Corporate Governance and Bank Performance: Empirical Evidence from Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the impact and important of Corporate Governance on bank performance in the context of Nepal. The return on assets and return on equity are the independent variables that measure the bank performance in the context to Nepal. Board Size, Female Board Member, Financial Institution, CEO Duality, Independent Director, Firm Size, Firm Age, Earnings per Share and Capital Adequacy Ratio of the firms are the independent Corporate Governance variable. The data are collected from the Banking and Financial Statistics published by Nepal Rastra Bank, NRB Directives, legal provision incorporate in Companies Act, 2063 and concerned by-laws regarding corporate governance, the provision on Bank and Financial Institution Act, 2063;supervision reports of Nepal Rastra Bank. The result shows that there is a significant impact of corporate governance on ROA as well as ROE in the financial institution. The findings of this study specify that elements of corporate governance such as the presence of independent director, firm size have a positive effect on the performance of firms. However, female board members, board size, board members, and the compensation of board members have negative effects on the performance of firms, as measured by the return on asset (ROA).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".