Introduction

Regulators have traditionally focused on and accumulated substantial knowledge about bank lending, while less knowledge is available about other types of lenders and the borrowers who obtain financing from them. The rapid growth of non-bank financial institutions (NBFIs) in some markets in recent years has put focus on the knowledge gap about NBFI lending, as these nonbank lenders play an increasingly important role in the financial system in countries like the US.

So far, rapid growth of NBFI lending has not yet been observed in Norway. According to the credit indicators (C2 for domestic debt and C3 for total debt including foreign debt) by Statistics Norway, as Figure 1 shows, lending provided by various types of domestic lending institutions accounts for around two thirds of total credit for Norwegian non-financial firms, as of June 2025. The rest comes from bond financing and lending from abroad. Among domestic lending institutions, banks and their affiliated mortgage companies (hereafter banks) still account for more than 90% of total lending to Norwegian firms. The remainder is provided by nonbank lenders, including financing companies, insurance companies and pension funds, state lending institutions, and others. Although nonbank lending remains limited in Norway, understanding the lenders and the characteristics of their borrowers can provide important insights for monitoring credit market dynamics.

Figure 1 Total credit to non-financial firms in Norway. June 2015 – June 2025. (Source: Statistics Norway and Financial Stability Report 2025 H2, Norges Bank)

To better understand these nonbank institutional lenders, in this blog, we explore  Saldo- og Renteoppgaver for Foretak (hereafter tax data or SE) provided by the Norwegian Tax Administration (Skatteetaten) for the period of 2015–2023, where Norwegian firms report every loan from Norwegian lending institutions in their tax filings at the end of each year. By combining firm characteristics provided by the Brønnøysund Register Centre and lender characteristics provided by financial reports from banks and financial undertakings (ORBOF), we get a detailed picture of the financial institutions that are lending to Norwegian firms, as well as the characteristics of borrowers that are borrowing from certain financial institutions.

Who are those nonbank institutional lenders?

While C2 is based on reports from financial institutions, the tax data provides information of lending from the borrower side. By aggregating individual loans in the tax data within the same types of lenders, exploring ORBOF reports and following the same institutional sector grouping as C2, we are able to match about 90% of total institutional lending in C2.

Figure 2 presents the volume of nonbank institutional lending provided by financing companies, insurance companies and pension funds, state lending institutions, and others, according to C2 and the tax data (SE), respectively. The discrepancy in the lending volume reported by these two sources mainly comes from different definitions of “loan”: In C2, loan includes all debt instruments provided by the lenders, while in the tax data, loan only includes direct lending.

Among all nonbank lending institutions, financing companies account for about 40% of the total lending. These financing companies are non-deposit-taking companies that are engaged in various forms of financial services including credit cards, car loans, leasing, and factoring. According to ORBOF, leasing and factoring services typically account for about 70% and 7%, respectively, of financing companies’ total debt exposure to firms. Leasing and factoring are not included in the tax data, as they are mostly reflected in firms’ capital cost and financial cost in their tax filings. If we add up leasing and factoring on top of direct lending reported in the tax data, then the total volume is largely comparable with the total lending from financing companies as reported in C2. As of 2024, about one-third of financing companies are affiliated with banks and owned by banking groups, and the author’s own calculation based on ORBOF reports shows that about 80% of total funding from financing companies is provided by these bank-affiliated financing companies.

Figure 2 Nonbank institutional lending to Norwegian firms, according to C2 and the tax data (SE), provided by different types of lenders. The information on leasing and factoring provided by financing companies is obtained from ORBOF.

Insurance companies and pension funds also lend to firms. Total lending provided by insurance companies and pension funds according to the tax data matches well with these lenders’ aggregate exposure to non-financial firms according to ORBOF (data available after 2022). Total lending reported in C2 is higher than tax data, but the development in C2 and tax data is similar. According to C3, such funding accounts for about 1% of total credit for non-financial firms and is typically considered as NBFI lending: According to the tax data, as of 2023, about 75% of such lending is provided by one major life insurance company, and the rest is mostly provided by a bank-affiliated life insurance company.

State lending institutions include Husbanken and Innovasjon Norge for non-financial firms. As funding from state lending institutions is mostly provided through direct lending, the lending volumes reported by C2 and the tax data are well matched. Husbanken or Innovasjon Norge each account for roughly half of total lending from state lending institutions, respectively.

