Impact of COVID-19 on Financial Performance and Profitability of Banking...

[Full title: Impact of COVID-19 on Financial Performance and Profitability of Banking Sector in Special Reference to Private Commercial Banks: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Bablu Kumar, Abdullah Al, Every, Masud, Iman, Doi, Capital, Abu, Abdullah, Basel, Better, Evidence, Day, British, Giuliana, Rules, Low, Kumar, Excellent, Panel, Banks, Maps, Great, Holding, Gazi, Edu, China, Lines, Size, Data, Under, High, Dhar, Issa, Bablu, Open, Hit, Fixed, Hard, Reason, Loan, Rate, Take, Non, Feb, Case, Study, Strong, Bank, March, Pre]

Citation: Gazi, M.A.I.; Nahiduzzaman, M.; Harymawan, I.; Masud, A.A.; Dhar, B.K. Impact of COVID-19 on Financial Performance and Profitability of Banking Sector in Special Reference to Private Commercial Banks: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su 14106260 Academic Editor: Giuliana Birindelli Received: 19 March 2022 Accepted: 18 May 2022 Published: 20 May 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations Copyright: © 2022 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) sustainability Article Impact of COVID-19 on Financial Performance and Profitability of Banking Sector in Special Reference to Private Commercial Banks: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh Md. Abu Issa Gazi 1 , Md. Nahiduzzaman 2, * , Iman Harymawan 3, * , Abdullah Al Masud 4 and Bablu Kumar Dhar 5 1 School of Management, Jiujiang University, Jiujiang 332005, China; dr.issa@jju.edu.cn 2 Department of Finance and Banking, Islamic University, Kushtia 7003, Bangladesh 3 Department of Accounting, Faculty of Economic and Business, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya 60115, Indonesia 4 Department of Management Studies, University of Barishal, Barishal 8254, Bangladesh; masud_ru_bd@yahoo.com 5 Department of International Trade and Economics, Yantai University, Yantai 264005, China; drbablukumardhar@gmail.com * Correspondence: info.nahiduzzaman.bd@gmail.com (M.N.); harymawan.iman@feb.unair.ac.id (I.H.) Abstract: The current crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has hit the global economy hard, causing significant damage to every aspect of the global banking system, and Bangladesh is no exception. For that reason, its performance and profitability have been affected. In this study, we investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the financial performance and profitability of the listed private commercial banks in Bangladesh. We initially compute each bank’s financial performance index (FPI) to determine the position according to their financial performance individually before and the current period of COVID-19 by the standardized CAMELS rating system. After assessing the position, the fixed-effect regression model is used to explore the impact of the bank’s specific variables and macroeconomic variables along with the banks’ variables on the banks’ profitability. The banks that performed better during the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19 also performed better during the pandemic period of COVID-19. The performance of AIBL, EBL, and BBL was almost autonomously higher during both periods. In the case of bank profitability, our paper discovered that during the pandemic period of COVID-19, high non-performing loan rates, holding more liquid assets, a high amount of hedging capital, and inappropriate bank size lessened the banks’ profitability. In contrast, a low leverage position and inflation rate enhanced the bank’s profitability during this period. The outcome of this study will help bank authorities detect the loopholes and take preventive measures that can improve their profitability during a crisis period like COVID-19. The investors and depositors who invest money in banks can precisely decide their portfolios Keywords: COVID-19; financial performance index; CAMELS; profitability; macroeconomic variables; regression; panel data 1. Introduction The bank is very much a familiar term to people, and it is becoming more popular day by day, with excellent prospects. Since the invention of the banking system around 8000 BC, the activities, operation systems, rules and regulations, and product lines of banks have been updated [ 1 ]. Meanwhile, operations of the banking system have been severely affected by various global economic crises like the British credit crisis in 1772 [ 2 ], the Great Depression between 1929 and 1939 in the United States [ 3 ], the Asian crisis in 1997 [ 4 , 5 ], and the financial crisis between 2007 and 2008 [ 6 , 7 ]. The world is currently facing a global crisis, namely, the COVID-19 pandemic. This pandemic has adversely Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 14106260 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Double, January, Level, Risk, Shock, Fields, Poor, Bdt, Show, Lose, Central, December, Part, Asset, Ability, Major, Era, Days, Plays, Last, Npl, Red, Market, Full, Due, Role, Goods, Stock, Boost, Quality, End]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 2 of 23 affected the banking system around the world. At the end of 2019, in December, the first case was identified in Wuhan, China [ 8 ]. After the announcement of the first case, the pandemic oppressed the global economy unpleasantly [ 9 ] due to continuous lockdowns across the world, restrictions on public movement, the halting of production, slumped demand for goods and services, part or full shutdown of offices and factories, and barriers to international trade. According to the World Bank Report, the growth of the world economy was predicted to be squeezed at 5.2% due to the onset period of the pandemic [ 10 ]. In Statista, [ 11 ] stated that major economies were forecasted to lose 2.9% of GDP after 2020 In addition, COVID-19 has had a pervading, significant, distressing negative impact in the global financial and economic markets [ 12 ]. According to [ 13 ], stock market returns have reacted badly due to the preventive measures of COVID-19, specifically social distancing The banking sector is the major participant to boost and regulate the economy and financial markets. Therefore, this sector is essential to safeguarding the current world crisis. In the case of financial stability and the proper circulation of money, the banking sector plays a significant role. Due to COVID-19, important performance indicators of banks like profitability, capital adequacy, asset quality, management efficiency, earnings ability, liquidity, and sensitivity to risk have been affected around the world [ 14 , 15 ]. In the context of Bangladesh, COVID-19 imposes both macroeconomic and microeconomic shock for the economy and people. The pandemic has negatively affected major macroeconomic factors like the GDP growth rate, inflation rate, exchange rate, and unemployment rate. At the end of 2020, Bangladesh lost a 2.91% GDP growth rate compared with the prospective GDP growth rate at the beginning of 2020 [ 16 , 17 ]. The inflation rate increased from 5.5% to 5.7% during the second quarter of 2020 [ 18 ]. Accordingly, this inflation rate crossed almost 6% in 2021 [ 19 , 20 ], and the unemployment level increased from 4.44% to 5.41% by the end of the 2020 from December 2019 [ 21 ]. The banking sector of Bangladesh and the banking sector worldwide are primarily associated with macroeconomic variables The profitability and financial performance of banks perform in terms of changes in the macroeconomic variables of the country [ 22 ]. The banking sector of Bangladesh has been poorly affected [ 23 ] by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to other emerging countries, Bangladesh has a high level of non-performing loans (NPL) [ 24 ], and it grew more than 7% in the first quarter of 2021 from the last quarter of 2020 [ 25 ]. The liquidity position of banks has also been affected by COVID-19. Bangladesh Bank statistics showed that the banking sector reserved BDT 2.05 trillion in December 2020, which was double the BDT 1.03 trillion in January 2020 [ 25 ]. Higher liquidity hampers the profitability position of banks [ 26 ]. Employed people have become unemployed because of the unavoidable conditions of COVID-19. Bangladesh Bank statistics show that during this pandemic, 27,237 bankers have been affected by COVID-19 and 143 bankers have died due to this virus [ 25 ]. The overall financial health position of banks has been adversely affected by COVID-19. Ref. [ 23 ] demonstrated that all listed banks’ financial health position has been in a red position during this pandemic era. The central bank of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Bank, predicted poor asset quality due to the higher NPL rate, and impecunious profitability might deteriorate the banking sector’s financial performance in Bangladesh in the upcoming days. Therefore, determining the impact of COVID-19 on Bangladesh’s banking sector is very important Very few studies have been conducted to measure the impact of COVID-19 on the banking sector in Bangladesh. Researchers have explored the effects of COVID-19 on some specific fields of the banking sector, such as the resiliency of commercial banks, liquidity, and financial health position during this onset period of COVID-19. We explore this more in the literature review section. With the extensive literature survey as well as the current needs from the perspective of Bangladesh, we developed this paper to assess the impact of bank-specific variables and macroeconomic variables, as well as particular bank variables, on the profitability of banks and to compute the financial performance position of the listed private commercial banks in Bangladesh during the pandemic period of COVID-19. We considered capital adequacy, asset quality, management efficiency, earning ability, liquidity

