Cost and Profit Efficiency of Online Banks: Do National Commercial Banks Perform better than Private Banks?
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study employs the parametric approach, in particular the Stochastic Frontier Approach, to examine the cost and profit efficiency of National Commercial Banks and Private Banks in Bangladesh using stochastic frontier model. The cost inefficiency and profit efficiency are observed slightly higher for private banks than national commercial banks. The coefficient of advance (0.334) is highly significant at 1% level and the coefficient of off-balance sheet items (0.339) is significant at 5% level. Both results are positive influence to the banks for cost model. The coefficients of Advance, Other earning assets, Off-balance sheet items, Price of fixed assets and Price of labour are recorded highly significant in profit model. The average cost inefficiency and profit efficiency are observed 16.3% and 91% respectively. The lowest cost inefficiency is 5.3% for United Commercial Bank Limited while the highest cost inefficiency is 44.7% for Janata Bank. The lowest profit efficiency is 76.9% for Janata Bank while the highest profit efficiency is 94.9% for Eastern Bank Limited.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it