Financial Information Influencing Commercial Banks Profitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The paper investigates the influence of bank capital ratio, size and loans on the profitability of a commercial bank in Jordan. It also evaluates whether returns on Assets (ROA) or returns on equity (ROE) is the better indicator that reflects bank profitability. Two Multiple regression models are used to test the influence of capital ratio, size and loans of a commercial bank on its profitability indicators measured by ROA and ROE and to detect the superiority between the two indicators for 13 Jordanian commercial banks for the period 2005-2013. The results of the study showed that capital ratio, size and loans have insignificant influence on ROA, but not on ROE except bank size. Regarding ROE, significant negative and positive influence for capital ratio and loans respectively are concluded. Although the small number of commercial banks in Jordan and some variables have not been well researched in literature, the paper presents a sight to associate bank performance/profitability proxied by ROA and ROE with its capital ratios, size and loans. Our results might assist bank management to capitalize the factors that could improve banks performance and hedge against the adverse factors.</p>
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".