Reevaluating Bank Price-to-Book Ratios: An In-Depth Analysis of Equity Components across Economic Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the evolution of price-to-book (P/B) ratios among European banks from 2005 to 2020, a period where most banks in different countries had a P/B ratio below 1. By dissecting banks’ accounting equity into investor contributions and earnings-derived components, this research aims to evaluate how each component of equity affects these ratios and investigates whether their dynamics shifted during the period. We address a gap in prior research that has not extensively examined how individual equity components affect the overall P/B ratio. This aspect is crucial, especially in scenarios where the increase of specific components compensates for declines in others, thereby stabilizing total equity values. Our methodology involves regression analyses using a panel data model with random effects. The findings reveal that earnings-related equity components significantly influence P/B ratios. In contrast, investor contributions, which strengthen the solvency of the entity, appear to have a minimal impact. Additionally, our analysis highlights a significant quadratic relationship between the P/B ratios and both the profit or loss reported on Income Statements and distributed dividends.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".