Belayneh Hailegeorgis

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE
DETERMINANTS OF COMMERCIAL BANKS PROFITABILITY:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON ETHIOPIAN COMMERCIAL BANKS
A Project Paper Submitted to the Department of Accounting and Finance of

Addis Ababa University on Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for Master of
Science Degree in Accounting and Finance
BY:
Belayneh Hailegeorgis Damena
ADVISOR:
Ato Gebremedhin Gebrehiwot
June, 2011
Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 1

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE
DETERMINANTS OF COMMERCIAL BANKS PROFITABILITY:

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON ETHIOPIAN COMMERCIAL BANKS
By
Belayneh Hailegeorgis
Approved by the Examining Board:

Advisor;
________________________ _______________ ____________
Name Signature Date
Examiner;
________________________ ________________ ___________
Name Signature Date
Examiner;
__________________________ ________________ ___________
Name Signature Date

Signed Declaration
I declare that the thesis for the M.Sc. degree at the University of Addis Ababa,
hereby submitted by me, is my original work and has not previously been
submitted for a degree at this or any other university, and that all reference
materials contained therein have been duly acknowledged.
Name: Belayneh Hailegeorgis

Signature: --------------
Advisor:
Ato Gebremedhin Gebrehiwot
Signature: ----------------

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Ato Gebremedhin
Gebrehiwot, Instructor of Department of Accounting and Finance at Addis
Ababa University, for his expert guidance, helpful criticism, valuable
suggestions and encouragement at every stage during the completion of this
work. It was pleasant and inspiring experience for me to work under his
guidance.
I also thank all Ethiopian commercial banks finance and corporate planning
department staffs, who provided me 10 years financial statements of their
company.
It is my pleasure to thank Ato Belete Fola, a staff member of National Bank of

Ethiopia (NBE) bank supervision department, who give me the banking sector
and macroeconomic data which are very much valuable for this study.
I add a special note of admiration and gratitude to my families and friends,

without their moral support, it would have been impossible for me to go
through this piece of work.
At last but not least my deep gratitude goes to Haramaya University (H.U) and
Addis Ababa University (A.A.U) for sponsoring me throughout my work, and for
all those who stood by my side during this work.

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to examine the impact of bank-specific, industry-
specific and macroeconomic determinants of Ethiopian commercial
banks profitability. The study applied the balanced panel data of seven
Ethiopian commercial banks that covers the period 2001- 2010. The paper
used Ordinary Least Square (OLS) technique to investigate the impact of
capital, size, loan, deposits, noninterest income, noninterest expense,
credit risk, market concentration, economic growth, inflation and saving
interest rate on major profitability indicator i.e., return on asset (ROA). The
estimation results show that all bank-specific determinants, with the
exception of saving deposit, significantly affect commercial banks
profitability in Ethiopia. Market concentration is also a significant
determining factor of profitability. Finally, with regard to macroeconomic
variables, only economic growth exhibits a significant relationship with
banks’ profitability. The results of the study are of value to both
academics and policy makers.

TABLE OF CONTENT
Content page
Acknowledgment i
Abstract ii
List of Tables v
Abbreviations vi
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study 1
1.2 Background of the Organization 2
1.3 Statement of the Problem 5
1.4 Objective of the Study 6
1.5 Hypothesis of the Study 7
1.6 Significance of the Study 8
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study 8
CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Determinants of Commercial Banks Profitability:
An Empirical Review 9
2.1.1 Internal Determinants 9
2.1.1.1 Financial Statement Variables 10
2.1.1.2 Non Financial Statement Variables
2.1.2 External Determinants 16
2.1.2.1 Industry Specific Determinants
iii
2.1.2.2 Macroeconomic Variables 18
2.2 Market Structure Theories and Bank Profitability 19
2.2.1 The Structure - Conduct – Performance

(SCP) Hypotheses 19
2.2.2 Efficient-Structure (ES) hypothesis 20
2.2.3 Expense- Preference (EP) Hypothesis 20
2.2.4 Risk Avoidance Hypothesis 21
CHAPTER THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data 22
3.2 Definition of Variables 22
3.3 Methodology 26
CHAPTER FOUR
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
4.1 Econometric Analysis 28
4.2 Result and Discussion 30
CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSION 38
Reference 40
Appendix I
List of Tables

Tables Page
Table 1. List of public and commercial banks in Ethiopia
Table 2. List of Variables and their Respective Characteristics 36
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Variables
Table 4. Correlation among Explanatory Variables
Table 5. Fixed Effect Regression Result of Bank- Specific Variables
Table 6. Fixed Effect Regression Result of Bank and Industry Specific Variables
Table 7. Fixed Effect Regression Result of All Determining Variables
Table 8. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of Bank- Specific Variables
Table 9. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of Bank and Industry Specific Variables
Table 10. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of All Determining Variables
Table 11. Macro-economic and market concentration indicators.
Table 12. Summary of fixed effect regression result
Table 13. Summary of dynamic effect regression result

CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
During the last decades the banking sector all around the world has experienced major
transformation in its environment due to improvement in the requirement of financial services
and high tech facilities, resulting in significant impacts on its profitability. Both internal and
external factors have been affecting the profitability of banks over time. Hence, identification
and analysis of the determinants of bank profitability have attracted for many years the interest
of academic researchers as well as bank management, supervisors and financial service
participants. The study of bank performance becomes even more important in view of the
ongoing financial and economic crises, which will have a fundamental impact on the banking
industry in many countries around the globe. Therefore, in the next paragraphs we will see
continues progress of studies on identification and analysis of the main commercial bank
profitability determinants and their level of significance in the past decades.
Earlier, Short (1979) and Bourke (1989) indicated that the determinants of commercial bank
Profitability can be divided into two main categories namely the internal determinants which
are management controllable and the external determinants which are beyond the control of the
management of the institutions. Following early work of Short (1979) and Bourke (1989), a
number of more recent studies have attempted to identify some of the major determinants of
bank profitability. On the other hand, researches on the determinants of bank profitability were
focused on both the returns on bank assets and equity, and net interest rate margins as a
profitability measures. It has traditionally explored the impact on bank performance of bank-

specific factors, such as risk, market power, and regulatory costs. More recently, research has
focused on the impact of macroeconomic factors on bank performance (IMF, 2002). According
to Samy B.Naceur (2003) the previous studies on the determinants of bank’s interest margin
and profitability have focused on a particular country and/or on a panel of countries.
According to Devinaga Rasiah (2010) internal determinants of commercial banks profitability
can be broadly classified into two sub-categories namely financial statement variables and non-
financial statements variables. The Financial statement variables are factors relate to the
decisions which directly affect the items in a balance sheet and profit & loss accounts. On the
other hand, the nonfinancial statement variables involve those factors which do not have a
direct impact on the financial statements. The External determinants of commercial bank
profitability are also those factors which are external to the commercial banks and hence
outside the control of management. There are several specific factors suggested as impacting
the profitability of commercial banks which are financial regulation, competitive conditions,
concentration, market share, market growth, ownership, economic growth, interest rate and
inflation.
When we come to previous studies on sub Saharan African countries, including Ethiopia,
Valentina Flamini et al., (2009) have made a study on the determinants of commercial bank
profitability in the region by using a sample of 389 banks from 41 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)
countries. According to Valentina Flamini et al., (2009), bank profitability is high in Sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA) compared to other regions. In addition, the study finds that apart from
credit risk, higher returns on assets are associated with larger bank size, activity diversification,
and private ownership. Bank returns are affected by macroeconomic variables, suggesting that

macroeconomic policies that promote low inflation and stable output growth does boost credit
expansion. The results also indicate moderate persistence in profitability. On the other hand
there was a study made on determinants of Ethiopian private banks profitability in 2008 but the
researcher couldn’t access and see the methodology employed by the researcher and final
finding of the paper.
1.2 Background of the Study Area
History of Banking in Ethiopia
Modern banking in Ethiopia was introduced in 1905. At the time, an agreement was reached
between Emperor Menelik II and a representative of the British owned National Bank of Egypt
to open a new bank in Ethiopia. February 15, 1906 marked the beginning of banking in
Ethiopia history when the first Bank of Abyssinia was inaugurated by Emperor Menelik II. It
was a private bank whose shares were sold in Addis Ababa, New York, Paris, London, and
Vienna. In 1931, Emperor Haile Selassie introduced reforms into the banking system and the
Bank of Abyssinia was liquidated and became the Bank of Ethiopia, a fully government-owned
bank providing central and commercial banking services until the Italian invasion of 1936.
During the Italian invasion, Bank of Italy was formed a legal tender in Ethiopia. In 1943, after
Ethiopia regains its independence from fascist Italy, the State Bank of Ethiopia was
established, with 2 departments performing the separate functions of an issuing bank and a
commercial bank. In 1963, these functions were formally separated and the National Bank of
Ethiopia (the central and issuing bank) and the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia are formed. In
the period up to 1974, several other financial institutions emerged including the state owned as
well as private financial institution. State owned financial institutions includes;

• The Agricultural and Industrial Development Bank (Finance state owned enterprises)
• The Savings and Mortgage Corporation of Ethiopia
• The Imperial Savings and Home Ownership Public Association (Provided savings and
loan services)
In addition, private financial institutions of the time include;
• The Addis Ababa Bank
• The Banco di Napoli
• The Banco di Roma
After 1974, the banking business could not move further because of the nationalization of
private investments by the socialist regime that came into power leaving only three government
banks; the National Bank of Ethiopia, the Commercial Bank of Ethiopia and agricultural and
Industrial Development Bank (Mortgage Bank). This was reversed when the socialist regime
was overthrown in 1991. Subsequently, the licensing and supervision of Banking Business
Proclamation No. 84/1994 was issued in 1994 which led to the beginning of a new era for
Ethiopia banking sector. Immediately after the enactment of the proclamation private banking
companies began to flourish, leading to 12 private banks and one public owned commercial
bank (excluding the two non commercial public owned banks which are Development Bank
and Construction and Business Bank) operating in Ethiopia as of the current year 2011. Both
public owned and private commercial banks which are currently operating throughout the
country are listed in the next table.

