MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114105383 · doi:10.5430/ijfr.v2n2p61

Determinants of Commercial Banks’ Lending Behavior in Nigeria

2011· article· en· W2114105383 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F. O. Olokoyo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Financial Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityLoanCommercial bankPortfolioContext (archaeology)BusinessVariablesEconometricsReserve requirementInterest rateInvestment (military)Financial systemMonetary economicsEconomicsActuarial scienceFinanceCentral bankMonetary policyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the determinants of commercial banks’ lending behaviour in the Nigerian context. The study aimed to test and confirm the effectiveness of the common determinants of commercial banks lending behaviour and how it affects the lending behaviour of commercial banks in Nigeria. The model used is estimated using Nigerian commercial banks loan advance (LOA) and other determinants or variables such as their volume of deposits (Vd), their investment portfolio (Ip), interest (lending) rate (Ir), stipulated cash reserve requirements ratio (Rr) and their liquidity ratio (Lr) for the period; 1980 – 2005. The model hypothesizes that there is functional relationship between the dependent variable and the specified independent variables. From the regression analysis, the model was found to be significant and its estimators turned out as expected and it was discovered that commercial banks deposits have the greatest impacts on their lending behaviour. The study then suggests that commercial banks should focus on mobilizing more deposits as this will enhance their lending performance and should formulate critical, realistic and comprehensive strategic and financial plans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations120
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Financial ResearchSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207