MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200504295 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14120621

Determinants of Bank M&As in Central and Eastern Europe

2021· article· en· W4200504295 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alin Marius Andrieş, Sabina Andreea Cazan, Nicu Sprincean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si Inovarii
KeywordsProfitability indexMarket liquidityBusinessFinancial systemCentral bankChinese financial systemQuality (philosophy)Monetary economicsEconomicsFinanceMonetary policyGeographyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyzes the determinants of bank mergers and acquisitions (M&As) from a bank-level perspective. The main objective of the study is to identify those mutual characteristics of all banking institutions from Central and Eastern Europe that are prone to be acquired versus acquirer, or national versus cross-border. Using a database of more than 200 M&As transactions between 2000 and 2018 within Central and Eastern Europe, we document the main characteristics that influence the decision of merging, including the size of the bank, profitability, lending activities, liquidity, bank concentration, banking system stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and the level of inflation. Higher effective average tax rate, which is associated with reduced tax avoidance, influences banks in a positive manner to be involved in the M&A process, findings that hold for targeted banks and domestic transactions. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the changes the financial crisis has projected on investors’ behavior.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency→French-language works237,207→