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Roa, Gap, Four, Human, Board, Life, Present, Roe, Return, Field, Works, Time, Trend, Main, Large, Track, Believe, Seven, Focus, Look]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 3 of 23 position, and sensitivity to risk position of banks during the pre-pandemic period and pandemic period of COVID-19 throughout this research. We believe our findings will help the board of directors of banks and government bodies track the current conditions of the banking sector in Bangladesh and take corrective action to face an economic crisis like COVID-19. Our paper will also be highly supportive to the customers of and investors in banks for making decisions during this time Additionally, in recent times, massive focus has been made on sustainability in research works [ 27 ]. The financial performance of banks and sustainability issues are largely connected to each other. According to [ 28 ], banks have major effects on the sustainability of their performance. For example, non-performing loans hinder the sustainable financial position of banks. Ref. [ 29 ] demonstrated that sustainable criteria in the case of lending decisions can diminish the risk position of banks. The ratio of banks like ROE, ROA, and NIMR represents whether the profitability condition or financial position is sufficiently sound in terms of ensuring the sustainability position of the banks. In an application, return on equity and retained earnings affect the sustainable growth rate of banks [ 30 ]. Therefore, the outcomes of our paper also must be helpful to ensure the sustainable financial condition of the banking system We divide our paper into seven segments. First, we present our study’s first and second segments, where the overview, background, and objective are demonstrated. Then, we survey the literature in the third section to look at previous studies in our field and identify the potential research gap. In section four, we show our study’s data sources and methodologies. We discuss the main part of the research in the fifth section, where the outcomes of this study are shown. In the sixth and seventh segments, we conclude the research and show the bibliography of the sources used throughout this study, respectively 2. Literature Review 2.1. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the World Economy The World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic in March 2020 [ 31 , 32 ]. This global pandemic has caused unparalleled ruffles for global economic and human life [ 33 , 34 ]. As a result, the world’s global trade suffered much due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, and the growth trend of the world economy expects to remain low compared with the pre-pandemic situation [ 35 ]. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that due to COVID-19, global GDP would lose USD 3.86 trillion in 2020 [ 36 ]. According to the World Bank Report, the growth of the world economy was predicted to be squeezed at 5.2% due to the onset period of the pandemic [ 10 ]. In Statista, [ 11 ] stated that major economies were forecasted to lose 2.9% of GDP after 2020. Consequently, the COVID-19 pandemic affected USD 90 trillion of global economies worldwide [ 32 ]. Despite the negative aspects, the global economy is recovering [ 37 ]. 2.2. Research on the Banking Sector during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period Worldwide Sufficient studies have been conducted to focus on the impact of COVID-19 on the financial sector, like the impact of COVID-19 on the macroeconomic circumstances of a country [ 38 ], on the banking performance stability [ 39 ], on bank lending around the world [ 14 ], on the stock performance of banks around the world [ 40 ], on conventional and Islamic stock performance using market index data and firm-level data [ 41 ], and on listed corporate firms’ performance [ 31 , 42 ]. The spread of COVID-19 was a shock for the global economy, significantly affecting the economy. Financial sectors like banks are projected to exploit this shock [ 43 ]. Ref. [ 44 ] examined the systematic risk of banks during the COVID-19 pandemic period They tried to estimate which factors influenced the systemic risk of banks. They found a highly leveraged large firm with high loans in terms of assets, insufficient capital supply to operate regular business, and network problems that caused a high systemic risk for banks during this period. Accordingly, [ 45 ] stated that EU banks’ non-performing loans (NPLs) are significant threats to banking risk and profitability during the COVID-19 period.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Deal, New, Northern, Faster, North, Drew, Long, Ann, Fight, Cases, Share, Middle, Cost, Mena, Post, Dow, Hellwig, Jones, Lower, Oil, Factor, Chance, Good, Bigger]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 4 of 23 Furthermore, [ 46 ] wanted to determine the cost of the credit risk of Polish commercial banks, comparing pandemic period conditions with the pre-pandemic period implications They found higher return capital pre-pandemic was more cautious during the COVID-19 period and faced a relatively lower cost of credit risk. Conversely, a low share of impaired loans in the pre-pandemic period faced somewhat faster risk cost growth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ref. [ 43 ] found that adverse effects of COVID-19 in the banking sector were more diaphanous and longer than the other financial institutions. The authors revealed that the larger and public banks suffered from a reduction in stock returns to deal with absorbing the shock of COVID-19 because of its higher liquidity and better ability to cooperate. Ref. [ 47 ] investigated a low-income country like Uganda, where the COVID-19 pandemic negatively affected the banking sector’s profitability, considering the bank-specific variables with the macroeconomic factors Ref. [ 48 ] investigated the capital structure of banks during this period, He found that capital is an essential factor for continuous lending of the banks and reducing the chance of default both during and post COVID-19 [ 49 – 51 ]. In the case of providing emphasis, [ 52 ] stated that banks’ intellectual capital (IC) positively impacted their profitability. They compared the effect of the intellectual capital (IC) of banks between Pakistan and China on their profitability during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, [ 53 ] explored the banks that adopted advanced IT technology in the pre-pandemic period and performed better during the COVID-19 period. They focused on the technology adopted by banks with a market-adjusted return. Ref. [ 54 ] analyzed loan growth, and a strong deposit position did not support the banks’ profitability and stability in Central, Eastern, and Northern EU countries during the COVID-19 period. They wanted to show the long-term impact of COVID-19 on banks’ profitability and stability. However, good service quality may ensure customer retention during the financial crisis [ 55 – 58 ]. Ref. [ 14 ] determined the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on bank lending worldwide. Previous research mainly considered bank-loan, macroeconomic data, and some COVID-19 cases and deaths to interpret the result and found a negative relationship between bank-lending ability and health crisis—the bigger the health crisis, the lower the lending ability of the banks Ref. [ 59 ] explored the consequences of the Saudi banking index due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They considered the lockdown data with the COVID-19 cases, interest rates, and oil prices to conduct the research and drew an ANN model. They found that oil prices and new COVID-19 cases positively affected the Saudi banking sector index, whereas the announcement of lockdown and declining interest rates affected it inversely. In this regard, [ 60 ] explored the impact of COVID-19 on the Islamic bank indices in GCC countries by using stock exchanges data and Dow Jones Islamic market index data. They explored Islamic banks’ ability to fight economic crises like COVID-19. They illustrated that Islamic banks can provide competent services continuously. Additionally, [ 61 ] measured the impact of an internal and external factor of corporate governance on banking performance during the COVID-19 period in the Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) region 2.3. Research on the Banking Sector during the COVID-19 Pandemic Period in Bangladesh In the context of Bangladesh, the banking sector has been negatively influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic [ 23 ]. Ref. [ 9 ] tested and forecasted the sustainability and resilience of the commercial banks of Bangladesh during the pandemic period. The authors demonstrated that insufficient capital adequacy, an inadequate liquidity position, and a high rate of non-performing loans (NPL) with lower performance caused more banks’ vulnerability by using the TOPSIS and HELLWIG methods. Similarly, [ 23 ] found that lower liquidity ratios and an unhealthy financial position before the COVID-19 pandemic worsened the banks’ financial position during the COVID-19 period in Bangladesh. They examined the liquidity and financial well-being of commercial banks in Bangladesh during the continuous period. Ref. [ 62 ] investigated the impact of COVID-19 on the firms’ value, capital adequacy, and income from the interest of the banking sector in Bangladesh by

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Add, Unique, Standard, Path, Set, View, Sharia, Year, Point, Lot, State, Mean, Sample, Dhaka, Parts]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 5 of 23 using a state-designed stress-testing model under different NPL shock circumstances. They found more vulnerability in the case of relatively larger banks during the pandemic period We found a lot of research on the impact of COVID-19 on the banking sector around the world. Meanwhile, from the perspective of Bangladesh, [ 9 , 23 , 62 ] explored the crucial impact of COVID-19 on the banking sector. They provided valuable information regarding the banks’ point of view and other stakeholders’ points of view. We developed this paper to add some value to the banking research on Bangladesh during this pandemic period We properly checked the above analysis accordingly and discovered that the impact of COVID-19 on the overall performance of banks is unique. For that reason, we conducted this study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on banks’ profitability and computed the financial performance index (FPI) of each bank individually. In the FPI, we used a standardized CAMELS rating system. Furthermore, we covered a more significant number of years in the data sets with more variables and applied a sophisticated methodology to conduct this research. Besides, the financial performance index (FPI) system with the standardized CAMELS rating system was used for the first time in the perspective of Bangladesh as a method of determining the financial position of banks. These all are the main novelties of our paper 3. Data and Methodology 3.1. Data Sources and Study Sample