MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W166728367

Macroeconomic, Market and Bank-Specific Determinants of the Net Interest Margin in Austria

2013· article· en· W166728367 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ulrich Gunter, Gerald Krenn, Michael Sigmund

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNet interest marginBalance sheetNet interest incomeInterest rateRevenueEconomicsFactoringQuarter (Canadian coin)Competition (biology)Margin (machine learning)Net incomeFinancial crisisIncome statementFinancial systemBusinessMonetary economicsFinanceMacroeconomicsProfitability index
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is to identify key determinants of the net interest margin (NIM) in the Austrian banking sector. In Austria, the NIM is one of the most important income drivers of banks given the importance of relationship banking, where interest income dominates other sources of revenue. However, the NIM differs substantially among Austrian banks. Drawing on a unique supervisory dataset for the Austrian banking sector of around 42, 000 observations between the first quarter of 1996 and the second quarter of 2012, we analyze under which circumstances a bank has a relatively high or low NIM. We contribute to the empirical literature on the NIM by factoring in a bank’s business model in terms of its balance sheet structure and by accounting for the financial crisis from the third quarter of 2007 onward. Our estimation results suggest that not only the determinants identified in the existing empirical literature (different types of non-interest income and expenses, various risk measures, competition, macroeconomic environment) have a significant influence on the NIM, but also our two innovations (balance sheet structure, financial crisis).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207