MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392385521 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17030103

The Impact of Non-Interest Income on Commercial Bank Profitability in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Region

2024· article· en· W4392385521 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bashar Abu Khalaf, Antoine B. Awad, S.D. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicBanking stability, regulation, efficiency
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMiddle EastProfitability indexNet interest incomeGeographyBusinessEconomicsDevelopment economicsFinancial systemInterest rateFinanceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effects of non-interest income on bank performance in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, addressing existing research gaps and conflicting results. The analysis is based on data from 40 banks (5 banks from each country) operating in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates between 2010 and 2022. Using correlation analysis and three regression models (OLS, FE, and RE), this study explores the relationship between non-interest income, overheads, capital adequacy, loan loss provision, bank size, and return on assets. The findings reveal positive associations among banks’ overhead, size, capital adequacy, and loan loss provision. Additionally, a favorable correlation is observed between non-interest income and bank performance. Non-interest income significantly influences the profitability of MENA region banks across all three models, supporting the main hypothesis. While the study’s limitations include sample size and geographic focus, the findings of this study provide valuable insights for policymakers, allowing them to recognize the positive impact of increasing non-interest income on commercial bank profitability in the MENA region and consider implementing policies that encourage and support banks in diversifying their income sources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicBanking stability, regulation, efficiencyFrench-language works237,207