We retrieved panel data from the studied banks’ financial statements, and these financial statements were collected from the respective bank websites. The macroeconomic variables were collected from the World Bank database. In addition, we collected data from various articles, journals, websites, newspapers, and magazines to generalize this paper. Among the 33 banks listed under the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE) [ 63 ], in this study, we took a total of 26 private commercial banks (20 conventional private commercial banks and 6 Islamic Sharia-based commercial banks) based on the available financial statements and annual reports. Our study covers the financial years from 2010 to 2021 3.2. Research Design In the methodology section, we first divided our study period into two segments, with terms from the year 2010 to 2019 as the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19 and terms from the year 2020 to 2021 as the pandemic period of COVID-19. In the case of regression analysis, we considered the years 2010 to 2019 as pre-pandemic period, and in order to explore the profitability condition of the banks during the COVID-19 period, we incorporated the study years 2020 and 2021 to the 2010 to 2019 data set. We mainly focused on the major changes in regression results during the COVID-19 period compared to the pre-pandemic period. We calculated FPI through the standardized CAMELS model; this is the most popular method of performance measurement of banks. We demonstrate below how the CAMELS model is used to compute banks’ financial performance index (FPI) [ 64 , 65 ]. We divided the measurement path into three parts. First, we measured the standard value of each variable (ratio) that was considered in our study in the CAMELS parameters. The formula is as follows: δ ijt = β ijt − µ jt σ jt (1) Here, µ jt indicates sample mean, σ jt indicates the standard deviation of the CAMELS parameter (j th is the indicator of the sample at time t), and β ijt indicates the individual ratio of each CAMELS parameter for respective banks separately at time t Second, we calculated each CAMELS parameter value considering the standardized value of each ratio with the prescribed weights. In this section, we used different types of bank ratios in each parameter Capital Adequacy ( CA it ) = ω 1 it δ 1 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it + ω 3 it δ 3 it (2)

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Single, Table]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 6 of 23 Asset Quality ( AQ it ) = ω 1 it δ 1 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it + ω 4 it δ 4 it (3) Management Efficiency ( ME it ) = ω 1 it δ 1 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it (4) Earning Ability ( EA it ) = ω 1 it δ 1 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it + ω 3 it δ 3 it + ω 4 it δ 4 it (5) Liquidity ( LY it ) = ω 1 it δ 1 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it (6) Sensitivity to Risk ( SR it ) = ω 1 it δ 1 it + ω 2 it δ 2 it (7) Here, δ it indicates the standard value of the CAMELS parameter of the i th bank at time t, and ω it represents the prescribed weight for each ratio at time t for every bank Finally, we computed the FPI for the i th bank in the following way: FPI i = α j 1 CA it + α j 2 AQ it + α j 3 ME it + α j 4 EA it + α j 5 LY it + α j 6 SR it (8) where α j indicates the prescribed weight for each parameter for the i th bank at time t. CA it , AQ it , ME it , EA it , LY it , and SR it are the CAMELS performance parameters for the i th bank at time t 3.2.1. Regression Model Regression analysis is a set of statistical methods used to estimate the relationship between the single dependent variable and one or multiple variables [ 66 ]. Accordingly, we used three regression models to explore the effect of bank-specific variables along with macroeconomic variables on banks’ profitability during the pre-pandemic period and pandemic period of COVID-19. Table 1 shows the variables used, the definitions of these variables, and the formula for calculating these respective variables. We demonstrated the effect of COVID-19 on the banking sector by considering the years 2010 to 2019 as the pre-pandemic period and during pandemic period; we incorporated the years 2020 and 2021 to the pre-pandemic period data. We wanted to explore the impact of COVID-19 on banks’ profitability by focusing on the major changes in the regression outcome compared to the outcome from the pre-pandemic period. For this purpose, we propose the following regression equations as the model of our study:

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Stand, Natural, Real, Dar, Tax, Net, Lar, Tools, Tool, Cash, Car, Profit, Ear, Ldr, Pays, Company, Rather, Gross, Short]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 7 of 23 Table 1. Theoretical framework Variable Type Variable Name Acronym Definition and Formula Expected Relation Dependent V ariables Return on asset ROA Return on asset is a financial performance indicator ratio that indicates how efficiently a profitable firm can generate profit in terms of total assets [ 67 ]. According to [ 68 ], ROA is the best tool to measure banks’ profitability Formula: ROA = Net Income/Total Assets [ 69 ] Not Applicable Return on equity ROE Return on equity is defined as the standard of a bank’s profitability and is also how effectively a bank can generate profit from equity [ 70 ]. It is the ratio of return between a firm’s net income and its shareholders’ equity [ 71 ]. Formula: ROA = Net Income after Tax/Shareholders Equity [ 22 ] Not Applicable Net interest margin ratio NIMR Net interest margin ratio is a profitability indicator tool that compares the net earning interest from the loan, investment, and lease a firm generates with what it pays to the holders of depositors and savings account holders [ 72 ]. Formula: NIMR = Net Interest Income/Average Earning Assets [ 72 ] Not Applicable Independent V ariables Bank-Specific V ariables Capital adequacy ratio CAR Capital adequacy is also called the capital-to-risk-weighted asset ratio, which computes the financial strength of banks considering their assets and capital [ 73 ]. Formula: CAR = (Tier 1 Capital + Tier 2 Capital)/Risk Weighted Assets [ 74 ] +/ − Debt-to-asset ratio DAR Debt-to-asset ratio is a type of leverage ratio that expresses the portion of debt both short term and long term compared with the total assets of the firm [ 75 ] Formula: DAR = Total Liabilities/Total Assets [ 75 ] +/ − Debt-to-quity ratio DER Debt-to-equity ratio is defined as a financial ratio that represents the proportion of debt in terms of the shareholders’ equity that is used to finance the company’s assets. According to accounting tools, the debt-to-equity ratio measures the financial structure risk of a company by dividing its total debts by its total equity [ 76 ]. Formula: DER = Total Liabilities/Total Shareholders Equity [ 77 ] +/ − Equity-to-asset ratio EAR Equity-to-asset ratio refers to how much a firm’s assets are funded by shareholders’ equity rather than debt [ 78 ]. Formula: EAR = Total Shareholders Equity/Total Assets [ 22 , 78 ] +/ − Loan-to-asset ratio LAR Loan-to-asset ratio is a financial ratio that represents the portion of the loan amount compared to the total assets of the company. Formula: LAR = Total Loans/Total Assets [ 79 ] +/ − Liquid-asset-to-totalassets ratio LATAR Liquid-asset-to-total-assets ratio expresses how much of a cash asset or cash equal asset is available in terms of total assets of the firm. Formula: LATAR = Liquid Assets/Total Assets [ 80 ] +/ − Loan-to-deposit ratio LDR Loan-to-deposit ratio is a ratio that measures a bank’s liquidity position by comparing the loan amount a bank disburses with the deposit amount it receives [ 81 ] Formula: ROA = Total Loans/Total Deposits [ 81 ] +/ − Non-performing loan rate NPLR Non-performing loan rate is used as a tool for measuring the credit risk of banks, where a higher ratio indicates a higher chance of losses due to the loan default by the borrowers [ 82 ]. Formula: NPLR = Total Non-performing Loans/Total Loans [ 47 ] − Bank size Size Bank size is the natural logarithm form of a bank’s total assets [ 83 ]. Formula: Size = {ln(Total Bank Assets)} [ 65 ] +/ − MV The GDPGR (+/ − ), INFR (+/ − ), and INTR (+/ − ) stand for gross domestic product growth rate, inflation rate, and real interest rate, respectively, for Bangladesh Note: MV = macroeconomic variables; parentheses () indicate the expected relationship.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Ran, Less, Durbin, Chosen, Normal, Chu, Root, Watson, Iii, Null, Levin, Free, See, Lin, Cook, Common]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 8 of 23 Components of banks that influence their profitability: ROA it = α i + β 1 GDPGR it + β 2 INFR it + β 3 INTR it + β 4 CAR it + β 5 DAR it + β 6 DER it + β 7 EAR it + β 8 LAR it + β 9 LATAR it + β 10 LDR it + + β 11 NPLR it + β 12 Size it + ε it —- ( Model I ) ROE it = α i + β 1 GDPGR it + β 2 INFR it + β 3 INTR it + β 4 CAR it + β 5 DAR it + β 6 DER it + β 7 EAR it + β 8 LAR it + β 9 LATAR it + β 10 LDR it + + β 11 NPLR it + β 12 Size it + ε it —- ( Model II ) NIMR it = α i + β 1 GDPGR it + β 2 INFR it + β 3 INTR it + β 4 CAR it + β 5 DAR it + β 6 DER it + β 7 EAR it + β 8 LAR it + β 9 LATAR it + β 10 LDR it + + β 11 NPLR it + β 12 Size it + ε it — ( Model III ) where ROA it , ROE it , and NIMR it indicate the return on asset, return on equity, and net interest margin ratio, respectively, of each bank at time t. Accordingly, CAR it = capital adequacy ratio, DAR it = deposit-to-asset ratio, DER it = debt-to-equity ratio, EAR it = equity-to-asset ratio, LAR it = loan-to-asset ratio, LATAR it = liquid-asset-to-total-asset ratio, LDR it = loanto-deposit ratio, NPLR it = non-performing loan rate, Size it = bank size, GDPGR it = gross domestic product growth rate, INFR it = inflation rate, and INTR it = real interest rate at time t for each bank; β is the regression coefficient; and α i is the intercept term. (Note: ROA, ROE, and NIMR are the proxy variables for the banks’ profitability) Most researchers use ROA, ROE, and NIMR as the proxy variables to measure the profitability of banks as well as represent the impact of bank-specific variables, financial indicators of the market, and macroeconomic variables on bank profitability [ 47 , 71 , 84 – 86 ]. Panel Data Model Diagnosis First, we tested the stationarity of data (panel unit root test) by