costs that cannot be directly allocated to cost objects because there is no exact

allocation of funds that enables us to estimate the consumption of these costs by cost bearers,It should be noted that a significant number of transformation costs of banking institutions are

dual in nature when viewed from the previous classification criterion, to the extent that certaintransformation costs can be direct with respect to the branches network but indirect in relation toproducts and customers (De la Cuesta, 1996, p.85-87). In banking institutions, transformation costsbasically correspond to personnel costs, depreciations and other general costs, which although they aredifficult to allocate to customers and products, are generally easier to allocate to responsibility centres(Cole, 1995, p.152).

The second costs category corresponds to overhead costs, which are generated in the bank'sorganisational centres. These costs are generated by the various functions related to management,

administration, organisation and control. In general, these are indirect in relation to all the cost objects.These costs are treated as costs assigned to support all the company's functions, and as such they areindependent of production volume, the existing product lines and of the markets they serve (AECA,1994b, p.58).

5. Traditional Cost Systems in Savings BanksThe process of allocating non financial costs to different cost objects begins with deciding on whichcosts must be transferred to cost objects. This enables us to identify two types of approaches, thepartial costs system, which allocates only a part of the company's costs and the full cost systems, whichallocates all the costs (Amat and Soldevila, 1997, p.46). In any of these alternative systems, "the cost

allocation process is usually a sequential process that consists of two stages. In the first stage, thedifferent cost categories are added to the different intermediate cost objects (cost centres or sections)and in the second stage, costs are allocated to the final cost objects" (AECA, 1994b, p.72).

Thus, coming back to the classification of transformation costs of banking institutions whichdifferentiated between direct and indirect costs, it is worth considering the use of partial or full costsystems in banking institutions (AECA, 1994a, p.87-89).

5.1. Partial Cost Systems

This system only takes into account the direct transformation costs of a cost object and does not assignindirect transformation and overhead costs, which are simply allocated to cost centres or sections

(AECA, 1994b, p.87). According to Anthony and Dearden (1976, p.554), the application of the partialcosts system in banking is basically a consequence of the existence of the considerable volume of common and joint costs in relation to the different objects, which complicates their allocation to costobjects. But at the same time, given that the direct costs are usually quite insignificant, that variablecosts may be practically non-existent and that their outputs are difficult to measure, assessing efficacyand efficiency by means of a partial costs system seems an excessively limited approach.

This cost structure also helps to explain why banking institutions were slower to adopt full costaccounting systems than were companies of other sectors (Sloane, 1985, p.75; Kimball,1993, p.7).

Authors such as Mecimore and Cornick (1982, p.13-18), when faced with the peculiarities of the cost structure of banking institutions, consider that the profitability analysis of the different costsobjects should be based more on contribution margins than on net margins. Their argument is that it is




preferable for decisions to be based more on the philosophy of contribution than on that of absorbingcosts. Similarly, Gardner and Lammers (1988, p.36), after carrying out a survey of United Statesbanks, found that banks gave very little importance to obtaining full costs and attributed greaterimportance to cost management and direct costs.

However, as the mass of indirect costs gradually increases, the direct costs system orcontribution system becomes less and less important for planning and control purposes, although it isstill applicable to certain special types of decision making (De la Cuesta, 1996, p.88). It is therefore of

limited use in the case of multi-product companies with a high level of indirect costs. Consequently,considering the cost structure of banking institutions (the predominance of fixed indirect costs), themargin obtained for cost objects by this method may end up being of little significance.

5.2. Full Cost Systems

In addition to direct costs, the full cost system also allocates all or part of their indirect transformationcosts to cost objects (Leguay 1984, p.19). Rezzae (1991, p.29) points out that the traditional full costmethods applied to banking have been based on establishing cost centres, generally related to theorganisational structure, which then transfer their costs to the different organizational units, products,customers or distribution channels. Marigot's work (1988, p.178-181) also follows along these lines.He in fact proposes a sequential allocation of non financial costs to the different responsibility centres,as can be seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Full costs system (I).

Source: Adapted from Marigot (1988, p.178-180).




Rouach and Naulleau (1994, p.124-132) and Rouach (1998, p.21-23) also follow the samelines. They put forward a full cost model by sections that involves the allocation of indirecttransformation costs to cost objects in five stages, which are summed up in Figure 2:

Figure 2: The full costs system (II).

Organisatio

nal centres

Unallocated

costs for theterm

Unallocated

costs for theterm

Unallocated

costs for theterm

General

services

centres

Operational

cost centres

Cost of

operation A

Cost of

operation B

Cost of

operation C

Operational

cost centres

Financial

accounting

Costs of

Accounting

analysis

Profit

centres

Profit

centres

Profit centres

P R OF I T

CE NT RE S

Source: Rouach and Naulleau (1994, p.125).

