Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08451 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866918138731298816 |
|---|---|
| author | Chinh, Dong Trung Hien, Nguyen Thi Thu Quynh, Pham Huong Minh, Vu Quang |
| author_facet | Chinh, Dong Trung Hien, Nguyen Thi Thu Quynh, Pham Huong Minh, Vu Quang |
| contents | Bank financial performance encapsulates an institution's capacity to effectively manage its assets, capital, and operational activities to generate profits and ensure stability. Evaluating this performance necessitates the integration of diverse metrics, including profitability indicators, loan growth rates, capital utilization efficiency, and more. Nevertheless, directly comparing the financial performance across different banks presents a complex challenge due to inherent disparities in their specific performance parameters. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques are frequently employed to navigate this intricate assessment. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of various MCDM approaches in evaluating bank financial performance. Our investigation encompasses both a comparison of methods for assigning weights to criteria and a comparison of methodologies for ranking the alternatives (banks). We examine five distinct weighting methods: Equal, Entropy, MEREC, LOPCOW, and SPC. Concurrently, three alternative ranking methods Probability, TOPSIS, and RAM are compared. These comparisons are conducted within the context of a case study involving the performance assessment of 19 banks. The findings indicate that the highest degree of stability in ranking bank financial performance is achieved when the Entropy method is utilized for criteria weighting in conjunction with the Probability method for ranking alternatives. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2509_08451 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Comparing Methodologies for Ranking Alternatives: A case study in assessing bank financial performance Chinh, Dong Trung Hien, Nguyen Thi Thu Quynh, Pham Huong Minh, Vu Quang Other Statistics Bank financial performance encapsulates an institution's capacity to effectively manage its assets, capital, and operational activities to generate profits and ensure stability. Evaluating this performance necessitates the integration of diverse metrics, including profitability indicators, loan growth rates, capital utilization efficiency, and more. Nevertheless, directly comparing the financial performance across different banks presents a complex challenge due to inherent disparities in their specific performance parameters. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques are frequently employed to navigate this intricate assessment. This study undertakes a comparative analysis of various MCDM approaches in evaluating bank financial performance. Our investigation encompasses both a comparison of methods for assigning weights to criteria and a comparison of methodologies for ranking the alternatives (banks). We examine five distinct weighting methods: Equal, Entropy, MEREC, LOPCOW, and SPC. Concurrently, three alternative ranking methods Probability, TOPSIS, and RAM are compared. These comparisons are conducted within the context of a case study involving the performance assessment of 19 banks. The findings indicate that the highest degree of stability in ranking bank financial performance is achieved when the Entropy method is utilized for criteria weighting in conjunction with the Probability method for ranking alternatives. |
| title | Comparing Methodologies for Ranking Alternatives: A case study in assessing bank financial performance |
| topic | Other Statistics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.08451 |