Levin–Lin–Chu (LLC) panel unit root test method to see if a common unit root was present in the variables. Accepting the null hypothesis refers to the existence of a common unit root, whereas acceptance of the alternative hypothesis indicates the absence of a common unit root. The result of this test is shown in Table 2 . We saw that every variable of our study received a probability value of less than 0.05, which suggests the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was accepted. Hence, all the variables were free from a common unit root. Now, it was time to detect the appropriate panel data regression model. There are three kinds of panel data diagnosis regression models: pooled model, fixed-effect model, and random-effect model In our study, we used the F-test and Hausman test to identify the best model for our study. First, we conducted an F-test to select a model between pooled and fixed-effect models. The result recommended that (as shown in Table 2 ) the fixed model be chosen over the pooled model, as the null hypothesis was rejected at a 1% significant level in every case (models I, II, and III). After that, we ran the Hausman test to identify the best model between the fixed-effect model and the random-effect model. The result (Table 2 ) shows that the null hypothesis was rejected at a 1% significant level in every case (models I, II, and III) as well, so we specified that the fixed-effect model was the best for every case (models I, II, and III) to analyze the panel data of our research We performed several tests to ensure our regression model’s appropriateness for panel data analysis. First, we tested the Cook’s distance [ 87 ] of each model and found values of each model below 1, which emphasized the normality of our model. However, the Mahalanobis test values in some cases exceeded the specified value in terms of DOF As Cook’s distance values did not exceed the standard value of 1, these multivariate outliers were not of concern. Second, the normal probability plot and the scatterplot of standardized residuals against the predicted standardized value met the assumptions of normality, linearity, and homoscedasticity residuals. We also used the Durbin–Watson test, consisting of a regression outcome table, which ensured the absence of autocorrelation in our models. Third, our variance inflation factor (VIF) values were below 10 for each model This indicates that there were no multicollinearity issues.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Square, Fell, Positive, Chi]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 9 of 23 Table 2. Results of the F-test, Hausman test and panel data unit root test Pre-Pandemic Period (2010–2019) Considering Pandemic Period (2010–2021) Model I Model II Model III Model I Model II Model III F-test F 2.81200 3.45045 8.77661 2.80524 3.33483 8.46283 p -value 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Hausman test Chi-square 46.17420 51.92613 21.91756 32.69923 49.94804 32.96735 p -value 0.00000 0.00000 0.00910 0.00010 0.00000 0.00010 Panel Data Unit Root Test (Levin–Lin–Chu) Variables t statistic pvalue CAR − 6.99126 0.00000 DAR − 7.43456 0.00000 DER − 12.2954 0.00000 EAR − 8.22837 0.00000 LAR − 10.3526 0.00000 LATAR − 11.1518 0.00000 LDR − 8.09988 0.00000 NIMR − 4.08969 0.00000 NPLR − 8.61207 0.00000 ROA − 14.9933 0.00000 ROE − 12.7831 0.00000 SIZE − 8.39977 0.00000 GDPGR − 5.51756 0.00000 INFR − 36.2907 0.00000 INTR − 11.1808 0.00000 4. Analysis and Results 4.1. Descriptive Statistics Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the study. It represents the financial condition of the listed private commercial banks in the pre and pandemic period. We also investigated the macroeconomic conditions of Bangladesh. During the pandemic period, almost all the variables’ mean values decreased. We noticed that DER increased from 1229.51% to 1481.94% Table 3. Descriptive statistics Variables Pre-Pandemic Period (2010–2019) Pandemic Period (2020–2021) N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation ROE 260 − 0.0115 0.3882 0.1348 0.0618 52 0.0142 0.1840 0.0914 0.0384 GDPGR 260 0.0557 0.0815 0.0676 0.0079 52 0.0351 0.0690 0.0520 0.0171 INFR 260 0.0544 0.1146 0.0706 0.0185 52 0.0556 0.0565 0.0561 0.0005 INTR 260 0.0307 0.0689 0.0488 0.0111 52 0.0404 0.0475 0.0440 0.0036 CAR 260 0.0631 0.1793 0.1208 0.0169 52 0.1080 0.1728 0.1414 0.0156 DER 260 5.5000 28.2375 12.295 3.6377 52 7.8857 27.2971 14.8194 3.9931 NPLR 260 0.0097 0.1030 0.0451 0.0174 52 0.0217 0.1809 0.0461 0.0292 LDR 260 0.6580 1.1278 0.8838 0.0829 52 0.7350 1.5454 0.9461 0.1269 LATAR 260 0.0159 0.2513 0.1159 0.0390 52 0.0503 0.2286 0.1058 0.0419 ROA 260 − 0.0008 0.0321 0.0111 0.0060 52 0.0010 0.0130 0.0063 0.0031 EAR 260 0.0079 0.1543 0.0801 0.0202 52 0.0353 0.1083 0.0672 0.0151 DAR 260 0.0810 0.9090 0.7877 0.0696 52 0.6190 0.8620 0.7484 0.0571 NIMR 260 0.0032 0.0770 0.0252 0.0087 52 0.0031 0.0416 0.0176 0.0084 LAR 260 0.0702 0.8367 0.6948 0.0675 52 0.5585 1.1309 0.7054 0.0898 Bank size 260 10.9182 14.2456 12.167 0.5577 52 12.2878 14.2630 12.8806 0.3699 These results imply that earnings in terms of assets and equity liquid assets in terms of total assets fell during the onset period when banks largely depended on debt, as the DER volume increased and the EAR volume decreased. However, CAR, LDR, LAR, and bank size increased during this period. It was interesting to see that capital adequacy and loan distribution were positive, but default of loan rate was negative during this period, along with showing a higher standard deviation compared to the pre-pandemic period.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Bangla, Sbl, Commerce, Rule, Enough, Dutch, Abl, Prime, Rest, Hand, Pearson, Arafah, Place, Jbl, Islami]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 10 of 23 Table 4 shows the Pearson correlation of the variables used. It covers the years from 2010 to 2021. This correlation matrix table denotes that there was no multicollinearity problem between our explanatory variables according to the rule of thumb by [ 88 ], who stated that multicollinearity problems occur when the correlation between explanatory variables exceeds 0.80. In addition, the results show that there was a positive association between the explanatory variables DAR, LAR, LATAR, LDR, EAR, INFR, and INTR with the dependent variables ROA, ROE, and NIMR. On the other hand, there was a negative relationship between DER, NPLR, and bank size and ROA, ROE, and NIMR. We also noticed that CAR and GDPGR had negative familiarity with ROA and ROE but had positive familiarity with NIMR. Among the relationships, EAR and INFR had a significant positive relationship with the dependent variables ROA, ROE, and NIMR, whereas NPLR and bank size had a significant negative relationship with ROA, ROE, and NIMR 4.2. Financial Performance Index (FPI) We calculated the FPI considering each CAMELS parameter, consisting of capital adequacy, asset quality, management efficiency, earning ability, liquidity position, and sensitivity to the risk of banks Table 5 represents the banks’ financial performance index (FPI) during the COVID-19 pandemic period and the pre-pandemic period. This table is segmented into two sections, where the first section (2010 to 2019) is the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19 and the second section (2020) is the pandemic period of COVID-19. We looked among the 26 listed private commercial banks. Eastern Bank Ltd. (EBL) was the best performer and Brac Bank Ltd. (BBL), Al-Arafah Islami Bank Ltd. (AIBL), City Bank Ltd. (CBL), National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited (NCCBL) came in second, third, fourth, and fifth position, respectively, during the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19. From the bottom, AB Bank Ltd.’s (ABL) performance was the lowest among the studied banks. IFIC Bank Ltd. (IFICBL), First Security Islami Bank Ltd. (FSIBL), and Pubali Bank Ltd. (Pubali BL) got 23 rd, 24 th, and 25 th place, respectively, during this period. It was surprising to see that Islamic Sharia-based commercial banks’ performance was relatively lower compared with the conventional banks. In many studies, the authors found that Islamic Sharia-based banks perform less efficiently than conventional banks [ 66 , 89 ]. Ref. [ 66 ] demonstrated that higher operating costs could be the cause for the tenuous performance of Islamic Sharia-based banks, whereas [ 89 ] stated that due to management inefficiency, Islamic Sharia-based banks could not perform like conventional banks even though they have enough capital. Ref. [ 90 ] concluded that conventional banks are better in the case of management efficiency. However, in the case of liquidity and capital adequacy, Islamic Sharia-based banks are better. Moving into the second section, we noticed that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, there were a lot of changes due to the ongoing crisis. In this period, only AB Bank Ltd.’s (ABL) and Prime Bank Ltd.’s (Prime BL) positions were unchanged, whereas the rest of the 24 banks’ performance positions were affected due to COVID-19 both positively and negatively. We saw that among these banks, One Bank Ltd.’s (OBL), EXIM Bank Ltd.’s (EXIMBL), National Credit and Commerce Bank Limited’s (NCCBL) performance positions were more vulnerable because their positions decreased more than those of the other banks. However, Pubali Bank Ltd. (Pubali BL), Jomuna Bank Ltd. (JBL), Dutch Bangla Bank Ltd. (DBBL), and United Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCBL) increased their financial performance position during the COVID-19 pandemic period more than the other banks. During this period, AIBL, EBL, BBL, DBBL, and CBL secured 1 st (+1), 2 nd ( − 1), 3 rd ( − 1), 4 th (+7), and 5 th ( − 1) place, respectively, and IBBL, OBL, SOCIALBL, IFICBL, and ABL came in 22 nd ( − 2), 23 rd ( − 16), 24 th ( − 2), 25 th ( − 2), and 26 th (0), respectively. Ref. [ 9 ] found that EBL and DBBL were more resilient banks during the pandemic period, and OBL was a less resilient bank in terms of managing the shock of COVID-19. We noticed that during the COVID-19 pandemic period, Islamic Sharia-based commercial banks’ performance was lower than that of conventional banks in the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19. SIBL, EXIMBL, FSIBL, SBL, IBBL, and Social BL came in 14 th, 16 th, 19 th, 20 th, 22 nd, and 24 th positions, respectively. That should be a concern for Islamic Sharia-based commercial banks’ authority.

