Leverage, capital and profitability of the banks: Evidence from Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examines the effect of leverage and capital on the profitability of selected Saudi Arabian Banks during the period 2014 and 2019. The banks have been selected based upon their size in terms of total assets. The profitability elements, such as Earnings per Share (EPS), Return on Assets (ROA), and Return on Equity (ROE) are the dependent variables; Total Debt Ratio (TDR), Tier 1 Capital Ratio (Tier 1 CAP), and Debt to Equity Ratio (DE) are the independent variables, and firm size is the control variable. The study estimates a pooled regression analysis to analyze the effect of these variables. The results of the study show that there is a positive relationship between the different profitability variables and Debt to Equity Ratio. The Total Debt Ratio is having positive association with ROA and ROE, and has an insignificant negative relationship with the EPS, and the Tier 1 capital ratio is having positive association with ROA and ROE, and has an insignificant relationship with the EPS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".