Upload
tranhanh
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1414
www.globalbizresearch.org
The Macroeconomic Determinants of Profitability among
Commercial Banks in Namibia
Johannes Peyavali Sheefeni Sheefeni
Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance,
Polytechnic of Namibia,
Windhoek, Namibia.
Email: [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
This paper analyses the macroeconomic determinants for commercial bank’s profitability in
Namibia. The study employed the techniques of unit root, cointegration, and impulse response
functions, and forecast error variance decomposition on the quarterly data covering the
period 2001 to 2014. The results reveal that the variables gross domestic product, inflation
rate and interest rate do not significantly influence commercial bank’s profitability in
Namibia. This suggests that the macroeconomic environment does not play a role in
influencing the profitability of the commercial banks. However, the results should be
interpreted with caution given the fact that aggregated data was used.
____________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: macroeconomic determinants, commercial bank’s profitability, Namibia, unit root,
cointegration, impulse response functions.
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1415
www.globalbizresearch.org
1. Introduction
The role of financial intermediaries is one of the most important because of the financial
functions which they perform in an economy. The key functions ranges from providing a
payment mechanism, matching supply and demand in financial markets, dealing with complex
financial instruments and markets, provide markets transparency, perform risk transfer and risk
management functions and many more (Alper and Anbar, 2011).
Commercial banks are the most important financial intermediaries because of their ability
to offer and provide a range and bundle of different services. Particularly, commercial banks
provide various services for lenders (depositors) and borrowers. This includes providing
liquidity and safekeeping for savings, which allows depositors to smoothen consumption over
time. Furthermore, commercial banks conduct credit analysis, disburse loans and monitor
outstanding credits for borrowers who require more financing than they can raise from their
internal sources or alternative sources such as financial markets (Berger and Humphrey, 1993).
Chirwa and Mlachilla (2004) put it differently by stating that banks act as financial
intermediaries by transforming deposits into financial assets and channel funds from entities
with surplus liquidity to those with deficit liquidity, thus, they facilitate capital formation and
trade. In addition, banks also perform the function of screening borrowers and monitoring
their activities in financial system characterized by incomplete and asymmetric information.
However, the role of commercial banks goes beyond the intermediation function in that good
financial performance rewards the shareholders for their investment. This, in turn, encourages
additional investment and brings about economic growth while, poor banking performance can
lead to banking failure and crisis which have negative repercussions on the economic growth.
Therefore, of greater importance is their role of financing economic activity in most
economies (Ongore and Kusa, 2013 and Soyemi, Akinpelu and Agunleye, 2013).
According to Weersainghe and Perera (2013), banking sector all around the world has
experienced some profound changes due to innovations in technology as well globalization
which creates both opportunities for growth and challenges for banking industry to remain
profitable in this increasingly competitive environment. Consequently, bank performance has
serious effects on investment, firm growth, industrial expansion and economic development.
In this regard, profitability is essential for a bank to maintain the activity and for its
shareholders to obtain deserving returns. Therefore, the determinants of bank performance,
particularly, the profitability of the banking sector has attracted the interest of academic
research as well as of bank management, financial markets and bank supervisors/regulators.
The Namibian banking industry is characterized by an oligopolistic market structure in
which a few institutions dominate the industry (Andongo and Stork, 2005). Market structure in
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1416
www.globalbizresearch.org
which few large firms have a large market share is believed to have a positive impact on
corporate profit. Profitability of the banks has been on the increase as reported in the Bank of
Namibia annual reports of 2012 and 2013 respectively. Furthermore, the special examination
of the banking sector better known as the stress-test shows that the banking sector is
performing well as reported in the Bank of Namibia financial stability reports of 2012.
However, in a country where the financial sector is dominated by a few large commercial
banks, any failure in the sector has enormous potential impact on the economy. This is due to
the fact that any bankruptcy in the sector has a potential contagion effect that can lead to bank
runs, crises and bring overall financial crisis and economic tribulations. This study draws its
primary interests from this in that its objective is to examine the macroeconomic determinants
of commercial banks profitability in Namibia.
The paper is organized as follows: the next section presents a literature review. Section 3
discusses the methodology. The empirical analysis and results are presented in section 4.