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 11 of 23 Table 4. Correlation coefficients (2010–2021) Variables CAR DAR DER EAR LAR LATAR LDR NIMR NPLR ROA ROE Size GDPGR INFR INTR CAR 1 DAR − 0.347 ** 1 DER 0.018 0.242 ** 1 EAR − 0.042 − 0.082 − 0.893 ** 1 LAR − 0.033 0.432 ** 0.293 ** − 0.100 1 LATAR 0.147 ** 0.051 0.071 0.002 0.025 1 LDR 0.285 ** − 0.434 ** 0.073 − 0.012 0.615 ** 0.005 1 NIMR − 0.020 0.084 − 0.191 ** 0.262 ** 0.169 ** 0.486 ** 0.112 * 1 NPLR 0.001 − 0.149 ** 0.044 − 0.110 − 0.071 − 0.142 * 0.027 − 0.216 ** 1 ROA − 0.213 ** 0.065 − 0.531 ** 0.599 ** 0.023 0.096 − 0.008 0.404 ** − 0.424 ** 1 ROE − 0.231 ** 0.121 * − 0.208 ** 0.220 ** 0.026 0.108 − 0.055 0.393 ** − 0.456 ** 0.888 ** 1 Size 0.443 ** − 0.275 ** 0.383 ** − 0.432 ** 0.047 − 0.036 0.261 ** − 0.172 ** 0.173 ** − 0.563 ** − 0.478 ** 1 GDPGR 0.012 − 0.031 0.080 − 0.116 * 0.096 − 0.018 0.107 0.112 * 0.186 ** − 0.159 ** − 0.138 * 0.136 * 1 INFR − 0.400 ** 0.201 ** − 0.350 ** 0.413 ** − 0.056 0.034 − 0.219 ** 0.225 ** − 0.372 ** 0.602 ** 0.515 ** − 0.636 ** − 0.215 ** 1 INTR − 0.140 * 0.093 − 0.224 ** 0.224 ** − 0.339 ** 0.063 − 0.399 ** 0.098 − 0.050 0.133 * 0.076 − 0.299 ** − 0.174 ** 0.324 ** 1 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Change, Dbl, Rank, Pbl, Bal]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 12 of 23 Table 5. Financial performance index (FPI) Banks Pre-Pandemic Period Pandemic Period Change 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Composite Index Rank 2020 Rank ABL 0.385 − 0.433 0.003 − 0.322 − 0.268 − 0.154 − 0.619 − 1.01 − 1.459 − 1.373 − 5.251 26 − 1.214 26 0 BAL − 0.086 0.356 − 0.091 − 0.239 0.115 0.223 − 0.278 0.317 0.393 0.228 0.938 8 0.303 7 +1 BBL − 0.147 − 0.177 − 0.485 0.048 0.388 0.208 0.953 1.175 1.352 1.171 4.486 2 0.694 3 − 1 CBL − 0.067 0.144 − 0.133 − 0.333 0.479 0.695 0.681 0.807 0.373 0.342 2.987 4 0.551 5 − 1 DBL − 0.066 0.350 − 0.406 0.424 0.251 − 0.119 0.072 − 0.198 − 0.194 0.118 0.233 12 0.171 8 +4 DBBL − 0.346 − 0.188 0.126 − 0.049 − 0.026 0.379 − 0.316 0.015 0.419 0.322 0.337 11 0.556 4 +7 EBL 0.811 0.735 1.002 0.759 0.616 0.700 1.043 0.765 0.729 0.821 7.979 1 0.712 2 − 1 IFICBL − 0.227 − 0.759 − 0.222 − 0.217 − 0.239 − 0.715 − 0.561 − 0.067 − 0.222 0.039 − 3.189 23 − 0.798 25 − 2 JBL − 0.288 0.077 − 0.496 − 0.146 − 0.081 − 0.010 0.111 0.216 0.251 0.300 − 0.067 15 0.462 6 +9 MBL − 0.115 − 0.080 − 0.246 0.335 − 0.041 − 0.127 0.296 0.438 0.327 0.096 0.884 10 − 0.031 13 − 3 MTBL − 0.089 − 0.762 − 0.782 − 0.485 − 0.147 0.451 0.224 0.252 − 0.174 − 0.428 − 1.940 21 − 0.348 21 0 NCCBL 0.431 0.325 0.108 0.071 0.075 0.040 0.177 0.051 0.052 0.241 1.572 5 0.127 11 − 6 OBL 0.247 0.118 0.030 0.277 0.577 0.138 0.170 0.046 − 0.233 − 0.349 1.022 7 − 0.446 23 − 16 PBL 0.060 − 0.549 − 0.161 − 0.327 − 0.393 − 0.503 0.072 0.306 0.396 0.392 − 0.708 18 0.109 12 +6 Prime BL 0.406 0.468 0.522 − 0.153 − 0.205 − 0.414 − 0.235 − 0.001 0.302 0.219 0.909 9 0.159 9 0 Pubali BL 0.045 0.063 − 0.202 − 0.412 − 0.225 − 0.483 − 0.962 − 1.239 − 0.590 − 0.903 − 4.908 25 − 0.191 15 +10 SEBL 0.098 − 0.108 − 0.027 0.322 0.571 0.139 − 0.074 − 0.501 − 0.126 − 0.197 0.098 14 − 0.208 17 − 3 TBL − 0.252 − 0.360 − 0.346 − 0.629 0.069 − 0.039 0.273 0.005 − 0.168 − 0.088 − 1.534 19 − 0.263 18 +1 UCBL − 0.802 0.115 − 0.139 0.259 0.172 0.282 − 0.433 − 0.146 − 0.126 0.170 − 0.646 17 0.128 10 +7 AIBL 0.761 0.720 0.493 0.648 0.276 0.360 0.532 0.234 0.169 0.137 4.330 3 1.284 1 +2 EXIMBL 0.587 0.269 0.304 0.371 0.190 0.033 0.073 0.015 − 0.177 − 0.140 1.526 6 − 0.193 16 − 10 FSIBL − 0.653 − 0.544 − 0.343 − 0.438 − 0.435 − 0.604 − 0.358 − 0.271 − 0.309 − 0.269 − 4.224 24 − 0.318 19 +5 IBBL − 0.179 0.048 0.233 0.097 − 0.283 − 0.559 − 0.346 − 0.228 − 0.217 − 0.269 − 1.702 20 − 0.373 22 − 2 SBL 0.114 0.313 0.418 0.030 − 0.060 0.199 − 0.398 − 0.227 − 0.375 − 0.170 − 0.157 16 − 0.329 20 − 4 SIBL 0.328 0.005 0.601 0.143 − 0.350 − 0.255 − 0.100 − 0.150 − 0.096 0.017 0.143 13 − 0.060 14 − 1 Social BL − 0.951 − 0.148 0.245 − 0.032 − 1.025 0.144 0.006 − 0.601 − 0.301 − 0.423 − 3.086 22 − 0.485 24 − 2 Note: AIBL, EXIMBL, FSIBL, IBBL, SBL, SIBL, and Social BL are Islamic Sharia-based (non-conventional) private listed commercial banks under the Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE).