• Determining which costs will be incorporated in the accounting analysis.• Proceeding to locate costs in responsibility centres.• Proceeding to allocate the costs of general services centres into operational and profit

centres.• Calculating the cost of service provision operations in the operational service centres, which

can then be allocated to the cost objects that consume them 2,• calculating the repercussions that the costs of operations have on cost objects. The costs that

are allocated to each cost object are equal to the number of operations carried out multipliedby the unit cost of each type of operation.

6. The Limitations of Traditional Cost Systems in Savings BanksGiven the above, we can conclude that the application of any of the traditional costing systems leads toa paradoxical situation. On the one hand, if we opt in favour of a partial cost system and only attributedirect costs to their final cost objects, then a situation arises whereby only a small fraction of costs canbe allocated to cost objects whereas the rest, which are indirect, are not accounted for under centres of responsibility, products or customers.

On the other hand, if we opt for a full costs model, we will be faced with a number of

limitations. Ernst and Young (1995, p.123), Sapp et al. (1990, p.54), Raihall and Hrechak (1994, p.44),Kimball (1997, p.31) and Helmi and Hindi (1996, p.8) argue that the traditional costing systemsapplied in banking assume that indirect costs are generated by production volume whilst ignoring theeffects that the diversity and complexity of operations have on indirect costs. On the other hand, asbanking institutions develop initiatives in order to meet new competitive requirements, the weight of indirect costs on their structure increases because the costs of market research, marketing, theintroduction of new products, automatisation of transactions, new technologies, etc are clearly on therise. Furthermore, Raihall and Hrechak (1994, p.45) point out that “the number of cost drivers that

2 The unit per operation is perfectly applicable and easily identifiable when it comes to calculating the unit cost of the provision of services in these typesof centres. For example, the number of cheques handled, the number of discounted charges, number of transfers, stock purchase and sale orders,coupons, etc. By simply adding up these operations the bank can get a precise idea of the magnitude of their evolution.




have been used to attribute indirect costs to cost objects is very small, which makes it difficult todiscern the differences between the company's diverse service production processes as regards their useof resources”. Hence it is practically impossible to trace costs and this makes it difficult to developinitiatives to improve their management (Mérindol and Obadia, 1998, p.28).

Hence, a full costs system that allocates indirect costs under a few headings based on businessvolume may be acceptable in industries that have a relatively small proportion of indirect costs andwhere output is reasonably homogeneous. This is not advisable however in multi-product industries

with heterogeneous outputs which are difficult to measure and with a high percentage of indirect costs(Carmona, 1994, p.213; Raihall and Hrechak, 1994, p.44-45; Kimball, 1997, p.31, Druker, 1995, p.8;Lacan, 1986, p.152; Merlo, 1995, p.40; De la Cuesta, 1996, p.88).

7. The ABC System in Banking CompaniesDuring the nineties traditional costing systems came under minute scrutiny: loss of relevance, lack of reliability, inability to provide valid information for decision making as well as obsolete methods orsystems that were unadapted to the realities of companies are some of the criticisms that were directedat traditional cost accounting systems. Johnson and Kaplan (1987) and Mevellec (1988, 1991), afterdemonstrating that traditional methods were unable to address the needs of companies, went on to

argue in favour of their comprehensive overhaul and proceeded to reinvent management accounting.Deregulation, that has been the general standard in financial sector companies, has facilitated

the entry of new competitors and has given companies a greater degree of freedom with regard topricing and the product mix they offer. Companies in this sector have witnessed the disappearance of the protectionist environment of regulated prices and the advent of new competitors and at the sametime are faced with significant threats and opportunities, the management of which demands acomprehensive knowledge of markets, customers, products and the search for new competitiveadvantages. As a consequence, in the late eighties, a series of new concepts were introduced into costaccounting. One of the chief innovations in this respect was the activity based accounting system. Theacademic world has shown a considerable amount of interest in the application of the activity basedcosting system in banking institutions. In recent years a number of authors have published studies that

assess the applicability of ABC and ABM methodologies to banking institutions, some of the mostimportant of which are the studies by Kerebel (1997, p.60-62), Helmi and Hindi (1996, p.5-19), Blake(1996, p.5-43), Ernst and Young (1995, p.123-140), Weiner (1995, p.37-38), Kimball (1993., p.5-20),Mabberly (1992, p.17-79), Sapp, Crawford and Rebischke (1990, p.53-62; 1991, p.75-86), Mérindoland Obadia (1998, p. 27) or (Bos, Bruggink et al., 1994, p.12-16).

