### Table 3 Two-step Estimation of Equations (1), (2), and (3):

2000

"... In PAGE 20: ... Baseline Results Tables 3 and 4 present the results of our second-step regressions. Table3 gives a compact overview of all the specifications, showing only one number (with the associated p-value) from each regression: the sum of the N coefficients on the relevant monetary indicator. The table is divided into two panels: Panel A for C amp;I loans, and Panel B for total loans.... In PAGE 20: ... Second, we test in the same six ways whether the sum of the N apos;s is lower for the small banks than for the quot;big quot; banks--those in the top 1% of the size distribution. As can be seen from Panel A of Table3 , the overall results for C amp;I loans are strong. Consider first the results for the small banks.... In PAGE 22: ... If this is so, the effects that we are looking for will emerge more clearly with C amp;I loans. Table 4 presents the details of the individual regressions that make up Table3 . There are 6 panels, A through F, one for each combination of loan type and monetary indicator.... In PAGE 22: ... A couple of salient facts emerge. First, while we reported in Table3 only the sums of the five N coefficients... In PAGE 25: ...33 Table 5 presents an overview of the estimates of N generated by the one-step approach. As can be seen, the point estimates are generally quite close to those in Table3 . However, the standard errors are much reduced, leading to more strongly significant p-values.... In PAGE 26: ...n the first-step regressions. Everything else is exactly as before. Table 6 gives an overview of the results. As it turns out, the numbers are very similar to those in Table3 . Of course, we recognize that Table 6 does not by itself represent an ironclad argument against endogeneity concerns.... In PAGE 27: ...In Table 7, we reproduce all the numbers in Table3 for each of two sub-samples. A clear pattern emerges: the results are almost uniformly stronger and more statistically significant in the second sub-sample, which begins in 1986Q1.... In PAGE 27: ... A first step is to quantify how two equal-sized banks with different values of Bit respond to a shock. From Table3 , Panel A, the most conservative estimate of the sum of the N apos;s for small banks apos; C amp;I loans is -.0151.... In PAGE 28: ...36 That is, if both banks started with a level of C amp;I loans equal to $1000, then purely on the basis of liquidity differences, we would predict a $6 gap between the two banks a year after the funds rate shock. The estimates in Table3 are also consistent with a much larger cross-sectional effect. If we base our calculation on the bivariate small-bank/big-bank coefficient differential of -.... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table3 , Panel 1... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1 d Table3... ..."

Cited by 13

### Table 3 Two-step Estimation of Equations (1), (2), and (3):

2000

"... In PAGE 20: ... Baseline Results Tables 3 and 4 present the results of our second-step regressions. Table3 gives a compact overview of all the specifications, showing only one number (with the associated p-value) from each regression: the sum of the N coefficients on the relevant monetary indicator. The table is divided into two panels: Panel A for C amp;I loans, and Panel B for total loans.... In PAGE 20: ... Second, we test in the same six ways whether the sum of the N apos;s is lower for the small banks than for the quot;big quot; banks--those in the top 1% of the size distribution. As can be seen from Panel A of Table3 , the overall results for C amp;I loans are strong. Consider first the results for the small banks.... In PAGE 22: ... If this is so, the effects that we are looking for will emerge more clearly with C amp;I loans. Table 4 presents the details of the individual regressions that make up Table3 . There are 6 panels, A through F, one for each combination of loan type and monetary indicator.... In PAGE 22: ... A couple of salient facts emerge. First, while we reported in Table3 only the sums of the five N coefficients... In PAGE 25: ...33 Table 5 presents an overview of the estimates of N generated by the one-step approach. As can be seen, the point estimates are generally quite close to those in Table3 . However, the standard errors are much reduced, leading to more strongly significant p-values.... In PAGE 26: ...n the first-step regressions. Everything else is exactly as before. Table 6 gives an overview of the results. As it turns out, the numbers are very similar to those in Table3 . Of course, we recognize that Table 6 does not by itself represent an ironclad argument against endogeneity concerns.... In PAGE 27: ...In Table 7, we reproduce all the numbers in Table3 for each of two sub-samples. A clear pattern emerges: the results are almost uniformly stronger and more statistically significant in the second sub-sample, which begins in 1986Q1.... In PAGE 27: ... A first step is to quantify how two equal-sized banks with different values of Bit respond to a shock. From Table3 , Panel A, the most conservative estimate of the sum of the N apos;s for small banks apos; C amp;I loans is -.0151.... In PAGE 28: ...36 That is, if both banks started with a level of C amp;I loans equal to $1000, then purely on the basis of liquidity differences, we would predict a $6 gap between the two banks a year after the funds rate shock. The estimates in Table3 are also consistent with a much larger cross-sectional effect. If we base our calculation on the bivariate small-bank/big-bank coefficient differential of -.... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table3 , Panel 1... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1 d Table3... ..."