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Hedge, Adj]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 13 of 23 4.3. Regression Result Interpretation 4.3.1. Empirical Result on Banks’ Profitability Measured by ROA Table 6 shows the empirical results of banks’ profitability measured by ROA. We apply model I at two different periods of time. The first period was the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19, where model I(a) and model I(b) are located. In the second period, we incorporated the pandemic period of COVID-19 into the pre-pandemic period, where model I(c) and model I(d) are located. In models I(a) and I(c), we included only the bank-specific variables. In models I(b) and I(d), we added macroeconomic variables along with the banks’ particular variables to see the impact of bank-specific variables and macroeconomic variables along with bank-specific variables on the banks’ profitability separately Table 6. Relationship of ROA to bank-specific and macroeconomic variables Variables Pre-Pandemic (2010–2029) Including Pandemic Period (2010–2021) Model I(a) Model I(b) Model I(c) Model I(d) Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient CAR − 0.04136 (0.04520) ** − 0.02058 (0.32810) − 0.03766 (0.03020) ** − 0.03667 (0.03470) ** DAR − 0.03983 (0.14770) − 0.03898 (0.15080) − 0.02111 (0.37610) − 0.01235 (0.60980) DER 0.00023 (0.37590) 0.00031 (0.22000) 0.00021 (0.32960) 0.00013 (0.53230) EAR 0.14441 (0.00030) *** 0.14336 (0.00020) *** 0.12991 (0.00020) *** 0.11964 (0.00050) *** LAR 0.03566 (0.23870) 0.04521 (0.13070) 0.01760 (0.49740) 0.01058 (0.69000) LATAR − 0.00922 (0.34290) 0.00215 (0.82990) − 0.01431 (0.07580) * − 0.01013 (0.06860) * LDR − 0.00945 (0.68970) − 0.01060 (0.64520) − 0.00231 (0.90590) 0.00171 (0.93070) NPLR − 0.13309 (0.00000) *** − 0.11518 (0.00000) *** − 0.09465 (0.00000) *** − 0.08228 (0.00000) *** BANK SIZE − 0.00432 (0.00000) *** − 0.00004 (0.97650) − 0.00486 (0.00000) *** − 0.00350 (0.00090) *** GDPGR − 0.26640 (0.00000) *** − 0.00816 (0.65600) INFR 0.04510 (0.03380) ** 0.04950 (0.01340) ** INTR − 0.03848 (0.17810) − 0.02974 (0.21430) C 0.07626 (0.00270) *** 0.02911 (0.30640) 0.07414 (0.00080) *** 0.05109 (0.03370) ** Observations 260 260 312 312 Adj R 2 0.64566 0.66974 0.63648 0.64239 F value 14.88074 (0.00000) *** 15.19549 (0.00000) *** 17.01559 (0.00000) *** 16.09870 (0.00000) *** Durbin–Watson 1.54004 1.61015 1.35257 1.47730 Note: *** shows 1% level of significance, ** shows 5% level of significance, and * shows 10% level of significance Evaluating model I(a), we saw that EAR significantly and positively affected the ROA; this is consistent with the literature [ 71 , 91 , 92 ]. this implies that a less leveraged financial position enhances the banks’ return on assets. On the other hand, CAR, NPLR, and bank size significantly affected the ROA. This means decreases in non-performing loans in terms of the total loans could increase the banks’ return on assets, and holding capital to hedge the risk exposure would diminish the banks’ profitability. Ref. [ 93 ] found a significant negative effect of bank size on bank performance. In the perspective of Bangladesh, [ 84 ] reported a significant negative relationship of bank size with the profitability of banks.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Agreement, Fit, Author, House]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 14 of 23 Accordingly, [ 94 ] demonstrated a significant negative relationship of bank size and NPLR with bank ROA. The negative impact of NPLR on ROA is similarly consistent with [ 71 ]. We also noticed that statistically, there was an insignificant negative relationship between DAR, LATAR, and LDR with the ROA and an insignificant positive relationship between DER and LAR with bank ROA. These findings imply that banks with more debt, sanctioning more loans, and holding liquid assets do not significantly affect the banks’ return in terms of assets In Model I(b), we integrated macroeconomic variables with bank-specific variables and found that GDP growth rate significantly and negatively affected the ROA of the banks. In contrast, the inflation rate positively and significantly affected the ROA of the banks. Ref. [ 95 ] also found that inflation rate has a significant positive effect on bank profitability The significant negative effect of GDPGR on bank profitability means that during the study period, the producers, business investors, corporate firms, and government production house who borrowed money from the bank may have had enough internal funds or depended on other sources than the banks, making them less reliant on banks and leading to the negative effect of GDPGR on the banks’ ROA [ 65 ]. Our result is in agreement with [ 96 ]. This author found a significant negative relationship of GDPGR with bank profitability. In this model, the significant positive impact of inflation on the banks’ return on assets refers to the fact that the banks can manage the inflation rate expected to enhance their profitability [ 95 ]. The coefficient value of real interest rate demonstrated that real interest rate insignificantly and negatively affects banks’ return on equity. This means that an increase or decrease in real interest rate could not significantly affect the bank’s ROA When we included macroeconomic variables with the bank’s specific variables, there were three changes among the bank’s specific variables. In this case, there was an insignificant positive impact of LATAR on the ROA of banks and an insignificant negative impact of CAR and bank size on the banks’ return on assets When we incorporated the pandemic period of COVID-19 into the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19, we found that LATAR significantly and negatively affected the banks’ return on equity. The results are shown in model I(c). Ref. [ 97 ] also reported that liquidity position affected banks’ profitability during the crisis. This implies that holding liquid assets decreased banks’ return on equity. The other remaining variables behaved in the same way as in the pre-pandemic period. Model I(d) shows that when we integrate the COVID-19 period into the pre-pandemic period considering macroeconomic variables in bank profitability, we also saw that CAR affected banks’ ROA negatively and significantly. Furthermore, we noticed that in model I(d), GDPGR impacted banks’ ROA negatively and insignificantly, whereas GDPGR significantly affects banks’ profitability in the prepandemic period. This means that banking profitability was not largely sensitive to the GDPGR during the pandemic period. Bank size negatively affected bank ROA at a 1% significance level when we added macroeconomic variables as determinants of the bank’s profitability during both periods Besides, the adjusted R 2 value of model I(a) 0.64566, model I(b) 0.66974, model I(c) 0.63648, and model I(d) 0.64239 implied that our studied explanatory variables perfectly fit with the dependent variable ROA. From the Durbin–Watson test, we found that there was no autocorrelation present in these models based on the rule of thumb by [ 98 ] who denoted that a Durbin–Watson test value between 1 and 3 is not of the concern for autocorrelation. The regression tables 6, 7 and 8, where our specified models are represented, show that the Durbin–Watson test values were between 1 and 3. Therefore, the overall appropriateness of the models appeared to be very good 4.3.2. Empirical Result on Bank Profitability Measured by ROE Table 7 shows the relationship between explanatory variables and the dependent variable ROE as determinants of bank profitability. Like Table 6 , here we applied model II in the same way. Model II(a) and model II(b) represent the pre-pandemic period of COVID-19, and in model II(c) and model II(d) we included the pandemic period data set to

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 15 of 23 the pre-pandemic period data set. Based on the relationship between model II(a) and ROE, we found that CAR, LATAR, NPLR, and bank size negatively and significantly affected the banks’ return on equity. In contrast, DER and LAR affected it insignificantly and positively, and DAR and EAR had an insignificantly negative impact on the ROE. Refs. [ 95 , 99 ] reported that liquidity risk and funding risk had a significant negative relationship with the banks’ profitability. Except for EAR and LATAR, the same result is shown in Table 6 , where ROA represents the banks’ profitability. Therefore, we strongly agree with the notion that during the pre-pandemic period, the profitability of listed commercial banks in Bangladesh was significantly and negatively sensitive to capital adequacy, non-performing loan rate, and bank size. However, debt in terms of equity and loan sanction did not significantly affect the banks’ profitability Table 7. Relationship of ROE to bank-specific and macroeconomic variables Variables Pre-Pandemic (2010–2019) Including Pandemic Period (2010–2021) Model II(a) Model II(b) Model II(c) Model II(d) Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient CAR − 0.49167 (0.04960) ** − 0.21609 (0.39540) − 0.45035 (0.03390) ** − 0.44429 (0.03730) ** DAR − 0.37676 (0.25840) − 0.38893 (0.23520) − 0.23336 (0.42330) − 0.15555 (0.60090) DER 0.00026 (0.93600) 0.00141 (0.64830) − 0.00004 (0.98900) − 0.00072 (0.78420) EAR − 0.01675 (0.97190) − 0.01633 (0.97150) − 0.21240 (0.60760) − 0.31726 (0.44850) LAR 0.34541 (0.34650) 0.48660 (0.17810) 0.20350 (0.52090) 0.14355 (0.65960) LATAR − 0.21673 (0.06690) * − 0.08248 (0.49560) − 0.21692 (0.02790) ** − 0.17719 (0.08170) * LDR − 0.08527 (0.76650) − 0.11365 (0.68280) − 0.03892 (0.87050) − 0.00521 (0.98280) NPLR − 1.56293 (0.00000) *** − 1.36701 (0.00000) *** − 1.13315 (0.00000) *** − 1.01292 (0.00000) *** BANK SIZE − 0.04861 (0.00010) *** 0.00301 (0.86220) − 0.05819 (0.00000) *** − 0.04553 (0.00040) *** GDPGR − 3.44917 (0.00000) *** − 0.12537 (0.57770) INFR 0.46931 (0.06720) * 0.45624 (0.06290) * INTR − 0.48756 (0.15810) − 0.29041 (0.32330) C 1.01291 (0.00100) *** 0.47336 (0.16910) 1.06709 (0.00010) *** 0.86046 (0.00370) *** Observations 260 260 312 312 Adj R 2 0.49556 0.53322 0.47707 0.48004 F value 8.48360 (0.00000) *** 8.99627 (0.00000) *** 9.34498 (0.00000) *** 8.76007 (0.00000) *** Durbin–Watson 1.55566 1.60130 1.39907 1.49020 Note: *** shows 1% level of significance, ** shows 5% level of significance, and * shows 10% level of significance Model II(b) shows the impact of macroeconomic variables and the bank-specific variables on the banks’ ROE. It shows that GDPGR impacted the return on equity of banks significantly and negatively. However, the inflation rate substantially affected the banks’ ROE. We found the same result in Table 6 , with the insignificant negative impact of real interest rate on bank profitability. This result implies that the profitability of the listed commercial banks in Bangladesh was strongly sensitive to the GDP growth rate (negatively) and inflation rate (positively) during the pre-pandemic situation. Other variables in model II(b), except for CAR and bank size, were indifferent from model II(a). It is surprising to see