The development of a series of different theoretical approaches has gone hand in hand with theincreasingly widespread use of the ABC system among banking institutions. Kimball (1997, p.31),Weiner (1995, p.19) Innes and Mitchell (1997, p.190-205), (Berry and Britney, 1996, p.36), Hartfeil(1996, p.23), Carroll and Tadikonda (1997, p.1) and Sweeney (1994, p.19; 1997, p.26) point to the factthat from the beginning of the nineties North American and British banking companies began adoptingactivity based costing in an attempt to attain a better understanding of the factors that influence the

behaviour of their costs and to improve the allocation of costs to cost objects.According to Obadia and Faubert (2000, 33), "ABC analysis enables us to draw up a model of

the logical sequence of cost formation and to reconcile the degree of profitability of different products,customers and distribution channels. The ABC system enables us to draw up a model of the followingchain of sequences:

• customers consume products and services via a distribution channel (branches, internet,telephone...),

• the product-service/ distribution channel combination involves the performance of a seriesof activities,

• these activities use up the company's resources".




For Mérindol and Obadia (1998, p.26) the ABC method works under a different logic and to alarge extent does away with long lists of allocation components (Figure 3). Kimball (1997, p.32) andHankes (1995, p. 9) suggest that the ABC system enables banks to reduce the number of costs that areregarded as indirect costs in relation to cost objects. In this way, a larger proportion of costs that wereinitially regarded as indirect costs can be directly allocated to products, customers or centres of responsibility that are directly responsible for their existence due to activities' consumption of resources.

Figure 3: BC cost models in banking institutions.

ACTIVITY BASED COST POOLS HIERARCHY

Activity

Management

Security

Auditing.. Cost drivers

All products

Activity

Marketing

Data

processing

Accounting...

Cost drivers

Product group

Deposit taking

Means of payment

Loan investment...

Activity

Introduction

Development

Advertising Cost drivers

Types of products

Credit accounts

Sales discount

Mortgage loans...

I N D I R E C T

C O S T S

Activity

Opening

Closing

Withdrawals... Cost drivers

Product unit

XYZ Credit account

XYZ Sales discount

XYZ Mortgage loans

Source: By the author, adapted from Bos, Bruggink et al. (1994, p.16).

With regard to the applicability of the ABC system to banking institutions, Kaplan and Cooper,(1991, p.467) and Kaplan and Cooper (1999, p.229) highlight the fact that there are no substantialdifferences between the implementation of activity based costing in cost centres belonging to amanufacturing company and costs centres of a service company. And indeed, there don't appear to beany substantial differences between the specific proposals in the literature for applying the ABC

system in banking companies ABC (Sapp, Rebischke et al., 1990, p.53-62, Sapp, Rebischke et al.,1991, p.75-86; Mabberly, (1992), Ruff and Hill, 1992, p.28-37; Weiner, 1995, 19-44; Ernst and Young,1995, p.123-133; Helmi and Hindi, 1996, p.5-19) and the ABC models for manufacturing companies 3.

3 We believe that, although the description of the ABC model applied to banking institutions does not differ from that developed for industrialcompanies, the nature and type of activities carried out by the former and the latter vary significantly. Similarly, the hierarchy of activities in these twotypes of companies can be established based on different criteria.




8. Survey Universe and MethodologyOur survey universe is made up of 47 savings banks that are registered in the Official Bank's Registryof the Bank of Spain in 2006. We sent out 47 questionnaires, and received 26 replies, which representsa response rate of 55.31%. The 26 savings banks that responded to the survey represented 73.6% of thetotal assets of all savings banks in Spain. This response rate is comparable to those of similar researchinitiatives, both nationwide and internationally. For example, the BAI (Bank Administration Institute)carried out a survey with the aim of finding out which accounting and management control systems

were being used by North American banks. The BAI questionnaire was sent out to the 250 biggestbanks in the United States, and 40 banks responded (16%) although the respondents accounted for 43%of the sector's total assets. Similarly, Gadner and Lammers (1988) carried out a survey on theapplication of management accounting between banks and saving and loans associations. They selectedthe 50 largest banks and the 20 largest saving and loans associations according to their asset volumeand sent out 70 questionnaires through the post. They received responses from 49 institutions, with aresponse rate of 68%. Innes and Mitchel (1997) carried out a survey with postal questionnaires in orderto find out to what extent the ABC costs system was being used by financial institutions in GreatBritain. They sent out their questionnaire to the 60 largest financial companies in Great Britain and theresponse rate was 51.6% (31 companies). The response rate to our questionnaire is comparable to thoseobtained in other research studies on banking management accounting carried out using the same

methodology. The responses were segmented according to company size, measured based on their totalassets. They were divided into three categories: the larger savings banks with assets above six billioneuros (segment A); medium sized savings banks with assets above three billion euros (segment B); andsmaller savings banks with assets below three billion euros (segment C).