Section 5 concludes the study.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Theoretical Literature
The external factors that can affect the bank’s performance are usually beyond the control
of company. This is due to the fact that these factors are sector-wide or country-wide (Ongore
and Kusa 2013). According to Karkrah and Ameyaw (2010) macroeconomic variables form a
larger part of the external profit determinants in most studies conducted. The most common
external factors that have been identified includes among others competition/market share/firm
size, inflation, GDP growth, and interest rate (Haron, 2004). Weersainghe and Perera (2013),
Ongore and Kusa (2013) among others discussed the various external factors that impact bank
profitability as outlined below.
Competition or (Market share/market growth rate) is one of the factors in the sense that
each industry has competition forces that are peculiar to itself and these forces do affect
profitability or sometimes viewed as drivers of profitability. The same applies to the banking
industries across the globe. Accordingly firms which operates in a highly competitive
industries hardly earns favorable returns on their investment, hence the preceding argument
supports the influence of competition on profit. In fact Smith (1984) argued that intensive
competition within commercial banking industry tends to decrease profits. Particularly, in
microeconomic theory it is argued that an industry dominated by few larger firms tend to give
rise to fierce competition for higher market share and this in turn affects the profitability of an
industry.
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1417
www.globalbizresearch.org
Another macroeconomic factor that affects bank’s profitability is inflation rate (Rovell,
1979). His argument takes a view that the effect of inflation on bank profitability depends on
the rate at which the bank’s wages and other operating expenses increase compared to
inflation. This usually depends on accuracy of the prediction of the future inflation which
enable banks manage their operating costs. Perry (1992) supports this argument by stating that
when inflation expectations are fully anticipated by the bank management, it provides room
for interest rate adjustment in order to accelerate increase in revenues faster than the costs and
subsequently, higher economic profits. On the contrary, Rasiah (2010) argues that the move by
central banks in their quest to control inflation result in increased cost of borrowing as well as
a fall in credit-creating capacity and subsequently the loans given to the commercial banks.
This trickles down to a decline in the loans given by commercial bank. Furthermore, inflation
has an adverse effect on commercial bank’s profitability as it erodes the real value of bank’s
assets relative to their liabilities, hence it affects profits.
Gross domestic product has also been identified as another factor. According to Ongore
and Kusa (2013), trend of GDP affects the demand for banks asset in the sense that when
trends are leaning towards a declining GDP growth, demand for credit falls which in turn
negatively affect the profitability of banks. On the contrary, when trends are leaning towards a
growing economy or a positive GDP growth results in high demand for credit as a
consequence of the nature of business cycle. Therefore, during boom the demand for credit is
relatively high compared to recession periods. Another view on the relationship between GDP
and commercial bank’s profitability is that by Vong and Hoi (2009) who assert that there is a
general perception that loan defaults are normally lower in times of favorable economic
growth, while higher during unfavorable economic growth and these developments do affect
the profits of the commercial banks in either direction depending on the circumstances.
As for the interest rate, the relationship between the interest rate and bank profits is said to
be positive (Vejzagic and Zarafa, 2014). In general, the variable interest rate has been cited in
most studies as profitability determinant of commercial banks. This is on the basis that net
interest income which is a difference between interest income and interest expenses largely
affects the commercial bank’s profits.
2.2 Empirical Literature
There are numerous studies that have empirically investigated the various macroeconomic
determinants of profitability among commercial banks. Below is a list of few selected
empirical studies on the abovementioned subject.
Demirguc – Kunt and Huizinga (2000) examined the impact of financial development and
structure on bank performance using bank level data of large number (80) of developed and
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1418
www.globalbizresearch.org
developing countries for the period 1990 - 1997. The results show evidence that
macroeconomic and regulatory conditions have pronounced impact on margins and
profitability, while shallow market consumer and larger bank did not appear to exercise
market power in order to achieve high profitability performance. Furthermore, both scale and
technical efficiency appear to be dominant determinants of profitability.
Afanasieff, Lhacer and Nakane (2002) examined the determinants of banks interest spreads
using macro and micro variables in Brazil. A panel data technique in particular a two-step
approach was employed to uncover the main determinants of the bank interest spreads in
Brazil. Monthly data for the period February 1997 to November 2000 were used in the study.
The study reveals that macroeconomic variables have the most impact on bank interest spread
in Brazil.
In Tunisia, Naceur (2003) investigated the impact of banks characteristics, final structure
and macroeconomic indicators on banks net interest margin and profitability for the 1983-
2000 period. Panel data techniques were used particularly both fixed effects and random
effects models were estimated. The findings of the study are that inflation and growth rates
have negative impact while stock market development has positive impact on profitability and
net interest margin.
