Cost and Profit Efficiency of Online Banks: Do National Commercial Banks Perform better than Private Banks?
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".