The research method we used consisted of a questionnaire sent out by post to the heads of management control of all Spanish savings banks. Two variant analysis was used to tabulate thisquestionnaire. This is the method of choice for studying relationships between variables taken two bytwo (Pedret, 1997, p. 31). This type of analysis is useful for finding answers to questions such as forexample, whether the size of the savings bank influences the costs system that is used or whether thereis any relation between the size of the institution and the funds transfer system it uses. The data wastreated using the programme SPSS version 6.12. In our case we used two variant analysis between two

qualitative variables and contingency tables were used to present the results.

9. Costs Systems in Spanish Savings BanksIn this section we will go on to study the use that savings banks make of cost accounting. In order to dothis we have thought it useful to identify the costing systems they use in order to allocatetransformation costs to centres, products and customers. In addition, in the light of the currentconditions of competition, the diverse range of products and services savings banks offer and thestructure of their transformation costs, these companies appear to be ideal candidates for theintroduction of the activity based costing system. We studied how much knowledge savings bankshave of the ABC system and how widespread its use is in these institutions.

The majority of costing systems used by savings banks are based on the organizational chart(Table 1). In 76.9% of savings banks, the centres that make up their organisational structure overlapwith the cost centres they use for accounting purposes.




Table 1: The use of organic cost systems in savings banks.

Total Size of Savings Bank

C B A

NO.

Count 4 2 6Row Pct 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%Col Pct 40.0% 25.0% 23.1%

Tot Pct 15.4% 7.7% 23.1%Yes.

Count 6 6 20Row Pct 30.0% 40.0% 30.0% 100.0%Col Pct 60.0% 100.0% 75.0% 76.9%Tot Pct 23.1% 30.8% 23.1% 76.9%

Total.

Count 10 8 8 26Row Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%Col Pct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Tot Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%

In Table 2 we can see that the costs centres set up in savings banks are not only related to theorganisational structure but that in the majority of cases (61.5%) the banks make a differentiationbetween operational and support cost centres. However, there are considerable differences between thedifferent savings bank segments. Whereas 75% of banks in segment A distinguish between operationaland support centres, this percentage drops to 60% for segment C and 50% for segment B.

Table 2: The use of suuport cost centres in savings banks.


C B A

NO.


Yes.


Total.


Tables 3, 4 and 5 show which transformation costs are transferred to the final cost objects(offices, products and customers). A differentiation was drawn between different cost objects, giventhat, as we have already discussed, a significant part of the transformation costs of savings banks aredirect costs from the point of view of offices but indirect from the point of view of products andcustomers. Thus, by identifying which costs affect the cost objects, we can determine whether savingsbanks opt in favour of partial or full cost systems.

Table 3 outlines the characteristics of the costing system used to allocate transformation costs tothe branches network. As we can see, the use of the direct costs system is not at all widespread. Onlytwo banks replied that they only allocate direct costs and do not allocate any kinds of indirect costs tothe branches. In fact, 92.3% allocate their direct costs to the branches as well as a part of their indirect




costs. In order to find out what criteria they used to allocate indirect costs we asked the savings banksto identify the procedures they use, offering them different options which were not intended to bemutually exclusive, because a bank could use simultaneously both approaches:

Table 3: Attribution of direct and indirect costs to the branches network.


C B AOnly allocates direct costs.

Count 1 1 2Row Pct 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%Col Pct 10.0% 12.5% 7.7%Tot Pct 3.8% 3.8% 7.7%

Allocates Direct Costs And Indirect Costs Depending On Volume


Allocates direct costs and indirect costs depending on real consumption.

Count 5 4 5 14

Row Pct 35.7% 28.6% 35.7% 100.0%Col Pct 50.0% 50.0% 62.5% 53.8%Tot Pct 19.2% 15.4% 19.2% 53.8%

Total.Count 10 8 8 26Row Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%Col Pct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Tot Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%

• the allocation of indirect costs in proportion to the business volume generated by eachbranch: the criterion is applied by 13 banks (50% of the study sample). The majority of banks that use this procedure belong to the smaller savings banks segment. We can

therefore conclude that the allocation of indirect costs based on business volume criteriadecreases as the size of the savings bank increases.• the allocation of indirect costs according to the real consumption the branches make of

them:• 14 savings banks said that they follow this criterion (53.8% of the sample). With this

approach the bank calculates the unit cost of the services the operational and/or discretionalcentres perform for the branches and these are then debited to the profit and loss account of the branches, multiplying the volume of services by their unit cost.