Athanasoglou, Delis and Stakouras (2006) analysed the effect of selected set of
determinants on banks profitability in the South Eastern European region over the period
1998-2002. Using an unbalanced panel dataset, the study reveals that inflation has a strong
effect on profitability, while bank’s profits are not significantly affected by real GDP per
capita fluctuations.
In Turkey, Tunay and Silpar (2006) investigated profitability for the period of 1988-2004,
employing panel modelling technique. The study reveals that national income have positive
impact on ROE. However, Yıldırım (2008) employed multiple regression method in analysing
profitability of Turkish banking sector for the period 2002 to 2007. The findings are that there
is a positive relationship between bank profitability and industrial production index, whereas
there is a negative relationship between bank profitability and consumer price inflation
In Switzerland, Detrich and Wanzennied (2009) investigated the determinants of the
profitability of commercial banks using data of 453 banks from 1997 to 2006. In employing
panel data approach, the results from the study show that macroeconomic factors, GDP growth
variable has a positive effect on bank profitability, while the effect of tax rate and market
concentration rate has a significant negative effect on bank profitability.
Sayilgan and Yildirim (2009) investigates the relationship between the return on assets and
the return on equity ratio for a sample of Turkish banks for the 2002-2007 time period using
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1419
www.globalbizresearch.org
monthly data. The profitability of the banking sector seems to have increased along with
declining inflation rate, consistently increasing industrial production index and improving
budget balance.
Alper and Anbar (2011) study looked at the bank-specific and macroeconomic
determinants of the bank’s profitability in Turkey over the time period from 2002 to 2010. The
bank profitability is measured by return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) as a
function of bank-specific and macroeconomic determinants. Using a balanced panel data set,
the results show that with regard to macroeconomic variables, only the real interest rate affects
the performance of banks positively, suggesting that higher real interest rate can lead to
higher bank profitability.
Acarvaci and Calim (2013) analysed the bank specific and macroeconomic factors that
affect the profitability of commercial banks in Turkish banking sector by using Johansen and
Juselius cointegration test approach. Data for the period 1998 to 2011 from the three biggest
state-owned, privately-owned and foreign banks were used for analysis. The macroeconomic
determinants of study are real gross domestic product, inflation rate, real exchange rate and
real interest rate. The results on macroeconomic factors show that real gross domestic product
and real exchange rate have been effective on the profitability.
Azeez and Gamage (2013) examined the impact of bank specific, industry specific and
macro-economic variables on net interest margin of Sri Lankan commercial banks over the
period of 1999-2011 within the dealership framework of Ho and Saunders (1981). Of the
macroeconomic variables, it was found that inflation has a positive influence on profitability
while GDP growth has a negative influencing on profitability of the commercial banks.
In Kenya, Were and Wambua (2014) assessed the determinants of interest rate spread in
the banking sector based on panel data analysis. Regression analysis were conducted to
empirically investigate the determinants of interest rate spreads by employing panel data
estimation methodology on a panel of commercial banks using annual data for the period
2002–2011. The findings show that the impact of macroeconomic factors such as real
economic growth is insignificant. The effect of the monetary policy rate is positive but not
highly significant.
In Ghana, Antwi and Apau (2015) investigated the determinants of financial performance
of Rural and Community banks. Thirty (30) rural and community banks across the country
were purposefully selected for the period 2006-2010. Panel data was used in regression
analysis model to examine the variables that could affect the performance of RCBs. The
variables of the regression include credit risk, capital adequacy, portfolio composition, bank
size, operational efficiency, gross domestic product as well as inflation (consumer price
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1420
www.globalbizresearch.org
index). Of the macroeconomic variables, the findings are that gross domestic product and
annual rate of inflation are significant drivers of RCBs’ profitability in Ghana. Similarly, GDP
is less significant factor in explaining the variation in the profitability of the banks and it is
inversely related to profitability per this study. Unlike GDP, inflation rate, in the economy
over the period seems to have impacted profitability in a positive way showing how well
managers in the sector are incorporating inflation in their price build-ups.
Petria, Capraru and Ihnatov (2015) assessed the main determinants of banks’ profitability
in EU27 over the period 2004-2011 using panel data approach. The study looked at bank-
specific (internal) factors and industry specific and macroeconomic (external) factors. The
empirical findings show that economic growth has influence on bank profitability, both on
ROAA and ROAE.
