Cost Efficiency Determinants: Evidence from the Canadian Banking Industry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the cost efficiency of the banking industry in Canada. Utilizing 12 years of data (i.e., 2006 to 2017), and a two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA), it provides insight on the determinants of the industry’s cost efficiency. It finds that the industry is cost inefficient, and that it could reduce costs by 11.52 percent. The cost inefficiency is due to technical and allocative inefficiencies, with technical inefficiency playing a dominant role. The technical efficiency decomposition shows that pure technical efficiency improved, but the scale efficiency deteriorated. The analysis of the determinants of cost efficiency reveals that deposit conversion into loans, high capitalization, and managerial tolerance for increase in administrative expense drive cost efficiency. On the other hand, market power and diversification diminish cost efficiency. In addition, the impact of profitability and credit risk are inconsequential to cost efficiency. This study contributes to literature by providing insights unique to Canada. Managers in the industry, policy makers, and regulators can point to these findings as empirical evidence supporting measures aimed at increasing the industry’s competitiveness and resilience.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it