It should be pointed out that use of one of the abovementioned criteria for certain types of indirect costs does not impede out the use of other procedures for other types of indirect costs, becauseif we add up the number of banks that allocate them according to volume (50%) and those that do so

according to the actual consumption of indirect costs (53,8%), this gives us more than 100%.We can therefore conclude that Spanish savings banks are clearly in favour of allocatingindirect costs as part of the planning and control of the profit and loss accounts of their branches. Indoing so they make use of procedures which combine the allocation of indirect costs based on thebusiness volume that each branch generates and allocation based on the actual consumption of indirectcosts by the branches. Having said this, it should be pointed out that the bigger the savings bank theless frequent the allocation of indirect costs based on business volume.

Another cost object that management accounting focuses its attention on are products. Productportfolio management involves estimating the profit and loss of different products and services with acertain degree of reliability. In order to do so, the savings banks have two alternative options; in thefirst place they can deduct only the direct costs of products from the financial margin generated by




these products. The second alternative, apart from taking into account direct costs also enables them toallocate to products a part of the indirect transformation costs that contribute to their maintenance. Aswe have mentioned previously, the transformation costs of savings banks are easily traceable to thebranches, which explains why the full costs system is so widespread at this level. In contrast, thepossibility of establishing a correlation between these costs and products is much more limited. Hence,the direct costing system is more likely to predominate at the level of products. Table 4 shows us thatthe majority of savings banks simply assign to products their direct transformation costs (73.1%) and

do not on the other hand allocate any indirect costs that may correspond to them.

Table 4: Attribution of direct and indirect costs to products.

Total Size Of Savings Bank

C B A

Allocates only Direct Costs.


Allocates Direct Costs and Indirect Costs Depending on Volume


Allocates Direct costs and Indirect costs Depending on Real Consumption.


Total.


This leads us to the conclusion that the direct costs system is the most widespread costingsystem used by savings banks to assign their transformation costs to their product portfolio. Thispractice is especially more significant in the case of the smaller savings banks.

If we look at our findings for the allocation of transformation costs to customers in Table 5 thisleads us to similar conclusions. 73.1% of the savings banks in the sample simply allocate to customersthe direct costs that are clearly assigned to them. We once again observe that this practice is muchmore widespread among the smaller savings banks than it is among the large ones. The banks thatchoose to allocate part of their indirect costs to customers (26.9%), generally tend to do so based on thereal consumption of services represented by indirect costs (85.7%) whereas a minority (14.2%) allocatethem proportionally to the business volume of each customer or market segment. Hence, as far as thecustomer category in cost objects is concerned, savings banks also prefer to use the direct costs systemto allocate their transformation costs to customers.




Table 5: Allocation of direct and indirect costs to customers.


C B A

Only Allocates Indirect Costs.

Count 8 6 5 19Row Pct 42.1% 31.6% 26.3% 100.0%Col Pct 80.0% 75.0% 62.5% 73.1%

Tot Pct 30.8% 23.1% 19.2% 73.1%Allocates Direct Costs and

Indirect Costs Depending On Volume

Count 1 1Row Pct 100.0% 100.0%Col Pct 10.0% 3.8%Tot Pct 3.8% 3.8%

Allocates direct costs and

Indirect Costs Depending on Real Consumption.


Total.Count 10 8 8 26Row Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%Col Pct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Tot Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%

Table 6 shows the level of importance that savings banks give to having relevant analyticalinformation on the different cost objects. In order to measure this, we asked the savings banks to orderby order of importance from (1) to (6) (one being the most important and six the least) the usefulnessof different types of information listed in Table 6. In the event that the savings bank did not haveanalytical information on a particular factor we asked them to evaluate its potential usefulness.

From Table 6 we can conclude that all the savings banks coincide in pointing out that the most

relevant cost object are customers and customer segments. The second most important item are thebranches. Consequently, whereas the use of full cost systems seems to focus almost exclusively on thebranches and centres of responsibility, from the point of view of usefulness and importance tomanagement, savings banks attach greater importance to information on profit and loss bycustomers/segments.

Table 6: The importance of costing systems and cost objects.


C B A

Revenue/total costs of products/prod. Groups

Average 4.50 4.37 3.75 4.23Revenue/total costs customer/customer segment.

Average. 2.30 2.62 2.12 2.35Revenue/total costs of centres/branches.

Average 4.10 4.50 3.00 3.88

As we have already seen, given the cost structure of banking institutions, the use of an activitybased costing system may be an alternative for improving the process of allocation of indirect costs tocost objects and the following tables study the prevalence of the ABC system in savings banks. Wefound that savings banks are widely familiar with the activity based costing system. 96.2% of the headsof management control of savings banks replied that they were familiar with the activity based costingsystem. However, comprehensive knowledge of the ABC system does not go hand in hand with its




widespread use on the part of savings banks. Table 7 shows that 69.2% of savings banks in the sampledo not use the ABC system. We can also see that the use of this costing system is related to size andthat only one bank from the small savings banks segment says that it uses the ABC system.