The results of the studies presented above vary significantly because of the differences in
the environment and data used in the analysis. However, there are common factors influencing
profitability as identified in several studies. Moreover, the findings from these studies range
from no relationship, positive relationship, negative relationship, significant impact,
insignificant impact etc. There are also different methodological approaches used in the
studies. However, there seem to be no study on Namibia that has specifically looked at this
subject. It is against this background this study intends to fill the gap and add to empirical
literature for Namibia.
3. Methodology
In analysing the long-run relationship between macroeconomic determinants and
profitability variables, this study adopted the model used by Acaravci and Calim (2013). In
this regard, time series econometric techniques such as unit root, cointegration and impulse
response function, and forecast error variance decompositions have been used within the
vector autoregression (VAR) framework. The process is outlined in the next subsection.
3.1 Econometric or Analytical Framework and Model Specification
VAR is a system of dynamic linear equations where all the variables in the system are
treated as endogenous. The reduced form of the system gives one equation for each variable,
which specifies each variable as a function of the lagged values of their own and all other
variables in the system. The vector autoregression process is described by a dynamic system
whose structural form equation is given by:
tptpttt ByyyAy .....2211 (1)
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1421
www.globalbizresearch.org
Where, A is an invertible )( nn matrix describing contemporaneous relations among the
variables; ty is an )1( n vector of endogenous variables such that; ntttt yyyy ,...,,( 21
);
is a vector of constants; i is an )( nn matrix of coefficients of lagged endogenous
variables ),...,3,2,1( pi ; B is an )( nn matrix whose non-zero off-diagonal elements
allow for direct effects of some shocks on more than one endogenous variable in the system;
and t are uncorrelated or orthogonal white-noise structural disturbances i.e. the covariance
matrix of t is an identity matrix 1)',( ttE
. Equation (1) can be rewritten in compact
form as:
titt ByLAy )( (2)
Where, )(L is a )( nn finite order matrix polynomial in the lag operator .L
The standard practice is that the main uses of the VAR model are the impulse response
analysis and forecast error variance decomposition. The analysis is carried out in the following
order. The first step requires a test for the univariate characteristics of data. This is done by
using some formal testing namely, Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test, the Phillips-Perrons
(PP) and the Kwiatkowski-Phillips-Schmidt-Shin (KPSS) tests are applied (Pindyck &
Rubinfeld, 1991; Gujarati, 1995; 2003). Thereafter, the following step would be to conduct
tests for co-integration, ie if two or more series have long-run equilibrium. The Johansen
cointegration test is used to determine the number of cointegration relations for forecasting
and hypothesis testing. If co-integration is found among the variables, the adjustment of the
short-run to the long-run equilibrium is obtained through the vector error correction model
(VECM) and if no cointegration found then the VAR is estimated. However, there are many
steps that must be followed before applying the Johansen test. First it is necessary to determine
the number of lags since this has a big effect in the analysis. There are five criteria:, the
sequential likelihood ratio (LR), Akaike information criterion (AIC), Schwarz information
criterion (SC), Final prediction error (FPE) and Hannan Quinn information criterion (HQ).
In empirical applications, the main use of the VAR is the impulse response function which
function traces the response of the endogenous variables to one standard deviation shock or
change to one of the disturbance terms in the system. Variance decomposition is an alternative
method to the impulse response functions for examining the effects of shocks to the dependent
variables. This technique determines how much of the forecast error variance for any variable
in a system, is explained by innovations to each explanatory variable, over a series of time
horizons (Stock & Watson, 2001:106).
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1422
www.globalbizresearch.org
3.2 Data, Data Sources and Data Measurements
The data used in this paper are quarterly data for the period 2001:Q1 to 2014:Q2.
Secondary data were obtained from the Bank of Namibia’s various statutory publications,
Namibia Statistical Agency’s statutory publications and World Bank.
In analysing bank performance, three measures of profitability were used, Return on Assets
(ROA), Net Interest Margin (NIM) and Return on Equity (ROE). ROA is a ratio between net
income and total assets, NIM is defined as net interest income divided total asset. ROE is
defined as Profit before Taxation (PBT) divided by shareholders’ fund. The three above
mentioned variables are the regressand or dependent variables.
The regressors or explanatory variables used in this study are gross domestic product,
interest rate and inflation.
