MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W228935881

Banking's Top Performers: Part 1: Banks with Assets over $3 Billion: 2007 Began as the Best of Times and Ended as the Worst of Times. Yet the Top Performers Still Managed to Excel. Here's How They Did It

2008· article· en· W228935881 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueABA banking journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessDefaultEarningsBoomQuarter (Canadian coin)RecessionFinanceFinancial systemMonetary economicsEconomicsHistoryEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] It's seems long ago now, but the first quarter of 2007 was a very strong one for banks. After that, things quickly began unraveling, and banks and thrifts faced significant obstacles throughout the rest of the year. Many institutions were adversely affected, even though only a handful of them were directly involved in what turned out to be the last straw of a credit boom-subprime lending. Despite the Federal Reserve's aggressive rate cutting in the second half, the cost of funds remained high, resulting in further margin compression at most banks. Many subprime and nontraditional mortgages began to turn sour, affecting both credit quality and the ability of banks to access the secondary markets. As borrowers defaulted on more and more mortgage loans, institutions of all sizes found themselves forced to take large writedowns or increase their provisions. These conditions led to the first bank failures since 2004 and caused institutions that had previously appeared among our top performers-Citigroup, First Horizon National, IndyMac Bancorp, and National City to name a few--to drop to the bottom of our rankings. By the fourth quarter, the FDIC was reporting that the earnings of insured institutions were the lowest they had been since 2002. The performance of this year's top 25 public and top 10 private or foreign-owned banks and thrifts is all the more impressive for exhibiting strength despite the prevailing adverse conditions. The aggregate industry statistics tell an already familiar story, but this year's top performers managed strong performance in a year where most banks were happy to just squeak by. In this, Part One of the 16th annual ABA Banking Journal performance report, we will review the financial results and strategies of the nation's largest banks and thrifts. Part Two, which will appear in June, will highlight the top performing community banks and thrifts of 2007. Selection criteria Our study ranks the performance of domestic depository institutions with assets over $3 billion as of Dec. 31, 2007. Two groups were included in our analysis: publicly held depository institutions (banks, thrifts, and bank or financial holding companies) and private or foreign-owned depositories (defined in greater detail below). A total of 157 public banks, thrifts, and holding companies and 43 private institutions qualified under our selection criteria. They were ranked by return on average total equity for 2007. In instances where the reported ROAE was identical for two or more institutions, 2007 return on average total assets (ROAA) was used as a secondary ranking criterion. Data were provided by SNL Financial LC as of December 2007. Securities and Exchange Commission filings were the source for public company data, and regulatory filings were the data source for private and foreign-owned institutions. (Five banks met our selection criteria but were not included in our analysis because data were not available at the time this article was sent to print. Those institutions are: Doral Financial Corp., San Juan, P.R.; NetBank, Alpharetta, Ga.; BFC Financial Corp., Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; HSBC North America Holdings, Prospect Heights, Ill.; and Fremont General Corp., Santa Monica, Calif.) Three winning strategies This year's top 25 public banks and thrifts are those who made the best of a bad situation. To get an idea of the difference in overall industry performance between 2006 and 2007, one need only look at the drop in the return on average equity (ROAE) that an institution needed to qualify: last year, the 25th institution had an ROAE of 17.26%, while this year, City National of Beverly Hills, Calif. (#25) made it with an ROAE of 13.92%. This year's top performers used three main strategies to counter the inhospitable operating environment: growing noninterest income, focusing on a particular niche business or consumer segment, and improving overall efficiency. …

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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