Banking market structure and efficiency: an assessment of the USA and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study aims to analyze the changes in banking market structure and their impact on the bank efficiency. Design/methodology/approach This study uses a one-stage stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) to compare the impact of the market structure and the GFC on the economic efficiency of the major banks in both countries. Findings A significant negative impact of the GFC is observed on bank efficiency. Overall, Canadian banks posted better efficiency scores than their American counterparts. Additionally, cost-efficient banks are found to be more resilient to crises and more profit-efficient in the post-GFC period. The authors found that market power had a positive impact on the cost and profit efficiency of banks. Higher levels of equity, market power and concentration helped banks be more cost-efficient. Research limitations/implications Only large banks are selected for study although it represents the majority stake of both banking sectors. Practical implications Banking regulators should include more measures to assess the banking market structure and performance. Originality/value As per the best knowledge of the authors, it is the first study to assess the change in banking market structure and efficiency of the US and Canadian banking sectors in the post-GFC period.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it