Devising the Best Prospective Merger Plan for a Banking Sector Through a Hybrid DEA-Based Methodology: An Inverse DEA Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mergers & acquisitions (M&A) are strategic decisions that have long been associated with the banking sector, entailing the consolidation of assets among a group of banks through various types of financial transactions. Though a lot of research has been dedicated to the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) to multiple aspects of M&A within this particular sector, little or even no significant attention has been paid to investigating the optimal matchings among banks, i.e., what should be the best partners of prospective bank mergers that are more likely to maximize the overall performance of the whole banking sector? To answer this question, we propose a hybrid DEA methodology that operates over two levels. The first level entails solving an inverse DEA (IDEA) model to evaluate the optimal gains that could potentially be generated out of pairwise consolidations among banks. As a result, all productive post-merger banks, i.e., those mergers that have real potential for gains’ generation, are duly discerned. In the second level, a DEA procedure integrating a standard DEA model with a greedy heuristic is devised to select the best pairs of merging banks based on the post-merger banks’ expected outcomes. Here, the best prospective merger plan is derived for the whole banking sector out of the entire sample of banks. Using data from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) database, the pertinence of the proposed methodology is shown by evaluating the potential merger gains of 28 Canadian banks prior to building the associated best prospective merger plan.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".