Table 7: Use of activity based costing.


C B A

Total

NO. Count 9 4 5 18Row Pct 50.0% 22.2% 27.8% 100.0%Col Pct 90.0% 50.0% 62.5% 69.2%Tot Pct 34.6% 15.4% 19.2% 69.2%

SI. Count 1 4 3 8Row Pct 12.5% 50.0% 37.5% 100.0%Col Pct 10.0% 50.0% 37.5% 30.8%Tot Pct 3.8% 15.4% 11.5% 30.8%

Total. Count 10 8 8 26

Row Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%Col Pct 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Tot Pct 38.5% 30.8% 30.8% 100.0%

In Table 8 we can see that of the 8 savings banks which state that they are using the activitybased costing system, only 1 of them does so in a generalised fashion throughout the organisationwhereas 5 banks use it only in certain business processes and 2 banks use it in conjunction with othercost systems.

Table 8: The use of activity based costing systems in savings banks.


C B AJointly with Other Systems.


In a Generalised Fashion.

Count 1 1Row Pct 100.0% 100.0%Col Pct 12.5% 3.8%Tot Pct 3.8% 3.8%

Only in Some Processes.


Tot Pct 15.4% 3.8% 19.2%Does not use ABC.


Total.





Table 9 measures the importance that the savings banks which use the ABC system (8 banks)place on the different applications of the ABC system. In order to do this they were asked to evaluatethe relevance of a series of proposed objectives on a 1 to 5 scale (1= none at all, 5= very high) Themost relevant objective was the reduction and control of transformation costs (4 points, which meansthat this objective was assessed as having a "high" degree of relevance. From Table 9 we can concludethat the interest that savings banks show in the ABC system is basically limited to its use as atransformation costs reduction and control system and that the remaining objectives trailed far behind.

Table 9: The applications of ABC systems in savings banks.


C B A

Reducing and Controlling Costs.

Average. 5.00 3.75 4.00 4.00PRICING.

Average 1.00 1.75 3.33 2.25Drawing up Budgets.

Average 5.00 2.25 2.67 2.75Design New Products and Services.

Average. 1.00 2.00 1.67 1.75Analysis of Customer Profitability

Average 1.00 2.00 4.00 2.62Information for Management Assessment.

Average. 1.00 2.50 3.00 2.50

Finally, having already mentioned the fact that the use of ABC systems is quite limited (only30.8% of savings banks declared that they use it in their companies), we decided to find out if theywere likely to increase its use in the future. In order to do this we decided to ask the heads of management control who had stated that they didn't employ this system (18 savings banks) whetherthey considered its introduction appropriate. In Table 10 we can see that 38.8% of banks whichcurrently don't use the ABC system do not consider its introduction necessary or appropriate. It should

be pointed out that of this percentage, the majority, (71.4%) were smaller savings banks. 50% of thesavings banks that do not use the ABC system consider that its introduction is a good idea.




Table 10: Convenience of introducing the ABC system.


C B A

No.


Tot Pct 19.2% 7.7% 26.9%Yes.


Uses abc.


Doesn't Know/No Reply

Count 2 2

Row Pct 100.0% 100.0%Col Pct 20.0% 7.7%Tot Pct 7.7% 7.7%

Total.


Given the above, we can therefore conclude that, although the ABC system is not prevalentamong savings banks, its use is likely to increase in future, especially among large savings banks.Given the findings of our study we consider that the future introduction of the ABC system in savings

banks is compatible with the use of other costing systems and that its use will generally be limited tospecific key business processes and activities or to processes which represent a large percentage of their transformation costs.

10. ConclusionsThis study has looked at the peculiarities of the non financial costs structure of savings banks. Ourfindings show that a significant part of these transformation or overhead costs are indirect in relation tocustomers and products and to a lesser extent in relation to the branches and centres of responsibility.Given this state of affairs, we expected that the use of partial cost systems would be widespread in thecase of customers and products and that the full costs system would be more common in the latter case.

Our findings did in fact show that as regards branch management control, savings banks tend to usefull costs systems whereas direct costs systems predominate in the case of products and customers. Asa way of getting around these limitations we suggested that the activity based costing system isespecially suited to multi-product industries with a high degree of indirect costs, a category whichuniversal retail banking and consequently savings banks fall into. However, our findings show thatactivity based costing is not at all widespread, and that those savings banks that do use it generally doso only for specific business processes. However, we found that the ABC system is basically used withthe aim of reducing and controlling transformation costs. Hence the development of ABC systemscould lead to significant improvements in this area. It could lead to a more objective allocation of themajority of indirect transformation costs and thus provide more relevant information for decisionmaking, considering that certain types of decisions need to be based on the total costs allocated to




products and customers, not just on their direct costs. Otherwise, they run the risk of basing decisionson maximising business volume instead of on profitability criteria.