The lending from other lending institutions is mostly provided by Eksportfinansiering Norge (Eksfin), another major state lending institution that provides funding and guarantees for Norwegian exporters. Compared with C2, the tax data overestimate Eksfin’s total lending volume, probably reflecting the fact that Eksfin usually partners with banks, so that part of reported Eksfin lending in the tax data is provided by banks.

Which sectors do these lenders lend to?

Table 1 presents the exposure of each type of lending institution to different industries, in terms of their shares in the lending of each lender type. Among total lending from banks, the largest share (about 45%) goes to commercial real estate (CRE), followed by construction and service industries. For financing companies, construction, service, trade, and transport industries account for considerable shares, while the exposure to CRE is relatively small, reflecting the fact that lending from such companies is mostly in the form of credit card debt, car loans, leasing and factoring, and is provided to a wide variety of firms.

Table 1 Sectoral exposure of institutional lenders: banks (2024, ORBOF), financing companies (2024, ORBOF), insurance companies and pension funds (2023, Skatteetaten’s tax data), Eksportfinansiering Norge (Eksfin) (2023, source: Skatteetaten’s tax data), state lending institutions - Husbanken and Innovasjon Norge (2024, ORBOF). Individual loans in the tax data are aggregated following the same ORBOF sectoral codes

Lending from insurance companies (mostly life insurance companies) and pension funds is concentrated in a small number of borrowers mainly from CRE and construction industries. As of 2023, 186 firms borrowed from insurance companies and pension funds, in contrast to about 100,000 firms that borrowed from banks. More than 70% of total lending from insurance companies and pension funds went to the top 10 borrowers – mostly CRE and construction companies – in 2023. The single largest loan was from a major life insurance company to a CRE firm which is the life insurer’s wholly owned subsidiary. This lending accounts for 44% of total lending from insurance companies and pension funds.

For the state lending institutions, Husbanken focuses almost exclusively on lending to CRE and CRE related firms (particularly firms that rent out housing to vulnerable individuals), while for the lending provided by Innovasjon Norge, about half of it goes to the fishing industry. Just under half of Eksfin’s lending is directed toward the shipping industry.

Characteristics of borrowers

Table 2 Characteristics of borrowers (median values) from each type of lending institutions: Banks, financing companies, insurance companies and pension funds, Eksfin, state lending institutions: Husbanken and Innovasjon Norge. (2023. Source: Skatteetaten’s tax data, the Brønnøysund Register Centre, and author’s own calculation)

Table 2 shows the key characteristics of median borrowers from each type of lending institution. Compared with a median bank borrower, borrowers from life insurance company/pension funds and Eksfin are on average much larger and more established firms in terms of total assets, number of employees and age, and borrow much more from each lending institution.

Note that leasing and factoring, which account for almost about 80% of financing companies’ total debt exposure to firms, are not included in the tax data. The financing companies’ loans that are registered in the tax data are mostly small credit card debts and car loans, and for this reason, the median loan size from financing companies is rather small. Compared with bank borrowers, a median borrower at financial companies is relatively larger in terms of total assets, sales, number of employees, and more established in terms of age.

Corporate borrowers from Husbanken are mostly CRE firms while borrowers from Innovasjon Norge are comparable to bank borrowers. However, when comparing with similar borrowers at banks, borrowers seem to borrow more from Husbanken and Innovasjon Norge. For instance, in 2023, a median CRE borrower borrows 5.7 million NOK from Husbanken, while a CRE borrower of similar size borrows 4.5 million NOK from a bank. A median borrower from the fishing industry borrows 6.5 million NOK from Innovasjon Norge, while a borrower of similar size from the same industry borrows 3.3 million NOK from a bank.

Conclusion

Overall, we find that Norwegian non-financial firms are still largely relying on bank lending. As of 2023, according to the tax data, among all domestic institutional lenders, we find that about 12% of lending to Norwegian non-financial firms are not from banks. Out of such lending, 38% are from financing companies (80% of their total lending comes from affiliated banks), 17% are from state lending institutions, 23% are from Eksfin, and 12% are from the “typical” NBFIs such as insurance companies and pension funds. In addition, such NBFIs only lend to a small number of borrowers that are mainly CRE firms. Looking ahead, ongoing monitoring of the institutional lending landscape is essential. For instance, the amended directive for alternative investment funds, AIFMD 2.0, may contribute to the evolution in the corporate lending market in the years ahead.