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Combat]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 16 of 23 that when we considered macroeconomic variables as a bank’s profitability determinants, we found that CAR insignificantly and negatively affected the bank profitability during the pre-pandemic period. When we incorporated the pandemic period of COVID-19 into the pre-pandemic period we acquired different results from the pre-pandemic period. Model II(c) shows that LATAR had a negative relationship with ROE at the 5% significant level, whereas this variable negatively affected the ROE at the pre-pandemic period at the 10% significant level. This high significance level means that during the COVID-19 period holding liquid assets dampened the profitability of the banks more severely than during the pre-pandemic period. We found the same results with model I in Table 6 . In addition, model II(c) disclosed that DER affected the ROE negatively and insignificantly during the pandemic, although it affected the banks’ ROE positively before the COVID-19 period Model II(d) specifies that CAR, LATAR, and NPLR had significant negative impacts on the banks’ return on equity. In contrast, only NPLR had a significant negative relationship with the banks’ return on equity in the pre-pandemic period considering macroeconomic variables. It expresses that the banks earned less profit during the pandemic due to holding liquid assets and hedge funds to combat the uncertain risk of COVID-19. Model II(d) also shows that during the pandemic period, the banks’ GDPGR did not significantly affect the return on equity as in the pre-pandemic period. However, the inflation rate played a role in the same way in both periods. Moreover, it is to be noted that the nonperforming loan rate in terms of total loans in models I and II in both periods affected the banks’ profitability negatively and significantly. This outcome refers to the profitability of private commercial banks in Bangladesh being affected considerably by management inefficiency. Besides, according to the adjusted R 2 values, all models’ explanatory variables fit with the dependent variables. The Durbin–Watson test [ 98 ] statistical results show no autocorrelation problem in the above discussed models 4.3.3. Empirical Results on Bank Profitability Measured by NIMR Table 8 shows the empirical results of the effect of bank-specific variables and macroeconomic variables along with the particular bank variables separately on bank profitability measured by NIMR, where model III(a) and model III(b) played a role as the pre-pandemic period models and model III(c) and model III(d) represent the incorporated results shown in Tables 6 and 7 . Model III(a) shows that CAR and LDR positively and significantly affected the net interest margin regarding earning assets, whereas NPLR negatively and significantly affected NIMR. The results also indicate that DAR, DER, EAR, LATAR, and LDR had an insignificant positive relationship with the banks’ NIMR. On the other hand, LAR and bank size had an insignificant negative relationship with NIMR. Shifting to model III(b), where macroeconomic variables were considered, we noticed that in the case of the bank-specific variables, except for LDR, all variables impacted NIMR in the same way as model III(a) Ref. [ 71 ] reported that bank size had an insignificant negative effect on NIMR and that there was a significant positive relationship between CAR and NIMR. Here, we also noticed that the real interest rate affected the banks’ NIMR positively and significantly. This implies that an increase in real interest enhances banks’ net interest income regarding earning assets. However, an increase in real interest rates hampers banks’ borrowers, but the banks make more money from issuing loans by implementing higher interest rates. In model III(c), we incorporated the COVID-19 pandemic period into the pre-pandemic period. We saw that, in the case of only the bank-specific variables, bank size significantly and negatively affected NIMR, like the profitability measured by ROA and ROE. Apart from this, DER impacted the NIMR negatively at the 5% significant level, but LATAR had a significant positive effect on NIMR. The significant negative effect of DER on NIMR shows that a high leverage position weakened the banks’ profitability position during the pandemic period. We also found that CAR did not affect NIMR significantly, like the pre-pandemic period. Moving to model III(d), we noticed that LATAR and GDPGR significantly and positively impacted banks’ NIMR during the pandemic period, and we saw an insignificant

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 17 of 23 impact during the pre-pandemic period. Model III(d)’s results also show that bank size impacted NIMR significantly and negatively, but impacted NIMR insignificantly during the pre-pandemic period. During the COVID-19 period, GDPGR growth rate enhanced the banks’ NIMR, although non-performing loan rates and insufficient bank size decreased the NIMR during the pandemic period. We observed no significant effect of GDPGR on the banks’ ROA and ROE in Tables 6 and 7 , respectively, during the pandemic period, but we noticed here that GDPGR affected the banks’ net interest earning in terms of earning assets positively at a 1% level of significance during this period Table 8. Relationship of NIMR to bank-specific and macroeconomic variables Variables Pre-Pandemic (2010–2019) Including Pandemic Period (2010–2021) Model III(a) Model III(b) Model III(c) Model III(d) Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient CAR 0.07143 (0.02270) ** 0.06893 (0.03620) ** 0.01778 (0.63540) 0.00726 (0.84120) DAR 0.06525 (0.11780) 0.04524 (0.28390) 0.01073 (0.83540) − 0.00883 (0.86170) DER 0.00013 (0.74670) 0.00026 (0.51780) − 0.00100 (0.03150) ** − 0.00064 (0.15570) EAR 0.08684 (0.14420) 0.09366 (0.11340) − 0.03183 (0.66420) 0.01802 (0.80050) LAR − 0.04618 (0.31390) − 0.02142 (0.64500) 0.00579 (0.91790) − 0.00578 (0.91720) LATAR 0.01539 (0.29670) 0.02026 (0.19450) 0.05213 (0.00300) *** 0.04175 (0.01640) ** LDR 0.06014 (0.09480) * 0.05260 (0.14320) 0.00985 (0.21590) 0.01809 (0.66060) NPLR − 0.07218 (0.00680) *** − 0.07984 (0.00520) *** − 0.04340 (0.09780) * − 0.08019 (0.00310) *** BANK SIZE − 0.00220 (0.15370) − 0.00197 (0.37860) − 0.00560 (0.00270) *** − 0.00805 (0.00030) *** GDPGR − 0.08755 (0.38010) 0.18145 (0.00000) *** INFR − 0.03042 (0.35590) − 0.06593 (0.11460) INTR 0.07595 (0.08830) * 0.07533 (0.13330) C − 0.03626 (0.34240) − 0.03148 (0.47720) 0.10651 (0.02480) ** 0.11807 (0.01920) ** Observations 260 260 312 312 Adj R 2 0.61896 0.62511 0.60106 0.63301 F value 13.37415 (0.00000) *** 12.67194 (0.00000) *** 14.78107 (0.00000) *** 15.49815 (0.00000) *** Durbin–Watson 1.71712 1.73996 1.37978 1.45197 Note: *** shows 1% level of significance, ** shows 5% level of significance, and * shows 10% level of significance In addition, the adjusted R 2 value of model III(a) 0.61896, model III(b) 0.62511, model III(c) 0.60106, and model III(d) 0.63301 indicates that there was a good fit between the explanatory variables with dependent variable NIMR. In addition, the Durbin–Watson test statistic of model III(a) at 1.71712, model III(b) at 1.73996, model III(c) at 1.37978, and model III(d) at 1.45197 shows that the autocorrelation problem was absent among the models, according to the rule of thumb by [ 98 ]. 4.4. Hypothesis Test Result Ref. [ 100 ] used the hypothesis technique to measure the significant dissimilarities and commonalities of bank-specific variables at various perspectives. Furthermore, [ 101 ] used hypothesis analysis to measure the impact of various bank-specific factors on the

