Can Financial Ratios Reliably Measure the Performance of Banks in Bahrain?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to analyze the financial performance of major banks in Bahrain. This study covers the calculation of important financial ratios of major financial institutions in Bahrain as well as comparing their performance in the context of the global financial crisis. It also compares ratios of conventional banks with Islamic financial institutions in Bahrain. These ratios define profitability, financial performance, size and type of banks. The analysis of ratios shows the differences in financial management practices of banks in the respective areas. The study reveals that there are wide differences in the ratios used by different banks, especially before and after the financial crisis. This study helps identify best practice in the areas of profitability management, liquidity management, and interest rate risk management. The result of the analysis of ratios for measuring financial performance shows that there is corporate excellence in asset management and value equity shares. This analysis can be used as a basis for preventative actions for future bankruptcy and market risk. The components in financial statements for Islamic banks differ from conventional banks. The study recommends that banking institutions in Bahrain should use this ratio analysis to prevent unpredicted financial problems and take corrective measures or provisions to avoid such events for financial institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".