Cited by 13

### Table 2. Results of two-step compactor synthesis.

"... In PAGE 6: ... Furthermore, we can use Lemma 1 to reduce the number of patterns that must be applied in the second time-step. Table2 presents experimental data for two-step com- paction. The lower bound on q given by Theorem 3 is achieved for every case that we consider.... In PAGE 7: ... (Upper bounds are obtained using Theorem 4.) head figures in Table2 include the literal counts for the multiplexers to switch between the two transmission func- tions. In a number of cases, the area overhead for two-step compaction (including the multiplexer needed to switch be- tween Trans1 and Trans2) is less than that for one-step compaction.... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 4 Two-Step Estimation of Equations (1), (2), and (3):

2000

"... In PAGE 22: ... If this is so, the effects that we are looking for will emerge more clearly with C amp;I loans. Table4 presents the details of the individual regressions that make up Table 3. There are 6 panels, A through F, one for each combination of loan type and monetary indicator.... In PAGE 23: ... Again, this is consistent with the rational buffer-stocking story, and thus gives us yet another reason to think that our estimates for the small-bank category err on the side of conservatism.32 Comparing across the different panels in Table4 , one can get an idea of how well the second-step regressions fit with the different indicators. The fed funds rate clearly has the most explanantory power of our three measures.... In PAGE 29: ...Table4 , Panel 1 of Kashyap and Stein (1995), the line labeled quot;small95 quot;. The advantage of using these estimates (rather than the one-step results reported here) is that the unit of observation is aggregate small-bank lending--i.... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table4 , Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table4 , Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1... ..."

Cited by 13

### Table 4 Two-Step Estimation of Equations (1), (2), and (3):

2000

"... In PAGE 22: ... If this is so, the effects that we are looking for will emerge more clearly with C amp;I loans. Table4 presents the details of the individual regressions that make up Table 3. There are 6 panels, A through F, one for each combination of loan type and monetary indicator.... In PAGE 23: ... Again, this is consistent with the rational buffer-stocking story, and thus gives us yet another reason to think that our estimates for the small-bank category err on the side of conservatism.32 Comparing across the different panels in Table4 , one can get an idea of how well the second-step regressions fit with the different indicators. The fed funds rate clearly has the most explanantory power of our three measures.... In PAGE 29: ...Table4 , Panel 1 of Kashyap and Stein (1995), the line labeled quot;small95 quot;. The advantage of using these estimates (rather than the one-step results reported here) is that the unit of observation is aggregate small-bank lending--i.... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table4 , Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table4 , Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1... ..."

Cited by 13

### Table 4 Two-Step Estimation of Equations (1), (2), and (3):

2000

"... In PAGE 22: ... If this is so, the effects that we are looking for will emerge more clearly with C amp;I loans. Table4 presents the details of the individual regressions that make up Table 3. There are 6 panels, A through F, one for each combination of loan type and monetary indicator.... In PAGE 23: ... Again, this is consistent with the rational buffer-stocking story, and thus gives us yet another reason to think that our estimates for the small-bank category err on the side of conservatism.32 Comparing across the different panels in Table4 , one can get an idea of how well the second-step regressions fit with the different indicators. The fed funds rate clearly has the most explanantory power of our three measures.... In PAGE 29: ...Table4 , Panel 1 of Kashyap and Stein (1995), the line labeled quot;small95 quot;. The advantage of using these estimates (rather than the one-step results reported here) is that the unit of observation is aggregate small-bank lending--i.... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table4 , Panel 1 b Table 4, Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1... In PAGE 54: ...1% Notes: * The numbers in the first column are based on the two-step estimates reported in Table 3. ** The numbers in the second column are drawn from Kashyap and Stein apos;s (1995) estimates for the quot;small 95 quot; category as follows: a Table 4, Panel 1 b Table4 , Panel 2 c Table 3, Panel 1... ..."

Cited by 13