References[1] AECA:

• [1994a]: Principios de contabilidad de gestión: La contabilidad de gestión en las

entidades de crédito. Document no. 9. Madrid.• [1994b]: Principios de contabilidad de gestión: glosario de contabilidad de gestión.

Document no. 0. Madrid.[2] AMAT, O., SOLDEVILA, P., [1997]: Contabilidad y gestión de costes, Ed. Gestión 2000,

Barcelona.[3] ANTHONY, R., DEARDEN, J. [1976]: Management control systems, Richard D. Irwin,

Homewood, Illinois.[4] BALTENSPERGER, E. [1980]: “Alternative approaches to the theory of the banking firm”,

Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 6, no.3, pp.1-37.[5] BERGÉS A., SORIA, P. [1993]: "La empresa bancaria y la moderna teoría financiera",

Perspectivas del Sistema Financiero, no. 42, pp. 11-23.

[6] BERRY, S., BRITNEY, K. [1996]: "Market segmentation; key to the growth in smallbusiness", Bank management, vol.72, no.1, p.36-41.

[7] BLAKE, J. [1996]: "Consumption Profile Costing: An enhancement to Activity BasedCosting", Journal of Bank Cost and Management Accounting, vol.11, no.2, p.5-43.

[8] BOS, J.J., BRUGGINK, B., IJSKES, E., [1994]: "Cost accounting in banking". XVII CongressEuropean Accounting Association.

[9] CARMONA, S. [1994]: "Rentabilidad e información para la gestión", Papeles de Economía

Española, no. 58, p.208-215.[10] CARROLL, P., TADIKONDA, M. [1997]: "Customer profitability: Irrelevant for decisions?",

Bank Magazine, November, p. 1-7.[11] CATES, D. [1997]: "Performance measurement in banking: welcome to the revolution",

Banking Strategies,vol.73, no.3, pp. 51-56.[12] COLE, L.P. [1995]: Management accounting for financial institutions, Probus Publishing,

Chicago. COOPER, R. KAPLAN, R.:• [1991]: The design of cost management systems. Prentice-Hall Intenational Editions.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.• [1999]: Coste y efecto, Ed. Gestión 2000, Barcelona.

[13] DE LA CUESTA, M. [1996]: El control de gestión en las entidades bancarias. Los modelos

tradicionales y el ABM, UNED, Madrid.[14] DRUKER P. [1995]:"The information executives truly need", Harvard Business Review,

vol.73, no.1, Jan-Febr, p.6-14.[15] ERNST & YOUNG [1994]: Performance measurement for financial institutions: methods for

managing business results, Irwin Professional Publishing, Chicago.[16] GADNER, M., LAMMERS, L.[1988]: "Cost accounting in large banks", Management

Accounting [US], vol.29, no.10, April, p.34-39.[17] HANKES, J. [1995]: “ABC is a firm favourite with high street banks.” Management

Accounting [UK], vol.73, no.1, January, p.9.[18] HARTFEIL, G. [1996]: "Bank One measures profitability of customers, not just products",

Journal of Retail Banking Services, vol.18, no.2, p.23-29.[19] HELMI, M., HINDI, N. [1996]: "Activity based costing in banking: a big challenge", The

Journal of Bank Cost and Management Accounting, vol.9. no.2, p. 5-19.




[20] INNES, J., MITCHELL, F. [1997]: "The application of activity-based costing in the UnitedKigdom´s largest financial institutions", The service industries journal, vol.17, no.1, January,p.190-203.

[21] JOHNSON, H.T., KAPLAN, R.S. [1987]: Relevance lost , Harvard Business School Press,Boston.

[22] KEREBEL, P. [1997]: "La comptabilité par activités: de l´industrie à la banque", Banque,no.587, December, p.60-62.

[23] KIMBALL, R.:• [1997]: "Innovations in performance measurement in banking", New England Economic

Review, May-June, Boston, p.23-38.• [1993]: "Creating and using strategic expense models for commercial banks", The

Journal of Bank Cost and Management Accounting, vol.6, no.2, p. 5-20.[24] LACAN, C. [1984]: "Le coût de traitement des opérations: interet et limites", La Revue

Banque, no.458, February, p. 151-153.[25] LEGUAY, C. [1984]: "Mesure de l´activité des services administratifs", Banque, no. special

April issue, p.19-23.[26] MABBERLY, J. [1992]: Activity based Costing in Financial Institutions, Pitman Publishing

and Financial Times, London.

