MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182770386 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14070307

Determinants of Bank Profitability in CEE Countries: Evidence from GMM Panel Data Estimates

2021· article· en· W3182770386 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra Horobeţ, Magdalena Rãdulescu, Lucian Belaşcu, Sandra Maria Dita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexPanel dataCapitalizationLoanInflation (cosmology)Interest rateMonetary economicsFinancial systemInflation rateEconomicsPsychological resilienceBusinessUnemployment rateFinancial crisisNon-performing loanBalance sheetUnemploymentFinanceMacroeconomicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the high resilience of the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) banking sectors during the last financial crisis and their major role in the CEE region in financing the economy and supporting the high growth rates achieved there, our paper investigates the determinants of banking profitability in the CEE banking sectors based on a Generalized Method of Methods (GMM) approach using data between 2009 and 2018. We have selected determinants from the macroeconomic factors and from the financial-banking specific factors using a two-step GMM method. Our findings demonstrate that unemployment rate, inflation, budget balance, non-governmental credit, non-performing loan rates, concentration rate and capitalization rate negatively impact on the banking profitability in the CEE banking sectors. According to these findings, some policy recommendations were elaborated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.266
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations82
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207