With respect to Gross domestic product (LNGDP), a positive relationship between bank
profitability and level of economic activities as expected during upswings as demand for
lending increases and negative relationship during downswings when demand for credit
facilities is expected to slow down. Consequently positive relationship between GDP growth
rate and bank profitability is expected.
Interest rate (RR) is also expected to positively influence profitability of the bank because a
rise in interest rate increases the amount of income a bank accrues on new asset it acquires. It
also hinges on the amount of loans and securities hold. For this reason, a high interest rate is
associated with higher interest margins and profitability.
Inflation rate (IR) may have effect on profitability because a rise in inflation rate reduces
the net present value of future cash flow. Hence, it erodes the real value of money reserves.
However, an inflation rate that is fully anticipated raises profits because it allows banks to
adjust interest rate in order to increase revenues.
4. Empirical Analysis and Results
4.1 Unit Root Test
Table 1 shows the results of the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP)
test statistic. The results show that ROA and ROE are stationary in levels, implying that they
are integrated of order 0. Meanwhile, the other variables NIM, LNGDP, IR and RR only
became stationary after being differenced once, meaning they are of order of integration 1.
The concept of being stationary or not containing unit root implies that the variables has zero
mean, constant variance and the residuals uncorrelated over time.
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1423
www.globalbizresearch.org
Table 1: Unit root tests: ADF and PP in levels and first difference
Variable
Model
Specification ADF PP
ADF
PP
Order of
Integratio
n
Levels Levels
First
Difference
First
Difference
ROAt
Intercept -3.63** -.40** -9.44** -4.33** 0
Intercept and
trend -3.87** -4.82**
-9.42**
-5.75**
0
ROEt
Intercept -5.07** -5.06**
-8.96**
-19.90**
0
Intercept and
trend -5.52**
-
5.49**
-8.87**
-22.12**
0
NIM
Intercept -2.03 -2.16 -7.78** -8.28** 1
Intercept and
trend -2.12 -2.00
-7.88**
-16.36**
1
LNGDPt
Intercept -0.70 -0.75 -10.28** -10.23** 1
Intercept and
trend -2.78 -2.70
-10.19**
-10.14**
1
IRt
Intercept -3.09 -2.32 -3.98** -4.07** 1
Intercept and
trend -3.09 -2.26
-3.96**
-4.47**
1
RRt
Intercept -2.02 -1.43 -4.02** -3.97** 1
Intercept and
trend -2.61 -2.37
-3.93**
-3.87**
1
Source: author’s compilation and values obtained from Eviews
Notes: (a) ** means the rejection of the null hypothesis at 5%.
4.2 Testing for Cointegration
The results for the Johansen cointegration test based on trace and maximum Eigen values
test statics are presented in tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively. The results for the maximum Eigen
values test statistic show no cointegrating equations. Similarly, the results of the trace statistic
also show no cointegrating equations. This suggests that the null hypothesis of no
cointegration could not be rejected. Furthermore, this implies that only short run analysis can
be conducted by estimating a VAR model.
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1424
www.globalbizresearch.org
Table 2: The Johansen co-integration test based on trace and maximal Eigen value - ROA
Maximum Eigen Test Trace Test
H0: rank
= r
Ha: rank
= r
Statistic 95%
Critical
Value
H0: rank
= r
Ha: rank
= r
Statistic 95%
Critical
Value
r = 0 r =1 20.65 27.58 r = 0 r >=1 46.45 47.86
r <=1 r = 2 16.96 21.13 r <= 1 r >= 2 25.80 29.80
r <=2 r = 3 6.88 14.26 r <= 2 r >= 3 8.85 15.49
r <=3 r = 4 1.97 3.84 r <= 3 r >= 4 1.97 3.84
Source: author’s compilation and values obtained from Eviews
Note: Both Max-Eigen value and Trace tests indicates no cointegrating equations at the 0.05 level.
Table 3: The Johansen co-integration test based on trace and maximal Eigen value -ROE
Maximum Eigen Test Trace Test
H0: rank
= r
Ha: rank
= r
Statistic 95%
Critical
Value
H0: rank
= r
Ha: rank
= r
Statistic 95%
Critical
Value
r = 0 r =1 20.57 27.58 r = 0 r >=1 43.36 47.86
r <=1 r = 2 13.70 21.13 r <= 1 r >= 2 22.79 29.80
r <=2 r = 3 7.99 14.26 r <= 2 r >= 3 9.09 15.49
r <=3 r = 4 1.11 3.84 r <= 3 r >= 4 1.11 3.84
Source: author’s compilation and values obtained from Eviews
Note: Both Max-Eigen value and Trace tests indicates no cointegrating equations at the 0.05 level.
