MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040633329 · doi:10.5267/j.ac.2020.5.007

Determinants influencing capital adequacy ratio of Vietnamese commercial banks

2020· article· en· W3040633329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hung Phuong Vu, Ngoc Duc Dang

Bibliographic record

VenueAccounting · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicIslamic Finance and Banking Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseCapital adequacy ratioBusinessCapital (architecture)EconomicsEconometricsActuarial scienceGeographyMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study employs a panel data analysis to identify the factors that significantly affect the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) of Vietnamese commercial banks for the period from 2011 to 2018. During this period, the number of banks had decreased from 41 to 31 due to mergers and acquisitions. The variables that are hypothesized to affect the capital adequacy ratio of commercial banks in Vietnam include bank size (SIZE), deposit (DEP), loan (LOA), loan loss reserves (LLR), liquidity (LIQ), return on assets (ROA), return on capital (ROE), net interest margin (NIM), non-performing loans (NPL) and leverage (LEV). The results indicate that LEV, LLR, ROE had a negative impact, ROA had a positive impact, and SIZE, DEP, LOA, LIQ, NIM, NPL did not significantly influence the CAR of Vietnamese commercial banks.

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)0.000
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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAccountingSame topicIslamic Finance and Banking StudiesFrench-language works237,207