MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513241733 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v8n9p199

Effect of Synergy on Financial Performance of Merged Financial Institutions in Kenya

2016· article· en· W2513241733 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agnes Ogada, Amos Njuguna, George Achoki

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexKenyaMarket liquidityPanel dataBusinessFinanceFinancial ratioFinancial analysisFinancial systemEconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mergers and Acquisitions deals that create value constitute at least one or a combination of financial and operational synergy. This paper investigates the effect of synergy on financial performance of merged institutions in the financial services sector in Kenya. The paper adopted a mixed research design, pre and post-merger secondary data was collected from 40 (forty) institutions in the Kenyan financial services industry that had concluded their merger processes by 31 December 2013. Financial synergy was proxied using the liquidity ratio while operating synergy was measured using growth in sales. Primary data was used to explain the results of the secondary data. Panel data analysis was used to determine the change in the study variables and trends over time between 2009 and 2013, event window (pre-merger and post-merger) analysis was used to test for any significant difference in performance means before and after merger as a result synergy, while regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between synergy and profitability. Results show that there is a positive relationship between performance, operating synergy and financial synergy, and that there was significant improvement in performance post-merger. From these findings, the study recommends that institutions should critically evaluate the overall business and operational compatibility of the merging institutions and focus on capturing long-term financial synergies as this has a positive effect on the performance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207