MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386324359 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16090390

Impact of Liquidity on the Efficiency of Banks in India Using Panel Data Analysis

2023· article· en· W4386324359 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anureet Virk Sidhu, Rebecca Abraham, Venkata Mrudula Bhimavarapu, Jagjeevan Kanoujiya, Shailesh Rastogi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityPanel dataTransparency (behavior)EconometricsCost efficiencyReturns to scaleBusinessScale (ratio)EconomicsMonetary economicsFinancial systemComputer scienceProduction (economics)MicroeconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study investigates the impact of the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) on the efficiency of Indian banks for the period 2010 to 2019. The study examines the effect of internal bank elements like ownership structure, transparency and disclosure, and technological advancement on the relationship between the LCR and efficiency. Bank efficiency proxied as technical efficiency is evaluated by applying the data envelope analysis approach. Applying the panel data regression technique, the authors discover that the LCR has a positive impact on the technical efficiency at a constant return to scale of banks. The relationship between the LCR and the technical efficiency at a variable return to scale is non-linear. Initially, as liquidity increases, the efficiency of banks improves, after reaching its optimum level, efficiency starts to decline. Furthermore, liquidity tends to improve efficiency of banks with higher promoter stakes, whereas opposing results are evidenced for institutional investors and technological advancement.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207