MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988888649 · doi:10.5430/afr.v8n4p157

Bank Competition, Efficiency, and Stability in Macau

2019· article· en· W2988888649 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui Xia, Kevin Lei, Jiaochen Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting and Finance Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)InsolvencyFinancial systemVolatility (finance)BusinessSample (material)ChinaEconomicsPer capita incomeMarket powerChinese financial systemPer capitaPopulationMonetary economicsMarket economyFinanceMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Macau has the uppermost population density and the fourth-highest GDP per capita in the world. Macau’s banking system is regarded as one of the most important indicators of Macau’s macroeconomic growth and stability during its transformation into a wealthy and modern metropolis. In this study, we use a sample of 26 banks to explore the relationship of bank competition, efficiency and stability in Macau from its return to China in 1999 to 2016. Our results demonstrate that bank competition does cause efficiency in Macau throughout the study period. We also find indications of a positive but not significant connection between bank market power and bank fragility including income volatility and insolvency risk. Moreover, this study finds no evidence that the size of operations proxied by total bank loans and total assets would impact bank efficiency, indicating that economies of scale or bank market share don’t necessarily bring about efficiency in Macau. Our evidence contributes to the literature by being the first to thoroughly examine the relation of bank competition, efficiency and stability in Macau. The findings provide meaningful implications to the practitioners and policymakers to make sound decisions accordingly, especially to closely monitor and maintain a proper level of competition in Macau’s banking sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccounting and Finance ResearchSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207