Table 1. List of Public and Private Commercial Banks in Ethiopia
Commercial Banks Branches

Est. A.A Region Total % share
Public Bank
Commercial Bank of Ethiopia 1963 49 160 209 35.6
Private Banks
Awash International Bank 1994 31 29 60 10.2
Dashen Bank 1995 26 29 55 9.4
Abyssinia Bank 1996 25 22 47 8.0
Wegagen Bank 1997 23 27 50 8.5
United Bank 1998 26 15 41 7.0
Nib International Bank 1999 28 17 45 7.7
Cooperative Bank of Oromia 2004 4 29 33 5.6
Lion International Bank 2006 9 11 20 3.4
Oromia International Bank 2008 4 21 25 4.2
Zemen Bank 2008 1 0 1 0.2
Bunna International Bank 2009 1 0 1 0.2
Birhan International bank 2009 - - -
Total Private Banks 178 200 378 64.4
Grand Total Commercial Banks 227 360 587 100
Source; National Bank of Ethiopia Quarterly Bulletin; September 2010
Generally, the following five principal events have been occurred in Ethiopian banking history
related to Ethiopia political instability since 1905.
• The first event was establishment of the Bank of Abyssinia in 1906, marking the advent
of banking into the country.
• The second event was fascist Italian invasion in 1936, when, following liquidation of
the Bank of Ethiopia, a broad colonial banking network, extended to encompass all

Italian possessions in the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia) and closely
linked with the metropolitan financial system, was set up in the country.
• The third event was, in 1943, establishment of the State Bank of Ethiopia, marking the
rebirth of the Ethiopian independent banking. This occurred during World War II after
liberation of the country from fascist Italy.
• The fourth event was the revolution of 1974, which wiped out the monarchy,
nationalized companies and shaped a “socialist banking” two-tier model “suited” to
Ethiopia, the whole credit system being based on the central bank and three state-
owned financial institutions, each of them enjoying monopoly in its respective market.
• The fifth event was the collapse of socialist regime followed by a financial sector
reform and liberalization according to Monetary and Banking Proclamation number
84/1994.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
During the last seven years Ethiopia has experienced a remarkable GDP growth and it is
expected to continue for the future. As recognized by economists and finance specialists, the
role of banks is essential for the development of an economy. In addition, commercial banks
always play an important role in the economic development of every country. During the last
decade, the banking sector of Ethiopia has experienced major transformation in terms of
investment and geographic distribution due to the financial sector reform and liberalization act
of 84/1994. In the light of these developments, currently the country has three public-owned
and 12 private commercial banks which are operating throughout the country. In addition, there

are 4 additional private banks that are under establishment and will get operational in the near
future and raise the number of private commercial banks to 16.
On the other hand, the literatures on the banking sector have pointed out that a great deal of
economic activity would be seriously hindered if the most prominent agents in the credit
markets, the commercial banks, did not execute their function properly. A sound and profitable
banking sector is able to resist negative shocks and contributes to the stability of the financial
system and sustainability of overall economic development. Thus, identifying the key success
factors of commercial banks could allows the bank management and directors to formulate
policies for improving the profitability of the banking industry. According to different banking
area researchers, the banking sector profitability determinants are divided into two main
categories, namely the internal determinants and the external determinants. The internal
determinants include management controllable factors such as the level of deposit, the level of
loans and advances, investment in securities, non-performing loans, non interest incomes, and
overhead expenditure. Other determinants such as total capital and capital reserves, and money
supply also play a major role in influencing the profitability. Similarly, external determinants
include those factors which are beyond the control of management of the bank such as market
share, market growth, market concentration, interest rates, inflation rates, and GDP growth.
Generally, internal profitability determinants can be accounted and analyzed as bank specific
determinants of profitability because they are controllable by the specific bank management.
On the other hand, external determinants could be analyzed under industry-specific
determinants which are variables specific to the banking sector alone such as market growth,
and under macroeconomic determinants such as countrywide economic growth. Therefore, the
study examined, in a single equation framework, bank-specific, industry-specific and
macroeconomic determinants of Ethiopian commercial banks profitability in the first decade of
twenty-first century, i.e., from 2001 to 2010.
1.4 Objective of the Study
General objective;
The primary objective of the study is examining the impact of bank-specific, industry-specific
and macroeconomic bank profitability determinants in Ethiopian commercial banks.
Specific objectives;
Specific objectives of the study include;
• Examining the impact of capital, bank size, loans, non-performing loans, deposits, fee
based service, and non interest expense on the profitability of Ethiopian commercial
banks;
• Analyzing the significance of bank specific profitability determinants on Ethiopian
commercial banks profitability;
• Examining the impact of market concentration on the profitability of Ethiopian
commercial banks;
• Analyzing the significance of market concentration on Ethiopian commercial banks
profitability;
• Examining the impact of economic growth, real interest rate and inflation on Ethiopian
commercial banks profitability; and

• Analyzing the significance of macroeconomic profitability determinants on Ethiopian
commercial banks profitability.
1.5 Hypothesis of the Study
Hypothesis of the study stand on the theories related to a bank's profitability that has been
developed over the years by banking area researchers. The traditional theory of the firm
assumes that a firms objective is simply to maximize profits, and on the basis of this
assumption a large number of testable predictions about how profit -maximizing firms will
behave, and the resultant performance of the industry, can be derived. Therefore, the
followings three research hypothesis about the determinants of bank profitability are specified
based on theories and past empirical studies related to a bank's profitability.
Hypothesis 1. Bank specific determinants such as capital, loans and advances, credit risk
and non interest expense determinants significantly affect bank profitability.
Hypothesis 2. The amount of loan issued and economic growth has a positive impact on
banks profitability.
Hypothesis 3. Credit risk, non interest income and non interest expense have a negative
relationship with banks profitability.
1.6 Significance of the Study
Banks play unquestionable role in sustainable economic development of a country through
providing the required financial services to the economy. Commercial banks, in particular, can
be taken as a lung for every business activities in which the cash, oxygen, in and out breathe is
takes place. Hence, a well organized and structured commercial bank services are required to

have a better business activity and sustainable economic development. As described in the
previous sections, this study is designed to investigate the significance of all types of bank
profitability determinants in Ethiopia commercial banking sector. As a result identifying the
bank profitability determinants and understanding their level of significance in Ethiopia
context could have a great importance to both internal and external stakeholders of the bank.
This study have a great importance for the management of Ethiopian commercial banks
through identifying significant determining factors of profitability from worldwide experience.
On the other hand, the study have a great significance for external stakeholders such as
investors those own shares on the banks, the community for which the financial service is
provided, and the government which regulate the sector for the sake of the safety of the public
resource and sustainable economic development.
1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study
The determinants of commercial banks profitability that will be used in this study are those
frequently described in conventional banking studies and literatures. Accordingly, the data
required for defining bank specific variables and market concentration were limited to 10 years
(2001-2010) balance sheet and income and loss statements of seven Ethiopian commercial
banks such as Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Awash International Bank, Dashen Bank,
Abyssinia Bank, Nib International Bank, United Bank and Wegagen Bank which has been
operating throughout 2000’s. In addition, the study used bank sector data and countrywide
macroeconomic data that have been driven from National Bank of Ethiopia and MoFED in
order to define macroeconomic variables.

CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of empirical literatures on bank profitability determinants are organized in two
parts namely internal and external determinants. The internal determinants includes variables
driven from financial statement and variables internal by their vary nature but not displayed on
financial statements. External determinants comprise review of industry-specific determinants
which has impact on the banking sector profitability alone and macroeconomic determinants
which affect all business activities of a given country. Finally, four market structure theories
such as structure- conduct- performance hypothesis, efficient- structure hypothesis, expense
preference hypothesis, and risk avoidance hypothesis developed by previous scholars and
researchers are reviewed in detail. Unfortunately, no paper which is made on Ethiopian banks
profitability is included in the review because, even though there is a study made on
determinants of private banks’ profitability in Ethiopia by Yigremachew Benti (2008), the
paper is not accessible in free except the abstract.
2.1 Determinants of Commercial Banks Profitability: An Empirical Review
Commercial banks profitability could be affected by a number of determining factors. In most
literatures bank profitability usually expressed as a function of internal and external
determinants. Bourke (1989) also indicated that the determinants of commercial bank
profitability can be divided into two main categories namely the internal determinants which
are management controllable and the external determinants which are beyond the control of
management. Now let us see the first classification of commercial banks profitability
determinant.

2.1.1 Internal Determinants
The internal determinants of commercial banks profitability are those management controllable
factors which account for the inter-firm differences in profitability, given the external
environment. Anna P. I. Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008) define internal determinants of bank
profitability as factors that are influenced by a bank’s management decisions. As stated by Dr.
Devinaga Rasiah (2010) internal determinants can be broadly classified into two sub-categories
namely financial statement variables and non-financial statements variables. The financial
statement variables are determining factors which are directly driven from items in a balance
sheet and profit & loss accounts of the bank. On the other hand, the nonfinancial statement
variables are those factors which do not directly displayed on the financial statements accounts.
2.1.1.1 Financial Statement Variables
Financial statement variables are those variables which relate to the balance sheet and profit &
loss account. The balance sheet account includes asset, liabilities and equity balances and it
indicates the financial position of the firms. Asset management is concerned with the asset
portfolio decisions which attempt to maximize returns at an adequate level of liquidity. AGU,
CC; (1992), as quoted by Devinaga Rasiah (2010), indicated that liability management on the
other hand, is concerned with the decisions in relation to deposit mix, borrowings and capital
which meet the dual objectives of minimizing funding costs and achieving a desired level of
stability in available funds. Hence, asset-liability portfolio decisions would certainly have an
impact on commercial bank profitability. Since these decisions are controllable by
management, they are thus categorized as internal determinants. On the other hand, profit and
loss statement is directly related to income and expense accounts and indicates the operational

performance of the management. Regarding the profit and loss statement the main emphasis
would be confined to areas such as the amount of interest income, interest expense, income
from fee-based services, and noninterest operational expenses. There are plentiful literatures
made by using financial statement variables, both from balance sheet and profit and loss
accounts, which determine commercial banks profitability. The most frequently used bank
profitability determinants which are driven from financial statement include;
Capital: it is measured by the ratio of equity capital to total asset. Bank equity capital can be
seen in two ways. Narrowly, as stated by Uhomoibhi T. Aburime (2008), it can be seen as the
amount contributed by the owners of a bank (paid-up share capital) that gives them the right to
enjoy all the future earnings. More comprehensively, it can be seen as the amount of owners’
funds available to support a bank’s business. The later definition includes reserves, and is also
termed as total shareholders’ funds. No matter the definition adopted, a bank’s capital is widely
used as one of the determinants of bank profitability since it indicates the financial strength of
the bank. As it has been expected positive relationship between profitability and capital has
been demonstrated by Berger (1995), Samy B. Naceur (2003), Athanasoglou et al. (2005),
Indranarain Ramlall (2009), and Saira Javaid et al., (2011).
Bank Size: In most literatures the effect of size on banks profitability are represented by total
asset. Indranarain Ramlall (2009) indicated that size is used to capture the fact that larger
banks are better placed than smaller banks in harnessing economies of scale in transactions and
enjoy a higher level of profits. One of the most important questions underlying bank policy is
which size optimizes bank profitability. According to Athanasoglou et al., (2005) the effect of
a growing size of a bank on profitability has been proved to be positive to a certain extent.

