MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting Financial Distress in ASEAN Banking: A Logistic Regression Approach

2025· article· W4416187161 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdul Mongid, Nadia Asandimitra Haryono

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionFinancial crisisFinancial ratioPanel dataLoanWarning systemExchange rateSample (material)Credit risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Banking sector stability is crucial to a country's economy, but the global financial crisis and macroeconomic pressures such as the COVID-19 pandemic have heightened the risk of financial distress. This study aims to develop a prediction model for banking financial distress in ASEAN countries by combining CAMEL indicators and macroeconomic variables. Using panel data from 435 banks during the period 2017–2021 and logistic regression analysis, this study shows that the capital adequacy ratio (CAR) and return on assets (ROA) have a negative effect on the likelihood of distress, while the non-performing loan ratio (NPL) and exchange rate have a positive effect. The model that combines macroeconomic variables shows higher prediction accuracy than the model that only uses internal financial indicators. Model 1, excluding macroeconomic variables, correctly predicted 67.14% of the sample banks, while Model 2, including macroeconomic variables, increased the prediction to 72.01%. This study expands the literature on early warning systems using empirical evidence from ASEAN countries and contributes to the applied analytics domain by proposing logistic models relevant for policy-making and banking regulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionFrench-language works237,207