MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971652436 · doi:10.3390/jrfm12030142

The Effects of Regulatory Capital Requirements and Ownership Structure on Bank Lending in Emerging Asian Markets

2019· article· en· W2971652436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasmeen Akhtar, Ghulam Mujtaba, Tahir Yousaf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCapital adequacy ratioFinancial systemCapital requirementCorporate governanceCapital (architecture)Monetary economicsLoanEmerging marketsFinanceEconomicsMarket economyIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the impact of regulatory capital requirements and ownership structure on bank lending in Emerging Asian Markets. The findings of the study imply that banks with excess capital are less affected by capital constraints and enjoy opportunities to extend their credit portfolios. The monitory policy indicator has the expected negative and significant impact on bank lending. In case of well-capitalized banks, the interaction between the excess capital and monetary policy indicator has a significant positive relation with bank lending, which means that banks with excess capital have capability to raise uninsured financing and shield their loan portfolios as compared to less-capitalized banks that reduce their lending in the period of monetary tightening. In the case of bank ownership structure, banks with excess capital ratios and ownership concentration lead towards an increase in lending activity. The findings also show that well-capitalized banks with managerial ownership tend to reduce lending which validates agency theory of corporate governance.

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)0.008
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207