Banks Performance Determinants: Comparative Analysis between Conventional and Islamic Banks from GCC Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this research is to compare and identify the determinants of the performance for Islamic banks with Conventional banks operating in GCC countries from 2005 to 2012. Using a sample of 71 Conventional banks and 46 Islamic banks that operate inside GCC countries for the period 2005-2012 and by using CAMEL test, we find that comparing the profitability of the Islamic and Conventional banks shows that for all the ratios used to measure profitability, Islamic banks are on-average more profitable than the Conventional ones. For performance determinants, results show that bank size affect performance of both Conventional and Islamic banks. Operation cost has a positive and significant effect on performance in Conventional and Islamic banks. The coefficient of credit risk is negative and significant in Conventional banks and positive but non significant in Islamic banks. For macroeconomic variables, inflation and DPG growth haven’t a significant effect on Conventional banks performance. For Islamic banks, inflation has a positive and significant coefficient. Results show differences in regards to factors affecting performance between Conventional and Islamic banks. Specifically, credit risk does not affect Islamic bank performance, while inflation and DGP growth do not affect the performance of Conventional banks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".