Consequently, a positive relationship is expected between bank size and profitability by many
banking area researchers. However, for banks that become extremely large, the effect of size
could be negative due to bureaucratic and other reasons. Hence, the size-profitability
relationship may be expected to be non-linear. Therefore most studies use the banks’ real assets
in logarithm and their square in order to capture the possible non-linear relationship.
Athanasoglou et al. (2005), Indranarain Ramlall (2009), Dr. Rajesh K. Singh and S. Chaudhary
(2009), and Devinaga Rasiah (2010) find positive relationship between bank size and
profitability.
Asset Composition: which is explained by total loans divided by total asset, provides a
measure of the main income source of the bank assets transferred to debtors’ (Anna P. I. Vong
and Hoi Si Chan, 2008). Traditionally, banks are intermediaries between lenders and
borrowers. According to M. Abreu and V. Mendes (2002), other things assumed constant, the
more the deposits that are transformed into loans bank performance, the higher the level of
profit will be, therefore, it is expected to have a positive relationship with profitability.
However, if a bank incurs higher cost on non-performing loans in order to have a higher loan-
to-asset ratio, then profits may decrease. On the other hand, asset composition is included in
the study of profitability as an independent variable to determine the impact of loans on banks’
profitability (Saira Javaid et al., 2011). Almost all banking area researchers including M.
Abreu and V. Mendes (2002), Anna P. I. Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008), Dr. Rajesh K. Singh
and S. Chaudhary (2009), and Devinaga Rasiah (2010) indicates a positive relationship
between the amount of loan provided and profitability.

Deposit Fund: Commercial banks mainly depend on the funds deposited by their clients (the
public) in order to lend it out and earn interest income. It is also the number one expense item
for a banking sector because there is interest payment for different types of deposits. Deposits
received by all commercial banks includes current or demand deposits, fixed or time deposits
(term deposits), and saving deposit. On current or demand deposits, the banks do not pays
interest in most countries; rather, it can be withdrawn in part or in full at any time by depositors
through issuing cheques. Fixed / Time / Term deposits are interest bearing deposit which left
with the bank for a certain (fixed) period of time and it incur a higher interest expense on
banks. On the other hand, saving deposits is a deposit made by individuals and it can be
withdrawn at anytime. It is subject to certain limitations regarding the amount and the
frequency of withdrawals. Since withdrawal can take place at anytime, the commercial banks
has to keep a certain proportion of their assets in liquid form. When we see the impact of
deposit on commercial banks profitability, empirical evidence from Naceur and Goaied (2001)
which is quoted by Uhomoibhi T. Aburime (2008) indicates the best performing banks are
those who have maintained a high level of deposit accounts relative to their assets. Increasing
the ratio of total deposits to total assets means increasing the funds available to use by the bank
in different profitable ways such as investments and lending activities. In turn, this should
increase the bank’s returns on assets ceteris paribus. In addition, since deposit is the major and
perhaps the cheapest source of funding for banks, it impact banking performance positively as
long as there is a sufficient demand for loans in the market (Anna P. I. Vong and Hoi Si Chan
2008). However, if there is insufficient loan demand, more deposits in fact may depress
earnings, since this type of funding has its own cost. Although different studies said the
relationship between deposit and profitability is ambiguous, Anna P. I. Vong and Hoi Si Chan
(2008), Uhomoibhi T. Aburime (2008) and Saira Javaid et al., (2011) indicate a positive
relationship.
Credit Risk: It is measured by the ratio of loan loss provisions over total loans and advances. The
loan loss provisions are reported on a bank’s profit and loss account and it is a measure of capital
risk, as well as credit quality of the bank. According to Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008), if banks
operate in more risky environments and lack the expertise to control their lending operations, it
will probably result in a higher loan-loss provision ratio. On the other hand, literatures suggest
that increased exposure to credit risk is normally associated with decreased firm profitability.
Therefore, as indicated by Athanasoglou et al. (2005), banks would increase profitability by
improving screening and monitoring of credit risk and such policies. Additionally, in most
countries central banks set some specific standards for the level of loan-loss provisions to be
adopted by the country’s banking system. In view of these standards, bank management should
adjust provisions held for loan losses portfolio, and in most studies credit risk are modeled as a
predetermined variable. A negative effect of the loan loss provision relative to total loans on banks
profitability are witnessed in all literatures reviewed by this study such as T. Atemnkeng and N.
Joseph (2000), Athanasoglou et al. (2005), Kyriaki Kosmidou et al, (2006), Athanasoglou et
al, (2006), Uhomoibhi T. Aburime (2008), Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008), Valentina Flamini et
al, (2009), A. Dietrich and G. Wanzenried (2009), and Indranarain Ramlall (2009).
Fee Based Service: The importance of fee-based services of banks and their product
diversification is captured by the non-interest income to gross income ratio. Although fee-
based services add income to banks, those services in general generate lesser profits as
compared with interest income from loans. Therefore, when banks shift from interest income

services to non-interest income services, profitability may decline, thereby, the ratio is
expected to have a negative effect on profitability. Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008) consider the
impact of income from fee-based services on Macao commercial banks profitability and got a
negative relationship between them.
Expenses Management: The expense management variable, which is defined as the ratio of
non-interest expenses to total assets, provides information on variations in operating costs. The
total cost of a bank, excluding interest expense, includes operating cost and other expenses
such as depreciation and taxes. From these only operating expenses can be viewed as the
outcome of the bank management decision. Therefore, expense management is captured by the
ratio of these operating expenses to total assets and it is expected to be negatively related with
profitability, since improved management of these expenses will increase efficiency and
thereafter raise profits. Athanasoglou et al. (2005), Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008), and A.
Dietrich and G. Wanzenried (2009) indicate a negative relationship between the level of operating
expense and bank profitability.
Market Share: M. Abreu and V. Mendeth (2002) defined bank market share as bank’s loans
over country’s Domestic Credit. Domestic Credit of the country are used as a denominator
because they were unable to get information on total bank loans at the country level and the
result shows positive relationship between this ratio and banks profitability. However, Vong
and Hoi Si Chan (2008) captured the market share of each individual bank by the value of
deposits in logarithms. The log of deposits was used instead of deposits in order to reduce the
scale effect. Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008) expect that this variable has a combined effect on
profitability. A positive relationship indicates that the bank enjoys economies of scale, while a

negative relationship implies the bank suffers from diseconomies of scale when it expands to a
larger size. Finally the study result shows a negative relationship of market share with
profitability.
2.1.1.2 Non Financial Statement Variables
Non-Financial statement variable comprises variables which have an indirect impact on items
in the financial statements while do not directly displayed on the financial statements accounts.
Variables reviewed in this category include management quality, efficiency and productivity,
age of the bank, and number of branches.
Management Quality: The management of the banking institution itself is a prerequisite for
achieving profitability and stability of a bank. There is evidence that a good management raise
profits and market shares (Athanasoglou et al., 2005). On the other hand, where management
quality is low and managerial monitoring is imperfect, some lazy workers will not exert full
effort on their duties and observing that the remaining good workers may discouraged for
work. Finally the total sum effect will reduce profitability. In the same vein, according to
Devinaga Rasiah (2010), where management quality is low and the board of directors does not
provide honest and effective leadership, they will often being more concerned with securing
credit facilities for themselves, and then prudent lending practices cannot be followed. These
have the net effect of increasing the ratio of substandard credits in the bank’s credit portfolio
and reduce the bank’s profitability.
Efficiency and Productivity: In recent years banks have faced severe competition due to the
lowering of barriers to entry and the globalization of the industry, which has forced them to

reorganize (Athanasoglou et al., 2005). They have been targeting high levels of efficiency and
productivity growth both by keeping the labor force steady and by increasing overall output.
Indranarain Ramlall (2009) said the higher the efficiency level of a bank, the higher the profits
level. Hence a positive relationship is expected between efficiency and productivity as well as
profitability of the bank. Empirical evidence from Athanasoglou et al. (2005) shows that labour
productivity growth has a positive and significant effect on bank profitability.
Bank Age: Newly established banks are not particularly profitable in their first years of
operation, as they place greater emphasis on increasing their market share, rather than on
improving profitability (Athanasoglou et al., 2005). On the other hand, A. Dietrich and G.
Wanzenried (2009) indicate that older banks expected to be more profitable due to their longer
tradition and the fact that they could build up a good reputation. Obviously, the above
empirical studies those include bank age as one of their explanatory determinant indicates a
positive relationship between age and profitability.
Number of Bank Branches: Heaster and Zoellner (1966), as quoted by Devinaga Rasiah
(2010), considered number of branches as one of the explanatory variables in their profitability
study. They found that the number of branches had no effect on profitability and also it can be
captured by other variables such as the amount of deposit received or the amount of loan
provided. Emery (1971), again as quoted by Devinaga Rasiah (2010), studied the relationship
between the status of the branch categories namely unit branch, limited branch and state -wide
branch. Using analysis of variance, Emery (1971) found that there was a significant difference
in terms of returns among these three categories of branches.