Table 4: The Johansen co-integration test based on trace and maximal Eigen value - NIM
Maximum Eigen Test Trace Test
H0: rank
= r
Ha: rank
= r
Statistic 95%
Critical
Value
H0: rank
= r
Ha: rank
= r
Statistic 95%
Critical
Value
r = 0 r =1 20.47 27.58 r = 0 r >=1 43.45 47.86
r <=1 r = 2 14.52 21.13 r <= 1 r >= 2 22.99 29.80
r <=2 r = 3 6.46 14.26 r <= 2 r >= 3 8.46 15.49
r <=3 r = 4 2.00 3.84 r <= 3 r >= 4 2.00 3.84
Source: author’s compilation and values obtained from Eviews
Note: Both Max-Eigen value and Trace tests indicates no cointegrating equations at the 0.05 level.
4.3 Impulse Response Functions
The results for the IRF show how each measure of profitability respond to the shocks.
Figure 1 shows the response of ROA, to innovations in the LNGDP, IR and RR. The effects of
the shocks in the macroeconomic determinants are transitory on all the profitability measures,
as they die out in the short run. In particular, the effects on all the profitability measures die
out after five quarters and thereafter, converge toward the steady state as the horizon extends.
The short run effects show that there is indeed a relationship between the macroeconomic
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1425
www.globalbizresearch.org
variables and commercial bank’s profitability in Namibia. However, the results show that
though the effect is visible and short-lived, it does not appear to be of greater magnitude or
statistical significance. Moreover, the relationship cannot be definitively stated as the effects
appear to dwindle on both positive and negative grids. Hence, one may conclude that when
ROA is used as a measure of profitability, there is no definitive or pronounced directional
relationship between the variables.
Figure 1: Impulse response functions for return on assets
-.4
-.2
.0
.2
.4
5 10 15 20
Response of D(ROA) to D(LNGDP)
-.4
-.2
.0
.2
.4
5 10 15 20
Response of D(ROA) to D(IR)
-.4
-.2
.0
.2
.4
5 10 15 20
Response of D(ROA) to D(RR)
Response to Generalized One S.D. Innovations ± 2 S.E.
Source: author’s compilation using Eviews
Figure 2 below shows the response of return on equity to shocks in LNGDP, IR and RR.
The results for the IRF show that ROE is almost non-responsive to innovations in the LNGDP
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1426
www.globalbizresearch.org
and IR. However, it appears to be responsive to RR, though dwindling between both positive
and negative grids. Hence, one cannot conclude a definite directional relationship. Moreover,
the effects of the shocks are transitory, as they die out in the short run after ten quarters to be
specific.
Figure 2: Impulse response functions for return on equity
-8
-4
0
4
8
5 10 15 20
Response of D(ROE) to D(LNGDP)
-8
-4
0
4
8
5 10 15 20
Response of D(ROE) to D(IR)
-8
-4
0
4
8
5 10 15 20
Response of D(ROE) to D(RR)
Response to Generalized One S.D. Innovations ± 2 S.E.
Source: author’s compilation using Eviews
Figure 3 below shows the response of net interest margin to shocks in LNGDP, IR and RR.
The results show that net interest margin is almost non-responsive to such shocks and there
seem to be no effects as there was no deviation or movement from the initial equilibrium.
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1427
www.globalbizresearch.org
Figure 3: Impulse response functions for net interest margin
-.0005
.0000
.0005
.0010
5 10 15 20
Response of D(NIM) to D(LNGDP)
-.0005
.0000
.0005
.0010
5 10 15 20
Response of D(NIM) to D(IR)
-.0005
.0000
.0005
.0010
5 10 15 20
Response of D(NIM) to D(RR)
Response to Generalized One S.D. Innovations ± 2 S.E.
Source: author’s compilation using Eviews
To sum up the results, first, the results show that there is a relationship between the
macroeconomic variables and commercial bank’s profitability in Namibia when ROA is used
as a measure of profitability. However, the results show that though the effect is visible and
short-lived, it does not appear to be of greater magnitude or statistical significance. Secondly,
when ROE and NIM are used as measures of profitability, there are almost very minimal or
unnoticeable responses. Furthermore, the responses are insignificant. These results are similar
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1428
www.globalbizresearch.org
to those of Athansoglou, Delis and Stakouras (2006), Were and Wambua (2014) as well as
Antwi and Apani (2015). In particular, these studies found GDP to be insignificant in
explaining profitability. In the Namibian case, all the variables are insignificant.
