Financial Supervision and Bank Profitability: Evidence from East Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing fragility of the financial system has led to the increasing importance of financial supervision's role. In particular, the financial supervision regime is expected to promote bank performance and maintain financial stability. Unfortunately, studies on the relationship between banking supervisory regimes and bank performance are still limited. To address this issue, this paper focuses on the following four aspects of banking supervision:(i) the structure of supervisory frameworks, (ii) the independence of supervisory institutions (iii) the scope of supervisory role; and (iv) the authority of central banks in the banking sector. We use country-specific data for seven East-Asian countries and data for 39 individual banks in those countries over the period of 2006–2011 to examine how different financial supervision regimes in the region influence bank performance. The results show strong evidence that the existence of a single bank supervisor, instead of multiple, will enhance bank profitability. Mean while, there is a mixed result regarding the role of central bank independence in improving bank profitability. Furthermore, the authority of central banks in the banking sector and the scope of bank supervision do not show strong relationship with bank performance.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".