Interest Rate: Interest expenses and interest income, affect net interest income and hence
bank profitability. In view of this, interest rates have been considered as determinants of bank
profitability in most banking area researches. The real interest rate is also expected to have a
positive relationship with profitability. In the essence of lend-long and borrow-short argument,
banks, in general, may increase lending rates sooner by more percentage points than their
deposit rates. In addition, the rise in real interest rates will increase the real debt burden on
borrowers. This, in turn, may lower asset quality, thereby inducing banks to charge a higher
interest margin in order to compensate for the inherent risk (Vong and Hoi Si Chan, 2008).
Furthermore, since local monetary policies and supply and demand conditions affect interest
rate, Devinaga Rasiah (2010) has included it as an external profitability determinant in his
study.
Inflation: Inflation had been one of the least researched issues in earlier bank profitability
studies. Revell (1979), as quoted by Devinaga Rasiah (2010), had suggested that inflation may
be a factor in the causation of variations in bank profitability although it is worth noting that
researchers had paid very little attention on the impact of inflation on commercial bank
profitability. During inflation, the central bank can raise the cost of borrowing and reduce the
credit creating capacity of commercial banks. Empirical studies on the relationship between
inflation and bank profitability suggest that if a bank’s income rises more rapidly than its costs,
inflation is expected to exert a positive effect on profitability. On the other hand, a negative
coefficient is expected when its costs increase faster than its income.

2.2 Market Structure Theories and Bank Profitability
The traditional theory of the firm assumes that a firm’s objective is simply to maximize profits.
On the basis of this assumption a large number of testable predictions about how profit-
maximizing firms will behave, and the resultant performance of the industry, can be derived.
However, According to Dr. Devinaga Rasiah (2010), the assumption of profit maximization is
criticized on the following two grounds. First, this assumption may appear to be simple and
unambiguously objective in theory, but may not be so in practice. That means it is only
applicable for owner - managed firms which produce a single product/service because the
owner- manager is free to choose the level of output and price that would maximize
profitability. On the other hand, this assumption may not be applicable for an industry which
involves in a variety of products/services, and faced with much more complex decisions to be
taken in a dynamic and uncertain environment. Second, today's firms are not managed by their
owners. The decision about how the firms should behave is taken by managers, who may be
interested in other motives than maximum profits. Therefore, the following sections will focus
on advanced theories and hypothesis, apart from profit maximization goal, related to a bank's
profitability that have been developed over the years by banking area researchers.
2.2.1 The Structure - Conduct - Performance (SCP) Hypotheses
This hypothesis assumes that conduct or rivalry in a market is determined by market structure
conditions, especially the number and size distribution of firms and the conditions of entry.
This rivalry leads to unique levels of prices, profits and other aspects of market performance.
Through the linkages of conduct, the performance of firms in a market is tied to the structure of
the market. Fraser, et al (1972), as quoted by Dr. Devinaga Rasiah (2010), indicated that the

assumption of this (SCP) hypothesis is that the degree of concentration of a market, i.e. the
number and size distribution of firms in the market, exerts a direct influence on the degree of
competition among firms.
Chirwa (2003) investigates the relationship between market structure (concentration) and
profitability of commercial banks in Malawi using time series data between 1970 and 1994.
The competition in the main markets for commercial bank services increases due to an increase
in the number of financial institutions. The author used time-series techniques of co-integration
and error-correction mechanism to test the collusion hypothesis. He wants to find whether a
long-run relationship exists between profits of commercial banks and concentration in the
banking industry. Then, he concludes that a long-run relationship between profitability and
concentration, capital-asset ratio, loan-asset ratio, assets, demand deposits-deposits ratio,
market deposits and market growth, exists in commercial banks.
2.2.2 Efficient-Structure (ES) hypothesis
This hypothesis was first introduced by Demsetz (1973) and then expanded by Peltzman
(1977). It states that the more efficient firms gradually increase in size and market share
because of their ability to generate higher profits, which usually leads to higher market
concentration. Thus, the positive relationship between profits and concentration is explained by
lower cost achieved through either superior management or production processes. On the other
hand, as quoted by Dr. Devinaga Rasiah (2010), this hypothesis (ES) was first applied in
banking by Smirlock (1985) and he found that market share rather than concentration had a
significant positive impact on banks profitability. However, market share was found to be

positively and significantly related to profitability even after controlling for concentration.
These results tend to support the (ES) hypothesis in banking markets.
2.2.3 Expense- Preference (EP) Hypothesis
This hypothesis was introduced by Becker (1957), which was further developed by Williamson
(1963), and used in banking by Edwards (1977). In contrast to profit-maximizing policy, the
Expense Preference hypotheses (EP) consider the firm as a utility maximizing unit through the
pursuit of non-profit-maximizing policies. In particular, the manager increased staff
expenditures, managerial emoluments and discretionary profit for which they have a positive
preference. Bourke (1989) employed a more robust test to investigate the presence of the
expense preference behavior in banking. He used a value added measure of profitability, in
order to remove the effect of managerially-induced expenditure and labor union negotiated
wage demands from net income. In the banking context, value added could be defined as loan
interest and other revenue less deposit interest and other non-wage expenses. Hence, support
for the expense preference hypothesis would be found, if the coefficient of the concentration
variable remains positive but increase in magnitude when a value added measure of
profitability is used as the dependent variable. He observed a positive relationship between
concentration and pre-tax return on assets. However, contrary to expectation the sign of the
coefficient of the concentration variable was negative when a value added measure of
profitability was used as the dependent variable. Thus, Bourke's findings do not support the
existence of the expense preference hypothesis in banking.

2.2.4 Risk Avoidance Hypothesis
The Risk- avoidance hypothesis was first introduced in the manufacturing industry by
Galbraith (1967) and then expanded by Cave (1970). The Galbraith- Cave or risk avoidance
hypothesis as referred by Dr. Devinaga Rasiah (2010) indicates that banks located in more
concentrated markets may choose to trade off some of their potential monopoly profit for
reduction in risk by choosing safer portfolios. Thus, Clark (1986), again as quoted by Dr.
Devinaga Rasiah (2010), had indicated that selecting a safer portfolio of assets and liabilities in
line with their risk-preference, banks located in concentrated markets with monopoly power,
may reduce risk at the expense of some monopoly profit. Hence, the risk avoidance hypothesis
may provide an explanation for the lack of relationship between concentration or monopoly
power and profitability.

CHAPTER THREE
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research on the determinants of bank profitability could be made using either the Returns on
Assets (ROA) or Return on Equity (ROE) as a profitability measures. ROA reflects the ability
of a bank’s management to generate profits from the bank’s assets while ROE indicates the
return to shareholders on their equity and equals to ROA times the total assets-to-equity ratio.
The latter is often referred to as the bank’s equity multiplier, which measures financial
leverage. Banks with lower leverage (higher equity) will generally report higher ROA, but
lower ROE. Since an analysis of ROE disregards the greater risks associated with high
leverage and financial leverage is often determined by regulation, ROA emerges as the key
profitability measure for the evaluation of bank performance (IMF, 2002). Therefore, this study
is made by considering return on asset as explained variables, and using eight bank specific,
one industry specific and three macroeconomic profitability determinants as explanatory
variables.
3.1 Data
The data used for this particular study is secondary data. The bank specific variables of the
study is driven from balance sheet and income and loss statement of seven Ethiopian
commercial banks such as Commercial Bank of Ethiopia, Awash Bank, Dashen Bank, Bank of
Abyssinia, Wegagen Bank, United Bank and Nib Bank. The above banks which are included in
the study have been operating for the last 10 years, from the year 2001 up to now. For this
regard, 10 years (2001-2010) financial statement of the selected banks has used in the analysis
and all the financial statements are consolidated on June 23 (Sene 30) of each year. Regarding

the industry and macroeconomic variables, the data is obtained from National Bank of Ethiopia
(NBE), which regulates the banking sector of the country, and from Ministry of Finance and
Economic Development of Ethiopia (MoFED) which regulate the macroeconomic issues of the
country.
3.2 Definition of Variables
This study examined the profitability of Ethiopian commercial banks by using return on asset
(ROA) as a dependent variable. ROA, which is defined as net income divided by total asset,
reflect how well bank managers are using the banks real investment resource to generate profit.
Regarding the determining factors of profitability, the study identified the following
explanatory variables under bank specific, industry specific and macroeconomic determinants.
The brief descriptions of those explanatory variables are discussed as follows.
Bank Specific Determinants
• Equity Capital (CAP): This is measured by total equity over total asset, reveals capital
adequacy and capture the general average safety and soundness of the financial
institution. The study employed this ratio to proxy the capital variable because ROA
has been used as a measure of profitability. It is not appropriate to include CAP in a
profitability equation if return on equity is used as dependent variable. On the other
hand, since there is no perfect capital market with efficient information asymmetry in
this respective study area, it is difficult to determine the relationship between the capital
ratio and profitability.
• Bank Size (SIZE): One of the most important questions regarding bank profitability is
whether or not bank size optimizes profitability. Generally, the effect of size on

profitability is expected to be positive to a certain extent. However, for banks that
become extremely large, the effect of size could be negative due to bureaucracy and
other reasons. Hence, the size-profitability relationship may be expected to be non-
linear and the study also used the banks’ logarithm of total assets and their square in
order to capture the possible non-linear relationship and to remove the scale effect.
• Loans and Advances (LOAN): This is proxied by total loans divided by total asset,
provides a measure of income source. Loans are the largest segment of interest bearing
assets. Other things being constant, the more the deposits that are transformed into
loans, the higher the level of profit will be, therefore, it is expected to have a positive
relationship with bank performance.
• Deposits: there are three types of deposits received by commercial banks such as
saving deposit, fixed deposit and demand deposit. However, only saving and fixed
deposits are interest bearing deposits. Therefore, the impact of interest expense on
banks profitability are captured by considering saving deposit to total asset ratio
(SAVED) and fixed deposit to total asset ratio (FIXD). Being the major and perhaps the
cheapest source of funding for banks, it is generally believed that customer deposits
impact banking performance positively as long as there is sufficient demand for loans
in Ethiopian financial market. However, National Bank of Ethiopia regulates the level
of loan provision allowed to each banks and therefore more deposits may depress
earnings, since this type of funding has its own cost.
• Non Interest Income (NII): The importance of fee-based services of commercial
banks and their product diversification is captured by non-interest income to total