4.4 Forecast error variance decomposition
Table 5 shows the results of the forecast error variance decomposition over the horizon of
24 quarters. The forecast error variance decomposition for ROA is mostly attributed to itself in
the first quarter with LNGDP and RR increasing their contributions as soon as at six quarters.
However, the fluctuations caused by the two variables are not very significant. Similarly, the
fluctuations in ROE are mainly attributed to itself but LNGDP and RR with RR showing
relative high contribution than LNGDP as the forecast error horizon extends. In the same
fashion, the forecast error variance decomposition in NIM are largely due to itself in the first
quarter but after 6 quarters the variables LNGDP and RR contributed to the fluctuations in
NIM as the horizon extend but with less magnitude.
Table 5: Variance Decomposition
Variance Decomposition of ROA
Quarter ROA LNGDP IR RR
1 100 0 0 0
6 82.19 8.94 1.58 7.29
12 81.27 9.43 1.55 7.75
18 81.16 9.47 1.54 7.83
24 81.15 9.47 1.54 7.84
Variance decomposition of ROE
Quarter ROE LNGDP IR RR
1 100.00 0 0 0
6 88.07 2.16 1.82 7.94
12 85.75 2.42 1.81 10.01
18 85.63 2.45 1.82 10.10
24 85.62 2.45 1.82 10.12
Variance decomposition of NIM
Quarter NIM LNGDP IR RR
1 100.00 0 0 0
6 88.29 3.85 1.67 6.19
12 87.56 4.15 1.73 6.55
18 87.50 4.16 1.77 6.58
24 87.49 4.16 1.77 6.58
Source: author’s compilation and values obtained from Eviews
5. Conclusion
This study examined the macroeconomic determinants for commercial bank’s profitability
in Namibia. This was done with the purpose of establishing which of the determinant affects
bank’s profitability with greater impact. The study was based on quarterly data covering the
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1429
www.globalbizresearch.org
period 2001:Q1 to 2014:Q2, utilizing the technique of unit root, cointegration, impulse
response functions and forecast error variance decomposition. The results reveal that the
following variables gross domestic product, inflation rate and interest rate do not influence
commercial bank’s profitability in Namibia. This suggests that the macroeconomic
environment does not affect the commercial bank’s profitability in the Namibian context.
Irrespective of the results, the study recommends that the macroeconomic environment should
continue to be monitored as it has linkage to many economic sectors including the banking
sector. Moreover, macroeconomic environment is critical for the financial sector and banking
sector. Thus, it cannot be ignored at any expense. For this particular study, however, there is
room for improvement in the sense that the data used are aggregated. Future studies should
consider using disaggregated data and compare the results thereof with those in the current
study
References
Acaravci, S. K. & Calim, A. E. 2013. ‘Turkish Banking Sector’s Profitability Factors’,
International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(1): 27-41.
Afanasieff, T. S., Lhacer, P. M. V. & Nakane, M. I. 2002. ‘The Determinants of Bank Interest
Spread in Brazil’, Banco Central Do Brasil, Working Paper Series 46.
Alper, D. & Anbar, A. 2011. ‘Bank Specific and Macroeconomic Determinants of Commercial
Bank.
Profitability: Empirical Evidence from Turkey’, Business and Economics Research Journal,
2(2): 139-152.
Antwi, F. & Apau, E. V. 2015. ‘Financial Performance of Rural and Community Banks
(RCBs) in Ghana’, The International Journal Of Business & Management, 3(2): 76-85.
Athanasoglou, P., Delis, M. & Staikouras, C. 2006. ‘Determinants of Banking Profitability in
the South Eastern European Region’, Bank of Greece Working Paper 06/47.
Andongo, J. & Stork, C. 2005. Factors Influencing the Financial Sustainability of Selected
Microfinance Institutions in Namibia, Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit.
Azeez, A. A. & Gamage, S. 2013. ‘The Determinants of Net Interest Margins of Commercial
Banks in Sri Lanka’, Vidyasagar University Journal of Commerce, 18: 1-16.
