Influencing Corporate Creditworthiness: Case Study in the Egyptian Banking Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Granting loans to corporate clients is the main source of income for banks. However, those loans are associated with a certain level of credit risk that is the inability of clients to meet their obligations toward banks. The occurrence of credit risk can negatively affect banks' profitability and business continuity. Considering the fast-evolving environment, the competition between banks, and the asymmetry of information, mitigating credit risk becomes a main duty of banks. The aim of this qualitative study was to determine the financial and non-financial factors that have a significant impact on corporate clients' creditworthiness. The aim is to help credit risk assessors to enhance the quality of the credit risk assessment and to make timely and accurate credit decisions. The study was focused on the Egyptian banking sector and distinguished between large companies and small and medium enterprises. The study revealed a list of financial and non-financial factors that have a significant impact on the creditworthiness of each category of companies as judged by credit risk assessors. The study also found that there are similarities and differences between both sizes of companies in terms of the factors that affect their creditworthiness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".