[27] MARIGOT, C., SEGARRA, S., TORRADES, P. [1988]: Planificación y control en la oficinabancaria, Ed. Hispano Europea, Barcelona.

[28] MARKOWITZ, H. [1959]: Portfolio selection, John Wiley, New York.[29] MECIMORE, C., CORNICK, M.[1982]: "Banks should use management accounting models",

Management Accounting [US], February. p.13-18.[30] MÉRINDOL, N., OBADIA, S. [1998]: "Le choix de la méthode ABC", Banque, no.596. p. 26-

27.[31] MERLO, J. [1995]: "Modelos inductivos de reparto y distribución de costes [I]", Partida

Doble, no.56, May, p. 39-45.[32] MEVELLEC, P:

• [1988]: "La comptabilité analytique face à l´ évolution tecnologique", Revue Francaise

de Gestion, no.67, p.30-36.• [1991]: Outiles de gestion, la pertinenece retrouvée, ECM. París.

[33] OBADIA, S., FAUBERT, M. [2000]: "Méthode ABC: un approche industrielle", Banquemagazine, no.618, October, p. 32-33.

[34] PEDRET, R. [1997]: Dirección Comercial III , Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.[35] PESEK, B. [1970]: "Bank´s supply function and the equilibrium quantity of money", Canadian

Journal of Economics, August, pp. 357-385.[36] PYLE, D.H.: [1971]: "On the Theory of Financial Intermediation", The Journal of Finance,

vol.26, no.3, pp. 737-387.[37] RAIHALL, D., HRECHAK, A. [1994]: "Improving financial institutions performance through

overhead cost management", The Journal of Bank Cost and Management Accounting, vol.7,

no.1, p. 44-57.[38] REZAEE, Z. [1991]: "The relevance of managerial accounting concepts in the banking

industry", The Journal of Bank Cost and Management Accounting, vol.4, no.1, March, p..25-35.

[39] ROUACH, M., NAULLEAU, G. [1994]: Le contrôle de gestion bancaire et financier , LaRevue Banque Editeur, Paris.

[40] ROUACH, M.[1998]: "Connaître les coûts opérationnels", Banque, No. 596, October, p. 21-23.[41] RUF, B., HILL, M. [1992]: "Applying activity based costing to the mortgage banking

industry", The Journal of Bank Costs and Management Accounting, vol. 5, no.1, p. 28-37.[42] SANTOMERO, A.M. [2000]: "Una panorámica histórica de la teoría de la intermediación

financiera", Papeles de Economía Española, no. 84-85, July, pp. 2-15.




[43] SAPP., R., CRAWFORD, D., REBISCHKE, S.:• [1990]: "Activity based information for financial institutions", Journal of Bank Cost and

Management Accounting, vol.3, no. 2, p.53-62.• [1991]: "Activity framework for ABC in financial institutions", Journal of Bank Cost

and Management Accounting, vol. 4, no.1, p.75-86.[44] SAVING, T: [1977]: "A theory of money supply with competitive banking", Journal of

Monetary Economics, vol.3, July, pp. 289-303.

[45] SCIAS, R.G. [1985]: "Pricing bank services", Management Accounting [US], vol.67, no.1, july,p.48-59.

[46] SEALEY, C.W., LINDLEY, J.T. [1977]: "Inputs, Outputs, and a Theory of production andCost at Depository Financial Institutions", The Journal of Finance, vol.32, no.4, pp. 1251-1266.

[47] SLOANE, L.J. [1991]: Accounting in British Banking, Chartered Institute of ManagementAccountants, London.

[48] SWANK, J. [1996]: "Theories of the banking firm: a review of the literature", Bulletin of

Economic Research, vol 48, no. 3, July, pp. 173-207.SWEENEY, R., MAYS, J.:• [1994]: "Activity based costing in banking" CMA Magazine, vol.68, no.4, May, p. 19-

23.• [1997]: "ABM lifts bank´s bottom line", Management Accounting [US], vol.78, no.9, p.

20-26.[49] TUA, J., LARRIBA, A. [1986]: Contabilidad de Entidades de crédito: Teoría y regulación de

la información financiera. [tomo I], Instituto Superior de Técnicas y Prácticas Bancarias,Madrid.

[50] WADEN-BERGHE, L. [1990]: "Contabilidad de gestión de la entidad de crédito", Técnica

contable, no.504, pp. 569-585.[51] WEINER, J. [1995]: "Activity based costing for financial institutions", The Journal of Bank

Costs and Management Accounting, vol.8, no.3, p. 19-44.

Documents

Costing in Banks Jmib 6 04