MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025829800 · doi:10.35808/ijeba/473

The Effect of Banking Concentration on Non-Performing Loans: The Case of Albania

2020· article· en· W3025829800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Arjan Tushaj, Valentina Sinaj

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Business Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNon-performing loanLoanBusinessFinancial systemValue (mathematics)Monetary economicsBanking industryReturn on assetsInterest rateCost of funds indexQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsFinanceStatisticsMathematicsStock exchange

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines the correlation among banking concentration and nonperforming loans using datasets of the Albanian banking sector during 2005-2017. We investigated the non-performing loans affected by market structural variables, banking variables and macroeconomic variables. Approach/Methodology/Design: We test the loan concentration impact on nonperforming loans through linear regression models. Findings: The Albanian banking sector proved the ambiguous results and the sound correlation in long run among concentration and non-performing loans. Outcome confirmed the negative effect of return on assets and the average interest rate for non-performing loans. Meanwhile the total loans, exchange rates and Gross Domestic Product is affected positively by the non-performing loans. Practical Implications: The Albanian banking sector operated to moderate concentration despite banks' mergers recently. It has linked with the increasing non-performing loans ratio past to the last quarter of 2008. We demonstrated the empirical impacts that they ought to be taken into consideration by the 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Business AdministrationSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207