income ratio. Although fee based services in general generate lesser income than loans,
it is expected to add something on banks profit and have a positive relationship with
profitability. However, when banks shift their attention from interest income services to
non-interest income services, profitability may decline, therefore, this ratio may have a
negative effect on profitability.
• Non Interest Expense (NIE): In addition to interest expenses paid for saving and fixed
deposits, commercial banks incur operating cost and depreciation expenses. To capture
the impact of those non interest expenses on banks profitability, the factor is measured
by the ratio of non interest expenses to total asset. It is expected to be negatively related
with profitability, since improved management of these expenses will increase
efficiency and thereafter raise profits.
• Credit Risk (CR): To proxy this variable the study used the loan-loss provisions to
total loans ratio. Theories suggest that increased exposure to credit risk is normally
associated with decreased firm profitability and, hence, it is expected to have a negative
relationship with banks profitability.
Industry Specific Determinant
• Market Concentration (CONS): it is the number, size and distribution of banks in a
particular market or country. As indicated in other empirical studies market
concentration is captured by Herfindahl-Hirschman (H-H) index which is the sum of
the square of market share of the sample banks included in this particular study. Market
share of each bank is measured by the ratio of a bank’s total asset to total asset of all
banks. Since highly concentrated market lacks proper competition as to setting the

price of banking services, it makes the existing banks more profitable. On the other
hand, when the concentration of the market reduced and the size and distribution of
banks become more dispersed, the banking sector profitability is expected to reduce.
Therefore, market concentration and banks profitability is expected to be negative.
Macroeconomic Determinants
• Economic Growth (GDP): This is measured by the real GDP growth rate and it is
hypothesized to affect banking profitability positively. This is because the default risk
is lower in upturn than in downturn economy. In addition, higher economic growth may
lead to a greater demand for both interest bearing and non-interest bearing financial
services, thereby improving the profitability of banks.
• Lending Interest Rate (INT): The real interest rate is expected to have a positive
relationship with profitability in the essence of lend-long and borrow-short argument
(Vong and Hoi Si Chan, 2008). That means banks may increase lending rates sooner by
more percentage points than their deposit rates. On the other hand, the rise in real
interest rates may increase the real debt burden on borrowers and this may lower asset
quality, thereby interest rate may have a negative impact on profitability.
• Inflation (INF): High inflation rate is associated with higher costs as well as higher
income. If a bank’s income rises more rapidly than its costs, inflation is expected to
exert a positive effect on profitability. On the other hand, a negative coefficient is
expected when its costs increase faster than its income
Generally, the study considered the above eight bank specific, a single industry specific and
three macroeconomic bank profitability determinants. The next table summarizes the above

specified dependent and independent variables of the study with their respective notation,
measurement and expected signs.
Table 2. List of Variables and their Respective Characteristics

Variables Notation Measurement Expected
sign
Dependent variable Profitability ROA Net income / total assets NA
Capital CAP Equity / total Asset ? **
Bank Size SIZE Log of Total Asset * +
Bank Loans & LOAN Total Loan / total asset +

Advances
Specific
Saving Deposit SAVED Saving Deposit / Total Asset +
Determinants
Fixed Deposit FIXD Fixed Deposit / Total Asset _
(BSD)
Non Interest NII Noninterest income / total +
Independent Income income
Variables Non Interest NIE Noninterest Expense / total _
expense Asset
Credit Risk CR Loan loss provision / total _

loan
Industry specific Market CONS HH Index _

Determinant Concentration
(ISD)
Macroeconomic Economic GDP Real GDP growth +

growth
Variables
Saving interest INT Real interest rate +
(MED) rate
Inflation INF Inflation rate ?
* Logarizm of asset is used in order to reduce the scale effect

** The question mark (?) indicates the possibility of both signs on that specific determinant

3.3 Methodology
The study used a panel regression technique to analyze the impact of bank specific, industry
specific as well as macroeconomic determinants on Ethiopian commercial banks profitability.
This is because panel data has the advantage of giving more informative data as it consists of
both the cross sectional information, which captures individual variability, and the time series
information, which captures dynamic adjustment. Panel modeling could help to identity a
common group of characteristics while, at the same time, taking in to account the heterogeneity
that is present among individual units. In addition, this technique allows studying the impact of
industry specific and macroeconomic determinants on profitability after controlling the bank-
specific characteristics, with less collinearity among variables, more degrees of freedom and
greater efficiency. On the other hand, the consensus from the literature on bank profitability is
that the appropriate functional form of analyzing the determinants of bank profitability is the
linear form. Therefore, the study used a linear model to analyze the cross-sectional and time
series data of seven commercial banks, one public and six private banks, of Ethiopia.
The general linear regression equation of the study is:
ROAit = β0 + Σβ1 (BSD)xit + Σβ2 (ISD)yt + Σβ3 (MED)zt + eit

Where;
• ROAit is a dependent variable for bank i at time t.
• β0, β1, β2 and β3 will be estimated coefficients including the intercept.

• (BSD)xit represent the x-th bank-specific determinants of bank i at time t.
• (ISD)yt represent the y-th industry specific determinants at time t.
• (MED)zt represent the z-th macroeconomic determinants at time t.
• eit is the error term.

The comprehensive regression equation of the study is:
ROAit = β0 + β1CAP + β2SIZE + β3LOAN + β4SAVED + β5FIXD + β6NII + β7NIE +

β8CR + β9CONS + β10GDP + β11INT + β12INF + eit
Note: The description of notations, i.e. CAP, SIZE …, included in the above comprehensive
regression equation has given in the previous table, table 2. In addition, in the next chapter,
there is a broad analysis of the above econometrics model in order to justify the validity and
stability of the study variable specifications.

CHAPTER FOUR
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS
4.1 Econometric Analysis
The empirical evidence on the determinants of Ethiopian commercial banks’ profitability is
studied based on balanced panel data, where all the variables are observed for each cross-
section and each time period. The study has a time series segment spanning from the period
2001 up to 2010 and a cross section segment which considered seven Ethiopian commercial
banks such as Commercial Bank of Ethiopia (CBE), Awash International Bank, Dashen Bank,
Bank of Abyssinia, Wegagen Bank, United Bank and Nib International Bank. To test the
relationship between these commercial banks profitability (return on asset) and identified
profitability determinants the following linear regression model is developed.
πit = α + β∑Xⁿit + eit ; eit = vi + µ it (1)

n=1
Where; πit is the profitability (Return on Asset) of bank i at time t, where i = 1,…, N; t = 1,…,
T, α is a constant term, β is estimated coefficient, Xⁿit are the vector of n explanatory variables
and eit is the disturbance (error term) with vi the unobserved variable effect and µ it the
idiosyncratic error. This is a one-way error component regression model, where vi ∼ IIN (0,
σ²v) and independent of µ it ∼ IIN (0, σ²u). On the other hand, the explanatory variables which
are generically expressed in the above Xⁿit vector are grouped, as discussed in the methodology
part, into bank-specific, industry-specific and macroeconomic variables. The general
specification of model (1) in to these separated classifications is made as follows:
πit = β0 + β1 ∑(BSD)xit + β2 ∑ (ISD)yt + β3 ∑ (MED)zt + eit (2)

Where; πit is a dependent variable for bank i at time t; β0, β1, β2 and β3 is estimated coefficients
including the intercept; (BSD)xit represent the x-th bank-specific determinants of bank i at time
t; (ISD)yt represent the y-th industry specific determinants at time t; (MED)zt represent the z-th
macroeconomic determinants at time t; and eit is the error term.
The equation that account for individual explanatory variables which are specified for this
particular study is given as follows.
πit = β0 + β1(CAP) + β2(SIZE) + β3(LOAN) + β4(SAVED) + β5(NII) +

β6(FIXD) + β7(NIE) + β8(CR) + β9(CONS) + β10(GDP) + β11(INF) +
β12(INT) + eit
The definition of all individual variables included in the above equation has given in the
methodology part of the study. Furthermore, bank profits show a tendency to persist over time
(serially correlated), reflecting impediments to market competition, informational symmetry
and/or sensitivity to regional/macroeconomic shocks (Berger et al., 2000). Therefore,
expecting a dynamic structure of the banking sector profits, the study adopts a dynamic
specification of the model by including a one year lagged profitability variable (πi,t-1) on the
right hand side of the previous equation. The equation augmented with lagged dependent
variable (Return on Asset) is:
πit = β0 + β1 (πi,t-1) + β2∑(BSD)xit + β3∑(ISD)yt + β4∑(MED)zt + eit (3)
The comprehensive regression equation of model (3) is:
πit = β0 + β1(LAGROA) + β2(CAP) + β3(SIZE) + β4(LOAN) + β5(SAVED) +