Berger, A.N., Hancock, D. & Humphrey, D. B. 1993. ‘Bank Efficiency Derived from the Profit
Function’, Journal of Banking and Finance, 17: 317-47.
Chirwa, E., & Mlachila, M. 2004. ‘Financial reforms and interest rate spreads in the
commercial banking system in malawi. IMF Staff Papers, 51(1): 96–122.
Demirguc – Kunt, A. & Huizinga, H. 2000. ‘Financial Structure and Bank Profitability’,
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1430
www.globalbizresearch.org
Development Research Group, The World Bank, and Department of Economics, Tilburg
University, and CEPR.
Dietrich, A. & Wanzenried, G. 2009. ‘What Determines the Profitability of Commercial
Banks? New Evidence from Switzerland’, 12th Conference of the Swiss Society for Financial
Market Researches. Geneva.
Gujarati, D. N. 1995. Basic Econometrics. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gujarati, D. N. 2003. Basic Econometrics. (4th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Haron, S. 2004. ‘Determinants of Islamic Bank Profitability’, (Electronic Version) Global
Journal of Finance and Economics USA. 1(1).
Karkrah, A, K. & Ameyaw, A. 2010. ‘Determinants of Bank’s Profitability in Ghana’,
Unpublished Masters Thesis. Lekinge Tekniska Högskola;
Naceur, S. B. 2003. ‘The Determinants of the Tunisian Banking Industry Profitability: Panel
Evidence’, Universite Libre de Tunis Working Papers.
Ongore, V. O. & Kusa, G. B. 2013. ‘Determinants of Financial Performance of Commercial
Banks in Kenya’, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 3(1): 237-252.
Perry, P. 1992. ‘Do Banks Gain or Lose from Inflation’, Journal of Retail Banking, 16: 25-30.
Petria, N., Capraru, B. & Ihnatov, I. 2015. ‘Determinants of banks’ profitability: evidence from
EU 27 banking systems’, Procedia Economics and Finance, 20: 518 – 524.
Pindyck, R. S. & Rubinfeld, D. L. 1991. Econometric Models & Economic Forecasts,
McGraw-Hil.
Rasiah, D. 2010. ‘Theoretical Framework of Profitability as Applied to Commercial Banks in
Malaysia’, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 19: 74-97.
Rovell, J. 1979. ‘Inflation and financial institutions’, Journal of Finance and Economics, 34:
160-167.
Sayilgan, G. & Yildirim, O. 2009. ‘Determinants of Profitability in Turkish Banking Sector:
2002-2007’, International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, (28): 207-214.
Smith, D. 1984. ‘A Theoretic Framework for the Analysis of Credit Union Decision Making’,
Journal of Finance, 39: 1155-1168.
Soyemi, K. A., Akinpelu, L. & Ogunleye, J. O. 2013. ‘The Determinants of Profitability
among Deposit Money Banks (DMBS) in Nigeria Post Consolidation’, Global Advanced
Research Journal of Economics, Accounting and Finance, 2(5): 93-103.
Stock, J. H. & Watson. M. W. 2001. ‘Vector Autoregressions’, Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 15(4): 101-115.
Tunay, K. B. & Silpar, M. A. 2006. ‘Performance Analysis Based on Profitability in Turkish
Banking Sector-I’, Banks Association of Turkey, Research Papers, No: 2006-I.
Journal of Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking (JEIEFB)
An Online International Research Journal (ISSN: 2306-367X)
2015 Vol: 4 Issue 1
1431
www.globalbizresearch.org
Vejzagic, M. & Zarafa, H. 2014. ‘An Analysis of Macroeconomic Determinants of
Commercial Banks Profitability in Malaysia for the Period 1995-2011’, Asian Economic and
Financial Review, 4(1): 41-57.
Weersainghe, V.E.I.W. & Perera, T. R. 2013. ‘Determinents of Profitability of Commercial
Banks in Sri Lanka Central Bank of Sri Lanka’, International Journal of Arts and Commerce,
2(10): 141-170.
Were, M & Wambua, J. 2014. ‘What factors drive interest rate spread of commercial banks?
Empirical evidence from Kenya’, Rev. Dev. Finance,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rdf.2014.05.005
Yildirim, O. 2008. Turk Bankacilik Sektorunde Karliligin Belirleyicileri. Doktora Tezi, Ankara
Universitesi, Ankara.
Vong, A. P. I. & Hoi, S. C. 2009. ‘Determinants of Bank Profitability in Macao’, 93-113.