The Impact of Non-Performing Loans on Credit Growth of Commercial Banks in Cambodia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how banks’ balance sheet fundamentals shape their credit growth using panel co-integration methods and two estimation methods—pooled mean group (PMG) and dynamic fixed effects (DFE). Both approaches yielded consistent core results. First, weaker asset quality, proxied by higher non-performing loans (NPLs), was strongly and negatively related to credit growth: PMG produced a large negative long-run coefficient, and DFE’s error-correction form confirmed a significant adverse effect, consistent with higher provisioning, thinner capital buffers, and lower risk-taking. Second, capitalization (equity to assets) supported long-run growth under PMG, while DFE—imposing common slopes—did not, suggesting heterogeneous capitalization effects across banks that PMG captured but DFE muted. Third, operating expense intensity showed a positive long-run association with credit growth in both models, consistent with expansionary spending accompanying durable lending rather than costs causing lending. Long-run effects for liquidity and market-risk sensitivity were weaker or mixed: liquidity’s role was imprecise, and market-risk sensitivity was positive in PMG but not significant in DFE, again pointing to cross-sectional heterogeneity. Error-correction terms were large, negative, and highly significant in both models, indicating rapid convergence—near full adjustment within one period, with slight overshooting in DFE. Short-run results showed that higher liquidity and temporary cost spikes dampened contemporaneous growth. Policy implications emphasize sustained oversight of asset quality and prudent capital planning to support long-run credit supply.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".