β6(NII) + β7(FIXD) + β8(NIE) + β9(CR) + β10(CONS) + β11(GDP) +

β12(INF) + β13(INT) + eit
Finally, the study have made autocorrelation test using Durbin-Watson statistic (DW stat).
Autocorrelation is a mathematical representation of the degree of similarity between a given
time series and a lagged version of itself over successive time intervals. Durbin Watson is a test
for first order autocorrelation – i.e., it tests only for a relationship between an error and its
immediate previous value (Chris Brooks, 2008). The Durbin-Watson stat result always fall
between 0 and 4, and the results between 0-1 indicates a negative autocorrelation, 1-1.5 and
2.5-3 are inconclusive regions, 3-4 indicates positive autocorrelation, and result approaching 2
from both sides indicates no autocorrelation in the residuals.
4.2 Result and Discussion
This section provides empirical evidence on the determinants of profitability in Ethiopia
banking industry. There are a number of studies made on determinants of bank profitability in
different countries. Profitability has been measured by return on asset and/or net interest
margin by the previous studies. This study used return on asset as a profitability measure
because, in addition to interest income and expense, Ethiopian banks enjoy high amount of
revenue from charge based activities and incur huge amount of non interest expenses. On the
other hand, most studies have been identified profitability factors under the classification of
internal and external variables. Other studies classified the explanatory variables under bank
specific, industry specific and macroeconomic variables. This study also classifies identified
profitability determinants in to three groups.
The first group, bank specific factors, includes factors which are controllable by the
management of a bank such as capital, bank size, loans and advances, saving deposit, fixed

deposit, non interest income, non interest expense, and credit risk. The second group is
industry specific variable which has only one explanatory factor called market concentration.
The last group is macroeconomic determining factors that are beyond the control of specific
bank management that include real GDP growth, inflation rate and saving interest rate.
The analysis starts with the broad statistical description of both dependent and explanatory
variables of the study and it provides descriptive about statistical mean, maximum value,
minimum value and standard deviation of each variables. The correlation among explanatory
variables also discussed in the analysis. Finally, three econometric specifications are estimated
under fixed-effect (model 2) and dynamic-effect (model 3) regression models. The first
econometric regression is made by using only bank-specific variables. In the second
regression, market concentration which is the only industry specific variables are added while
in the third regression, in addition to those already mentioned factors, macroeconomic
indicators are included. The estimations are performed by the ordinary least squares (OLS)
technique, which is suitable for data sets where serial correlation and/or heteroscedasticity
might not be present (Chris Brooks, 2008).
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Variables

variables Mean Maximum Minimum Std. Dev.
ROA 0.021646 0.0388 -0.0212 0.010614
CAP 0.095461 0.2699 0.0162 0.044446
SIZE 9.509354 10.8706 8.3541 0.565212
LOAN 0.516054 0.7466 0.1926 0.125774
FIXD 0.082147 0.2582 0 0.056835
SAVED 0.444144 0.6456 0.2307 0.115606
NII 0.455643 0.7199 0.2742 0.114046
NIE 0.025207 0.089 0.0087 0.012168

CR 0.013583 0.0972 0 0.017737
CONS 0.53295 0.703 0.4121 0.097979
GDP 0.08734 0.1357 -0.0216 0.048689
INF 0.1043 0.364 -0.106 0.126156
INT 0.113 0.1275 0.1075 0.007367
As stated in the above table, table 3, from the total of 70 observations, the highest return on
asset is 0.0388 and the lowest return on asset is -0.0212. That means, the most profitable bank
of the sample banks earned 3.9 cents of net income from a single birr of investment and the
maximum loss incurred by one of the sample banks are a loss of 2.12 cents on each birr of
investment. Regarding the loans and advances, on average, almost half of the total asset of the
bank (0.52) is kept in terms of loan. From interest bearing deposits, average saving deposit to
total asset ratio (0.44) is much higher than average fixed deposit to total asset ratio (0.08).
Noninterest income of the banks, on average, is 45% of total income but noninterest expense to
total asset ratio (2.5%) is small. The mean of market concentration which is defined by
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is 0.53. HHI is a commonly accepted measure of market
concentration and it takes into account the relative size and distribution of firms in a market
and it approaches to zero when a market consists a large number of firms of relatively equal
size. On the other hand bank size which is measured by logarism of total asset has the highest
standard deviation (0.56) that means it is the most deviated variable from its mean as compared
to others. The smallest standard deviation is reported in saving interest rate (0.007) and return
on asset (0.010614) variables.

Table 4. Correlation among Explanatory Variables
SAVE
SIZE LOAN FIXD D NII NIE CR CONS GDP INF INT
- - -
CAP 0.623 0.354 0.289 -0.084 0.294 0.225 0.137 0.117 -0.098 -0.081 0.162
SIZE 1 -0.723 -0.46 -0.191 0.487 -0.37 0.062 -0.567 0.301 0.379 -0.103
LOAN 1 0.462 0.335 0.651 0.332 0.008 0.22 -0.023 -0.13 -0.184
FIXD 1 -0.283 0.259 0.197 0.144 0.099 -0.033 -0.029 -0.241
SAVE -
D 1 -0.26 -0.01 0.017 -0.002 0.03 -0.042 0.017
NII 1 -0.076 0.195 -0.323 0.143 0.172 -0.084
NIE 1 0.214 0.366 -0.132 -0.266 0.276
CR 1 0.338 -0.391 -0.169 0.033
CONS 1 -0.519 -0.715 0.291
GDP 1 0.234 -0.266
INF 1 -0.518
A correlation is a single number that describes the degree of relationship between two
variables. As indicated in the above correlation matrix all the highest (more than 50%)
correlations that have occurred among explanatory variables are surprisingly inverse
correlations. During the last 10 years the size of all banks (log of total asset) which are
included in this study shows improvement. Increase in the size of the bank shows a higher
negative correlation with loan to total asset ratio (-0.723), capital to total asset ratio (-0.623),

and market concentration (-0.567). The correlation result of -0.723 and -0.623 implies, even
though the size of all banks (total asset) has been increased for the last 10 years, the
contribution of loan and equity capital on banks investment is reduced. In addition, market
concentration have had inversely correlated with macroeconomic variables such as inflation (-
0.715) and real GDP growth (-0.519). This is because the concentration of Ethiopian banking
sector is reduced through time and contrary inflation rate and GDP growth of the country
increases. A strong negative correlation is also occurred between loan to total asset ratio and
noninterest income (-0.651), and between inflation rate and saving interest rate (-0.518). A
strong negative relationship between loan and non interest income implies the two sources of
income of the banking sector goes in different directions. On the other hand, the highest
positive correlation is occurred between bank size and noninterest income (0.48) that means, as
described above, since the size of all banks increased time to time, the amount of non interest
income earned by each banks also increased. In addition, the loan to total asset ratio and fixed
deposit to total asset ratio shows the second highest positive correlation (0.46). The next tables
(table 5, 6 and 7) show the fixed effect regression results of the study which considered the
dependent variable (return on asset) is not serially correlated with its one year lagged value.

Table 5. Fixed Effect Regression Result of Bank- Specific Variables
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C -0.132485 0.028855 -4.591403 0.0000
CAP 0.086330** 0.022943 3.762732 0.0004
SIZE 0.011220*** 0.002376 4.721652 0.0000
LN 0.073260*** 0.012040 6.084564 0.0000
FS -0.014094 0.019334 -0.728990 0.4688
SAVE -0.004187 0.016397 -0.255351 0.7993
NII 0.041672*** 0.009266 4.497224 0.0000
NIE -0.184689 0.070155 -2.632577 0.0107
CR -0.272342*** 0.046876 -5.809885 0.0000
R-squared 0.714385 F-statistic 19.07180
Adjusted R-squared 0.676928 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
S.E. of regression 0.006033 Durbin-Watson stat 1.395218
*,**, and *** denotes significance level of 10%, 5% and 1% respectively.

Table 6. Fixed Effect Regression Result of Bank and Industry Specific Variables
C 0.009070 0.047868 0.189478 0.8504
CAP 0.035268 0.025485 1.383870 0.1715
SIZE 0.001509 0.003498 0.431347 0.6678
LN 0.055683*** 0.012098 4.602679 0.0000
FS -0.041613** 0.019347 -2.150940 0.0355
SAVE 0.012360 0.015738 0.785355 0.4353
NII 0.028250*** 0.009299 3.038066 0.0035
NIE -0.106593 0.067974 -1.568136 0.1221
CR -0.243062*** 0.043756 -5.554876 0.0000
CONS -0.045858*** 0.012925 -3.548074 0.0008

Table 7. Fixed Effect Regression Result of All Determining Variables
C 0.005175 0.061055 0.084767 0.9327
CAP 0.037693 0.025004 1.507493 0.1372
SIZE 0.000840 0.003576 0.234964 0.8151
LN 0.053177*** 0.014010 3.795567 0.0004
FS -0.039948** 0.019379 -2.061377 0.0438
SAVE 0.011071 0.015875 0.697408 0.4884
NII 0.029338*** 0.010586 2.771468 0.0075
NIE -0.127836 0.078940 -1.619396 0.1109
CR -0.209366*** 0.045773 -4.574051 0.0000
CONS -0.037426** 0.018026 -2.076212 0.0424
GDP 0.042578** 0.018290 2.327942 0.0235
INF 0.000314 0.009880 0.031807 0.9747
INT 0.020811 0.148869 0.139791 0.8893

As described in the econometric analysis section variability in commercial banks profitability
is not only explained by the specified bank specific, industry specific and macroeconomic
factors. Instead, variability in commercial banks profitability (return on asset) could be
attributable to those variables and its own past trend. To test the serial correlation between
return on asset and its own one year lagged value the dynamic regression model (model 3) is
developed and the regression result of this model is describe in the following tables (table 8, 9
and 10).
Table 8. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of Bank- Specific Variables

C -0.144695 0.043778 -3.305178 0.0017
LAGROA 0.114601 0.100280 1.142812 0.2583
CAP 0.095335*** 0.033487 2.846894 0.0063
SIZE 0.011573*** 0.003725 3.106952 0.0030
LN 0.067721*** 0.013283 5.098163 0.0000
FS 0.004529 0.023907 0.189441 0.8505
SAVE -0.012655 0.018634 -0.679120 0.5000
NII 0.048088*** 0.010224 4.703496 0.0000
NIE -0.237690** 0.104752 -2.269074 0.0274
CR -0.226447*** 0.051376 -4.407682 0.0001


Table 9. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of Bank and Industry Specific Variables
C 0.054448 0.070141 0.776269 0.4411
LAGROA 0.001417 0.097033 0.014605 0.9884
CAP 0.022456 0.037095 0.605378 0.5476
SIZE -0.002151 0.005227 -0.411551 0.6824
LN 0.052645*** 0.012862 4.093199 0.0001
FS -0.037770 0.024985 -1.511735 0.1367
SAVE 0.007606 0.017957 0.423591 0.6736
NII 0.036429*** 0.009905 3.678001 0.0006
NIE -0.271563*** 0.095898 -2.831794 0.0066
CR -0.205379*** 0.047183 -4.352838 0.0001
CONS -0.061917*** 0.017943 -3.450823 0.0011

