No abstract

This study examines the impact of bank capital and operating efficiency on the Nigerian deposit money bank financial performance with a view to resolving risk-based and non-risk-based capitals’ dichotomy existing in the bank literature. Using bank-specific data obtained from the annual reports and accounts of 15 banks listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange between 2012 and 2015, the panel data regression analyses revealed the superiority of standard capital ratio of equity-to-total-assets, a non-risk-based capital, over other measures. While all measures, both risk-based and non-risk-based capitals, showed significantly positive effects on bank performance as measured by return-on-asset, mixed results were obtained from other indicators: return-on-equity and net-interest-margin. Overall, only equity-to-total-assets influenced all adopted performance indicators positively. It was also found that operating efficiency measured by cost-to-income ratio had negative impact on bank performance, but on the average it appeared too high. Thus, incorporating the standard capital ratio of equity-to-total assets into regulatory regime by the banks’ regulator is recommended to ensure its relevance is not overshadowed.

The failure of banks in Nigeria has hitherto become a recurring phenomenon. Worried by the syndrome, this paper examines the determinants of bank performance in Nigeria taking into cognizance the duality of financial measures of bank performance. From an analysis of 115 bank-year observations of a sample of 17 Nigerian deposit money banks and macroeconomic data for the period 2012-2018 using Arellano-Bover one-step system GMM estimation approach, differences in the explanatory potential of these factors between the models with risk-neutral and risk-adjusted measures of performance as dependent variables are empirically established. This suggests that there is a higher probability of investors, depositors and other stakeholders being indecisive when analyzing the performance of banks. However, relying on the assumptions of risk-return hypothesis and level of risk embedded in banks’ operations could warrant them opting for determinants of risk-adjusted returns in their decision making. This study is exceptional in the bank performance literature for its long list of measures and drivers of bank performance.

Purpose of the article: Based on the propositions of the signalling hypothesis and prospect theory, this study examined the extent of attempt by Nigerian deposit money banks (DMBs) to solve the issue of adverse selection via signalling their financial prospects using loan loss provisions (LLPs). The empirical test was subject to the DMBs’ riskiness and changes in the accounting rule given failure of a number DMBs and the adoption of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRSs) respectively in Nigeria in the recent past.Methodology: Bank-level unbalanced panel datasets of a sample 16 DMBs, which are related to the variables of the study, were hand-extracted from their annual reports and account between 2007 and 2017. The analysis was conducted using the Prais-Winsten regression correlated with panel corrected standard errors (PCSE-PW) owing to the presence of heteroscedastic and autocorrelated residuals in the study’s regression models.Scientific aim: The study examined the relationship between LLPs and one-year-ahead changes in earnings before taxes and LLPs to establish whether Nigerian DMBs signal their financial strength via LLPs.Findings: The study largely found that Nigerian DMBs, regardless of accounting regime and risk of insolvency, do not use LLPs to signal their financial strength. However, where the evidence of signalling via LLPs was evident the coefficient of earnings signalling was insignificant, where it was significant signalling was achievable via discretionary LLPs (DLLP) rather than actual LLPs (TLLP) suggesting manipulative provisioning in the use of LLPs to signal.Conclusions: The study’s findings included empirical communication alerts to the regulators and Nigerian DMBs on the need for improvement in earnings signalling, as the present scenario may be interpreted as a sign of a non-going concern by analytical stakeholders. Limits of research: The generalisation of the study’s findings may be limited by the focus on one regime (IAS 39) of IFRS loan loss reporting but mitigated by the partial implementation of the second regime (IFRS 9) for the first four years in the country.