Comparação de rentabilidades e spreads entre bancos do Brasil, México, Colômbia, Canadá e França
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the profitability and bank spreads of the five largest Brazilian banks with their peers in other countries, belonging to the emerging economies (Mexico and Colombia) and developed (France and Canada). The comparison is important to try to explain why the Brazilian banking spread is historically high, and to verify whether the profitability of Brazilian banks is higher than that of their peers in other countries in the sample. The bank spread is an extremely important financial indicator for bank profitability analyzes, as it is the result of a bank's main activity, financial intermediation, which strongly portrays the financial situation of each bank and the sector within the economy. The study seeks to explain the main differences between the banking markets of the countries studied, in order to indicate relevant factors for such differences. The main findings of the study were that the Brazilian banking spread is at a higher level than that of the countries compared, and in addition, Brazilian banks have higher proportions of allowance for credit losses, revealing strange behavior in relation to the write-offs of their credit portfolios. Evidence that may come from earnings management within the Brazilian banking sector. Default is an extremely cited and defended factor in the literature as the main determinant of the high Brazilian banking spread, however analyzes of allowance for credit losses accounts revealed that Brazilian write-offs are in line with the other countries in the sample, with Brazil country that least uses its loss provisions.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".