Table 10. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of All Determining Variables
C 0.077330 0.089619 0.862874 0.3924
LAGROA -0.024802 0.098082 -0.252875 0.8014
CAP 0.020738 0.037901 0.547148 0.5868
SIZE -0.003780 0.005449 -0.693752 0.4911
LN 0.049806*** 0.016131 3.087571 0.0033
FS -0.044409* 0.024769 -1.792949 0.0792
SAVE 0.010841 0.017899 0.605701 0.5475
NII 0.034802*** 0.011694 2.976153 0.0045
NIE -0.282897** 0.107332 -2.635718 0.0112
CR -0.179977*** 0.048834 -3.685470 0.0006
CONS -0.067200** 0.029315 -2.292360 0.0262
GDP 0.030418 0.023613 1.288199 0.2037
INF -0.008149 0.012846 -0.634353 0.5288
INT -0.012619 0.183357 -0.068821 0.9454

The previous tables (table 5 - 10) which are summarized in the appendices shows the empirical
results of the estimation of model 2 and 3 using fixed effect and dynamic effect regression
models respectively. As indicated in the tables the two regression results (table 7 and 10)
shows the highest explanatory power (R²) of approximately 0.8 when both bank specific,
industry specific and macroeconomic variables are included in the models. The R- squared
result of 0.8 endorse that 80% of the variation in the dependent variable (return on asset) is
explained by the independent variables of the model. The remaining 20% of the variation in the
dependent variable is left unexplained by explanatory variables of the study.
According to the DW stat result of the study, except regression results of bank specific
variables (table 5 and 8), there is no autocorrelation which occurred between the variables and
their respective lagged value. On the other hand, under fixed effect regression model (table 6)
the value of f- statistic is 17.6 and strongly significant at 1% significant level supporting the
validity and stability of the model relevant for the study. In addition, the dynamic regression
model f- statistic result is 15.2 which is slightly lower than the fixed effect model but highly
significant even at less than 1% significant level. That means the dynamic model is relatively
less valid and unstable than fixed effect regression model because dependent variable (return
on asset) of the study may not be serially correlated with its own one year lagged value.
Considering the validity of the models particularly the fixed effect regression model the
following sections discussed about regression results.
Among the bank specific variables, capital (CAP), bank size (SIZE), loan (LOAN), fixed
deposit (FIXD), non interest income (NII), non interest expense (NIE) and credit risk (CR)
shows significant impact on Ethiopian commercial banks profitability. Market concentration
and real GDP growth of the country are also significant determinants of Ethiopian commercial

banks profitability. The above significant profitability determinants are individually discussed
in the next paragraphs referring regression result of table 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Capital (CAP). The first bank specific variable of the study is equity capital. Most theories
argue that banks generally have an optimal capitalization ratio and they needs to remain well
capitalized to have an optimal profit. Berger (1995), Samy B. Naceur (2003), Athanasoglou et
al. (2005), and Indranarain Ramlall (2009) find a positive relationship between banks
profitability and capitalization. Consistent with these evidences, this study also confirms a
positive relationship between banks capital and profitability. It’s interesting to note that higher
the capital level brings higher profitability for Ethiopian commercial banks since by having
more capital; a bank can easily adhere to regulatory capital standards so that excess capital can
be provided as loans.
Bank size (SIZE). With regard to bank size (SIZE), in most literatures, the effect of size on
banks profitability is positive. Indranarain R. (2009) indicated that larger banks are better
placed than smaller banks in harnessing economies of scale in transactions and enjoy a higher
level of profits. In developing economies the impact of bank size on profitability is positive
because it makes large banks capable of providing extended banking service for large number
of customers. The data of this study shows the size of all Ethiopian commercial banks which is
measured by log of total asset is increased for the last 10 years. Consequently, this
improvement leads to the profitability of banks in Ethiopia. The result implies that larger banks
enjoy the higher profit than smaller banks in Ethiopia banking sector because they are
exploiting the benefit of economies of scale.

Loan and advances (LOAN). As for the loan-to-total assets ratio (LOAN), interest income
from loans and advances are the major source of revenue for commercial banks. As indicated
in the previous chapters, the more the deposit that are transformed in to loans, the higher the
profitability of banks due to interest rate on loans are much higher than interest expense on
deposits. Therefore, the loans to total asset ratio of the sample banks during the studied period
shows positive and highly significant impact on profitability.
Deposits. Regarding the impact of deposits on profitability, even though it is the main source
of funds for banks, the number one expense item for a banking sector is interest payment on
saving and fixed deposits. This study finds a negative and significant impact of fixed deposit
(FIXD) on Ethiopian banks profitability. This may be because it incurs a higher interest
expense on banks than other deposits. On the other hand, the impact of saving deposit
(SAVED) on banks profitability is unstable and insignificant. This is because banks could
transfer saving deposit in to loans and get higher income than what they paid on interest
expenses.
Non Interest Income (NII). The other significant bank specific variable of the study is non
interest income (NII). Banking theories said income from fee based activities has negative
impact on banks profitability on the ground that when banks shift from interest earning
services to non-interest income services profitability may decline. Most studies especially in
the developed economies like Vong and Hoi Si Chan (2008) find a negative relationship
between NII and banks profitability. However, this study finds a positive and highly significant
impact of NII on Ethiopian commercial banks profitability. This could be attributable to the
fact that Ethiopian banking sector is an emerging and unsaturated sector which strive for a

better coverage and service diversification. Therefore, instead of shifting attention from one
area (loan) to another area of focus (fee based services); the sector is extending its services in
both directions. It is the main reason to have a positive and significant impact of both loans and
NII on Ethiopian banks profitability.
Non Interest Expense (NIE). As indicated in table 6 it has a negative and significant impact
on Ethiopian banks profitability when the regression is made by using only bank specific
factors. Noninterest expense items such as salary and administration expense of Ethiopian
commercial banks has been increased throughout the studied period. Therefore, this expansion
negatively and significantly challenges the profitability of Ethiopian commercial banks.
Credit Risk (CR). The last significant bank specific factor of Ethiopian commercial banks
profitability is credit risk (CR) which is measured by the ratio of loan loss provisions to total
loans and advances. Most literatures suggest that increased exposure to credit risk is obviously
associated with decreased firm profitability. Consistent with those literatures, the study also
find a negative and strongly significant impact of credit risk on banks profitability. To curb the
impact of credit risk results Ethiopian commercial banks should strive to improve their
inspection techniques of identifying potential borrowers because the existing credit risk trend
may brought a series collapse against the sector as well as the nation economy.
Market Concentration (CONS). It is the only sector specific variable of the study. Theories
on market concentration argue that if the size and firm distribution of a specific sector is
concentrated, the profitability of firms becomes high because they could get monopoly power
to set the price of their products/service and determine their desired level of profit. During the

sample period (2001 - 2010), the concentration of Ethiopian commercial banks that is
measured by Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) has been declined. Hence, this decline on
market concentration makes Ethiopian banks to lose their absolute monopoly power on pricing
of their services and enjoy the new era of competition. Therefore, consistent with the theory
discussed above, the study finds a negative and significant relationship between the declining
market concentration and Ethiopian commercial banks profitability.
Macroeconomic Determinants. With regard to macroeconomic factors, the only significant
factor of profitability is real GDP growth. As discussed in the methodology part there is a clear
anticipation to have a positive relationship between the current Ethiopian stimulated economic
growth and banks profitability. The study also justified a positive and significant impact of
Ethiopia real GDP growth and banks profitability. This is because, as discussed in the
methodology part, stimulated economy could create a new and potential demand for financial
services.
Regarding inflation (INF) empirical studies suggest that if a bank’s income rises more rapidly
than its costs, inflation is expected to exert a positive effect on profitability. The study also
shows a positive relationship between inflation and banks profitability but the result is
insignificant. Finally, lending interest rate (INT) which is regularly set by national bank of
Ethiopia has a positive but insignificant impact on Ethiopian banks profitability. The study
have used lending interest rate instead of saving interest rate because it has been more
fluctuated and relatively significant factor than lending interest rate during the studied period.

Finally, as given in the introduction part of the study, there were three hypothesis developed
from banking area theories and empirical studies. The first hypothesis said that bank specific
determinants such as capital, loans and advances, credit risk and non interest expense
determinants significantly affect bank profitability. This hypothesis is accepted by the study
because all specified determinants are significant factors of Ethiopian banks profitability. In
addition to the above factors, other bank specific factors also significantly affect Ethiopian
banks profitability such as bank size, fixed deposit, and non interest income.
The second hypothesis was the amount of loan issued and economic growth has a positive
impact on banks profitability. It is also accepted by the study since the regression result which
is reported in the previous regression tables justified their positive significance. It is obvious to
expect and justify a positive relationship between the size of loan and banks profitability since
the major sources of income for commercial banks is interest on loans and advances. In
addition, as expressed in the previous paragraph, it is easy to rationalize the positive
relationship between the current stimulated economic growth of the country and commercial
banks profitability.
The third hypotheses expect credit risk, non interest income and non interest expense to have a
negative relationship with banks profitability. Hypothesis as to the negative relationship
between credit risk and profitability as well as non interest expense and profitability is
accepted by the study because both credit risk (CR) and non interest expense (NIE) variables
negatively and significantly impact Ethiopian commercial banks profitability. However,
hypothesis that expects a negative relationship between non interest income and commercial
banks profitability is rejected because, in Ethiopia banking sector, non interest income has
positive and strongly significant impact on profitability. (see the previous 6 regression result
tables).

CHAPTER FIVE
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is generally agreed that a strong and healthy financial system is a prerequisite for sustainable
economic growth of a given country. In order to survive negative shocks and maintain a good
financial stability, it is important to identify the determinants that mostly influence the overall
performance and profitability of commercial banks. For that matter, the study specified an
empirical framework to investigate the effect of bank-specific, industry-specific and
macroeconomic determinants of Ethiopian commercial banks profitability during the last 10
years. The study also used an appropriate econometric methodology for the estimation of
variables coefficient under fixed and dynamic effect regression models. The following sections
discussed about the final concluding remarks of the study and possible recommendations.
5.1 CONCLUSION
• As indicated in table 5 and 8 of regression results, bank specific determinants are able
to explain a substantial part of banks profitability in Ethiopia (R- square of 71% and
73% respectively).
• Regarding equity capital, the coefficient of capital is positive and significant at 1%
significant level when the estimation is made by using only bank specific variables
(table 5 and 8). Such result may indicate Ethiopian banks that increase their equity have
a lower cost of capital and thus are more profitable. Consistent with this study Samy B.
Naceur (2003), Athanasoglou et al. (2005), and Indranarain Ramlall (2009) also
confirms a positive relationship between banks capital and profitability. A policy

implication of such results may be for National Bank of Ethiopia to sanction higher
capital requirements to improve the profitability of banks in Ethiopia.
• Bank size, loan, and non interest income of Ethiopian commercial banks are also
positive and highly significant factors of profitability (table 5-10). Hence, banks should
strive to have strong investment position, high amount of loan and extending their level
of fee based activities in order to be more profitable in the sector.
• On the other hand, credit risk is the main significant factor which challenges the
profitability of banks in Ethiopia. In order to resist the credit risk challenges banks
should improve the quality of loans they provide through installing better assessment
methods of potential borrowers.
• Fixed deposit and non interest expense are also the major causes that hinder Ethiopian
banks profitability. Hence, Ethiopian commercial banks required to effectively utilize
the high cost fixed deposits and properly manage the level of non interest expenses
such as salary and administration expenses.
• Concerning market concentration, the regression result indicates a negative and highly
significant impact on Ethiopian banks profitability. The concentration of Ethiopian
banking sector which is measured by HH index declined for the last 10 years.
Obviously, this leads to a better competition in the market and erodes the price making
power of a single bank (Commercial Bank of Ethiopia) and reduces the sector
profitability.
• Finally, with regard to the macroeconomic indicates, the only significant factor of
profitability is real GDP growth. According to the regression result, the current real

economic growth of the country makes commercial banks to be more profitable.
Contrary, inflation rate and lending interest rate played insignificant role in Ethiopian
commercial banks profitability.
Generally, the study find that all bank specific factors (with the exception of saving deposit),
market concentration, as well as economic (GDP) growth significantly affect Ethiopian
commercial banks profitability for the last 10 years.
5.2 RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above findings the researcher forwards the following possible recommendations.
Ethiopian commercial Banks should strive to improve their equity capital investment and their
size. Since loan and fee based activities are the main source of revenue, they should improve
the level of those activities. On the other hand, in order to resist the challenges of credit risk,
fixed deposit and non interest expense items on profitability, Ethiopian commercial banks
should improve the quality of loans, effectively utilize funds from fixed deposit, and properly
manage the level of non interest expenses as salary and administration expenses. Finally, that
this study is duly designed to test the impact of bank specific (only financial statement
variables), market concentration, and macroeconomic determinants on banks profitability.
Therefore, the researcher would like to recommend future researchers to include and measure
the impact of nonfinancial determining factors of banks profitability such as management
quality, efficiency and productivity, bank age, and number of bank branches.

Reference
Abreu, M. and Mendes B. (2002), Commercial Bank Interest Margins and Profitability:
Evidence Form E.U Countries, Porto Working Paper Series.
Aburime T. (2008), Determinant of Bank Profitability: Company Level Evidence Form

Nigeria, Working Paper, Department of Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria.
Aburime T. (2008), Determinants of Bank Profitability: Macroeconomic Evidence from

Nigeria, Working Paper, Department of Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria.
Ana. P.I. Bong and Hoi Si Chan. (2008), Determinants of Bank Profitability in Macao, Faculty
of Business Administration, University of Macao.
Antonina Davydenko. (2010), Determinants of Bank Profitability in Ukraine, Undergraduate

Economic review, Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 2, American University in Bulgaria.
Asli Demirguc Kunt and Harry Huizinga. (1998), Determinants of Commercial Bank Interest
Margins and Profitability: Some International Evidence, Development Research
Group, The World Bank.
Atemakeng T. and Joseph N. (2000), Market Structure and Profitability Performance in

Banking Industry of CFA Countries: The Case of Commercial Banks Profitability in
Cameroon, Cameron.
Athanasoglous P. et al., (2005), Bank-Specific, Industry- Specific and Macroeconomic

Determinants of Bank Profitability, Bank of Greece Working paper, No. 25
Athanasoglous P. et al., (2006), Determinants of Bank Profitability in South Eastern European

region, Bank of Greece Working Paper, No. 47.
Bekezela Ncube. (2008), Banking System in Ethiopia, Financial Standards Forum, USA.
Berger A. (1995), Concentration and other Determinants of Bank Profitability in Europe, North
America and Australia, Journal of Banking and Finance 13, 65-79.

Chirwa, E.W. (2003), Determinants of Commercial Banks’ Profitability in Malawi: A Co
integration Approach, Applied financial Economics, 13 Pp. 565-571.
Chirs Brooks. (2008), Introductory Financial Econometrics.
Devinaga Rasiah. (2010), Theoretical Framework of Profitability as Applied to Commercial

Banks in Malaysia, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative
Science.
Devinga Rasiah. (2010), Review of Literature and Theories on Determinants of Commercial

Bank Profitability, Journal of Performance Management.
Dietricha A. and Wanzentied G. (2009), What Determines the Profitability of Commercial

Banks? Evidence from Switzerland, Institute of Financial Service, Switzerland.
Ghulam A. Bhattia and Haroon Hussiam. (2910), Evidence on Structure Conduct Performance
Hypothesis in Pakistani Commercial Banks, International Journal and Business and
Management. Vol.5. No. 9.
Indranarain Ramlall. (2009), Bank Specific, Industry Specific and Macroeconomic

Determinants of Profitability in Taiwanese Banking System: Under Panel Data
Estimation, International Research Journal of finance and Economics.
Kyriaki Kosmidou. et.al,. (2006), Determinants of Profitability of Domestic UK Commercial

Banks: Panel Evidence from the Period 1995-2002, Greece and UK Universities.
Manoj P.K. (2010), Determinants of Profitability and Efficiency of Old Private Sector Banks
in India: AN Economic Study, Journal of Finance and Economics.
National Bank of Ethiopia Quareterly Buylletian. (September 2010).
Panayiotis P. Athanasouglut et al,. (2008), Bank-Specific, Industry Specific and

Macroeconomic Determinants of Bank Profitability, Bank of Greece and University
of Piraeus, Athens, Greece.

Peiyi Yu an Dwerner Neus. (2003), Market Structure, Scale Efficiency and Risk As
Determinant of German Banking Profitability, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Department of Banking, University of Tubingen, Germany.
Rajesh K. Singh and Sakshi Chaudhary. (2009), Profitability Determinants of Banks in India,
International Journal of Global Business, 2(1), 163-180.
Rashiah Devinaga Review of Literature and Theories on of Commercial Bank Profitability,

Journal of Performance Management. (2010)
Saira Javaid . et.al,. (2011), Determinants of Bank Profitability in Pakistan: Internal Factor
Analysis, Institute of Information Technology, Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Samy ben Naceur and Mohamed Goaied. (2006), the Determinates of Commercial Bank
Interest Margin and Profitability : evidence from Tunisia. SSRN working paper
series, Working Paper.
Samy ben Naceur. (2003), Determinants of the Tunisian Banking Industry Profitability: Panel
Evidence, University Libre de Tunis, Department of Finance, Tunisia.
Short B. (1979), The Relation Between Commercial Bank Profitability Rates and Banking
Concentration in Canada, Western Europe and Japan, Journal of Banking and
Finance 3(3), 209-219.
Sofia Lulseged and Seid Hussein. (2005), Dashen Bank as an Information Infrastructure, Addis
Ababa , Ethiopia.
Valentina Flaminin. et.al,. (2009), Determinants of Commercial Bank Profitability in Sub-

Saharan Africa, International Monitory Fund (IMF) Working Paper, Wp/09/15.


Belayneh Hailegeorgis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Belayneh Hailegeorgis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Belayneh Hailegeorgis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

DETERMINANTS OF COMMERCIAL BANKS PROFITABILITY:

A Project Paper Submitted to the Department of Accounting and Finance of

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 1

DETERMINANTS OF COMMERCIAL BANKS PROFITABILITY:

Approved by the Examining Board:

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 2

Name: Belayneh Hailegeorgis

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 3

It is my pleasure to thank Ato Belete Fola, a staff member of National Bank of

I add a special note of admiration and gratitude to my families and friends,

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 4

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 5

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 6

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 7

Table 1. List of public and commercial banks in Ethiopia

Table 2. List of Variables and their Respective Characteristics 36

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of Variables

Table 4. Correlation among Explanatory Variables

Table 5. Fixed Effect Regression Result of Bank- Specific Variables

Table 7. Fixed Effect Regression Result of All Determining Variables

Table 8. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of Bank- Specific Variables

Table 10. Dynamic Effect Regression Result of All Determining Variables

Table 11. Macro-economic and market concentration indicators.

Table 12. Summary of fixed effect regression result

Table 13. Summary of dynamic effect regression result

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 8

1.1 Background of the Study

transformation in its environment due to improvement in the requirement of financial services

of academic researchers as well as bank management, supervisors and financial service

profitability determinants and their level of significance in the past decades.

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 9

and profitability have focused on a particular country and/or on a panel of countries.

According to Devinaga Rasiah (2010) internal determinants of commercial banks profitability

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 10

finding of the paper.

1.2 Background of the Study Area

History of Banking in Ethiopia

well as private financial institution. State owned financial institutions includes;

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 11

• The Savings and Mortgage Corporation of Ethiopia

In addition, private financial institutions of the time include;

• The Addis Ababa Bank

• The Banco di Napoli

• The Banco di Roma

country are listed in the next table.

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 12

Commercial Banks Branches

related to Ethiopia political instability since 1905.

of banking into the country.

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 13

liberation of the country from fascist Italy.

nationalized companies and shaped a “socialist banking” two-tier model “suited” to

reform and liberalization according to Monetary and Banking Proclamation number

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Determinants of Ethiopian Commercial Banks Profitability Page 14

future and raise the number of private commercial banks to 16.

On the other hand, external determinants could be analyzed under industry-specific

macroeconomic determinants of Ethiopian commercial banks profitability in the first decade of