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 18 of 23 profitability of the banks. Table 9 shows the results of hypothesis analysis. We used an independent sample T-test to detect whether any significant difference happened during the pandemic period of COVID-19 compared to the pre-pandemic period statistically. This test helped to support our regression outcomes, as we found that there were some bankspecific variables that significantly and negatively and significantly and positively affected the profitability (measured by ROA, ROE, and NIMR) of the banks. We compared the pandemic period of COVID-19 data set (2020–2021) with the pre-pandemic period data set (2010–2019). Ref. [ 102 ] also compared mobile banking financial performance between the pre-pandemic period and pandemic period by hypothesis testing Table 9. Hypothesis test statistic results Variables t Statistic p Value Interpretation CAR − 8.11961 0.00000 *** H 0 rejected DAR 3.82777 0.00016 *** H 0 rejected DER − 4.49289 0.00001 *** H 0 rejected EAR 5.28674 0.00002 *** H 0 rejected LDR − 3.39807 0.00121 *** H 0 rejected LAR − 0.96942 0.33309 Failed to reject H 0 LATAR 1.68931 0.04217 ** H 0 rejected NIMR 6.80330 0.00000 *** H 0 rejected NPLR − 0.31796 0.75073 Failed to reject H 0 ROA 5.74611 0.00000 *** H 0 rejected ROE 6.85213 0.00000 *** H 0 rejected Bank Size − 11.53250 0.00000 *** H 0 rejected Note: α = 0.05, *** shows 1% level of significance, ** shows 5% level of significance We did not violate the normality assumptions of the independent sample T test and represented the t statistic and p-value according to the equal variance assumption rule According to Levene’s test for the equality of variances assumption, if the significance level is greater than 0.05, researchers consider that equal variance is assumed; if not, they consider that equal variance is not assumed. Our results represent a significant difference between the pre-pandemic period and pandemic period of COVID-19 in the case of CAR, DAR, DER, EAR, LDR, LATAR, NIMR, ROA, ROE, and bank size at a 1% probability value. In contrast, LAR and NPLR did not face significant differences during this COVID-19 period. We considered ROA, ROE, and NIMR proxy variables to detect the profitability position of the banks, and the results show that they were significantly impacted by COVID- 19 pandemic situation. Furthermore, our hypothesis study proves the significant negative impact of CAR and LATAR on banks’ profitability during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which was revealed in the regression results. Thus, we can conclude that the profitability of the listed private commercial banks in Bangladesh has been significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic 5. Conclusions The impact of COVID-19 on the world economy is unforgettable, and undoubtedly it will be treated as a historic event in the future. By inducing continuous lockdown around the globe, restrictions on public movement, halting of production, slumping demand for goods and services, and international trade barriers, it has slowed global economic growth. It has hindered the performance of every financial sector, with the banking sector being the most significant one. The liquidity, financial health position, and resiliency of the banks in Bangladesh were estimated during the pandemic period of COVID-19, but no research had yet been conducted to measure the impact of COVID-19 on the banks’ profitability Therefore, the major objective of this paper was to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the profitability of listed private commercial banks in Bangladesh and to compute the financial performance index of the studied banks.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Top, Ways, Areas, Foreign, Right]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 19 of 23 This paper used panel data set from the year 2010 to the year 2021 of listed private commercial banks in Bangladesh, where the years 2010–2019 were considered the prepandemic period of COVID-19, and the years 2020–2021 were considered the pandemic period of COVID-19. Initially, we used the CAMELS rating system to estimate the financial performance index (FPI) of the sampled banks individually both in the pre-pandemic situation and pandemic situation according to the specified weights. To estimate the FPI, we considered the capital adequacy position, asset quality, management efficiency, earning ability, liquidity position, and sensitivity to the risk of each bank. During the pandemic period of COVID-19, AIBL, EBL, and BBL were the top three performing banks among the studied banks; they were also the top three performers in the pre-pandemic situation. Although the top-performing banks were shown to be doing well, as in the pre-pandemic period, the banks that were in a lower position during the pre-pandemic period performed worse during the pandemic period. Exceptionally, Pubali BL, JBL, DBBL, and UCBL performed better during this ongoing crisis period than during the pre-crisis period. In contrast, OBL and EXIMBL performed worse during this catastrophic situation than in the pre-pandemic period We also focused on the banks’ profitability during these periods to see how the bankspecific variables and macroeconomic variables, along with the particular bank variables, affected the banks’ profitability. We took ROA, ROE, and NIMR as dependent variables and CAR, DAR, DER, EAR, LAR, LATAR, LDR, NPLR, size, GDPGR, INFR, and INTR as independent variables, with GDPGR, INFR, and INTR as the macroeconomic variables We found that NPLR and bank size significantly and negatively affected the ROA, ROE, and NIMR of the listed private commercial banks in Bangladesh during the pre-pandemic period as well as when we incorporated the COVID-19 period into the pre-pandemic period. In contrast, CAR only affected the banks’ ROA and ROE in the same ways, and LDR only dampened ROA significantly during the COVID-19 period. We also found a significant positive association of EAR and INFR with ROA in the pre-pandemic period and pandemic period of COVID-19. The incorporated results show that LATAR affected the banks’ ROA and ROE significantly and negatively during the pandemic period, but there was an insignificant association with ROA and ROE during the pre-pandemic period. It is also to be noted that GDPGR affected the bank’s ROA and ROE negatively and considerably during the pre-pandemic period. During the pandemic period, it affected the banks’ ROA and ROE negatively but insignificantly; however, GDPGR significantly enhanced the banks’ NIMR. Although INFR had no significant positive association with NIMR during both periods, it improved the banks’ ROA and ROE during the same two periods. During pre-pandemic period, INTR rate affected the banks’ NIMR positively and significantly, whereas our study did not find any significant alignment of INTR with the other two proxy variables of ROA and ROE In a country like Bangladesh, it is essential to formulate and implement relevant rules and guidelines, improve and extend service areas, ensure good quality of service, and not the least, ensure the appropriate maintenance of banks in any situation. The banking sector of Bangladesh is experiencing a crisis. We found that high non-performing loan rates, holding more liquid assets, high amounts of hedging capital, and inappropriate bank size lessened the profitability of the listed private commercial banks during this period. Thus, the banking sector of Bangladesh should be conscious about diversifying assets, holding liquid capital at the right time, and sanctioning and managing loans properly. Besides, our study recommends that a low leverage position enhances banks’ profitability, so banks should collect required funds through equity shares. We suggest that future research test the impact of COVID-19 in the state-owned and foreign commercial banks of Bangladesh using a large number of data sets.

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Ali, Williams, South, Resources, Mamoon, Hunt, King, Franken, Ashraf, Schwartz, Str, Davis, Mcgraw, Int, York, Andoh, Read, Arthur, Chin, February, Bus, Novel, Original, Sheridan, Kozak, Sun, Amoako, Patient, Mckay, Litvinova, Zhuang, Wall, Dowling, Cross, Azad, Ghosh, Tell, Rossi, Rahaman, Friedman, April, Arima, Saima, Washington, Hossain, Hill, Rahman, Early]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 20 of 23 Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.N.; data curation, M.A.I.G. and B.K.D.; formal analysis, M.N. and M.A.I.G.; funding acquisition, I.H.; investigation, I.H., B.K.D. and A.A.M.; methodology, M.A.I.G. and M.N.; project administration, M.A.I.G. and A.A.M.; resources, M.N., I.H., B.K.D. and A.A.M.; software, M.A.I.G., M.N. and B.K.D.; supervision, M.A.I.G., I.H. and A.A.M.; validation, B.K.D.; writing—original draft, M.N. and M.A.I.G.; writing—review and editing, I.H., B.K.D. and A.A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: This research received partial funding support from the Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable Data Availability Statement: Not applicable Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that there is no potential conflict of interest References 1 World Bank. The History of Banks. 2021. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org.ro/about-banks-history (accessed on 10 February 2022) 2 Sheridan, R.B. The British Credit Crisis of 1772 and The American Colonies J. Econ. Hist 1960 , 20 , 161–186. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2114853 (accessed on 25 April 2022). [ CrossRef ] 3 Cootner, P.H. Review of A Monetary History of the United States 1867-1960 , by M. Friedman & A. J. Schwartz Hist. Theory 1966 , 5 , 100–108. [ CrossRef ] 4 King, M.R. Who Triggered the Asian Financial Crisis? Rev. Int. Political Econ 2001 , 8 , 438–466. Available online: http: //www.jstor.org/stable/4177393 (accessed on 17 May 2022). [ CrossRef ] 5 Zhuang, J.; Dowling, J. Causes of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis: What Can an Early Warning System Model Tell Us? 2002 Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11540/2065 (accessed on 25 April 2022) 6 Aisen, A.; Franken, M Bank Credit During the 2008 Financial Crisis: A Cross-Country Comparison ; IMF Working Papers; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; Volume 10. [ CrossRef ] 7 Williams, M Uncontrolled Risk ; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-07-163829-6 8 Page, J.; Hinshaw, D.; McKay, B. In Hunt for COVID-19 Origin, Patient Zero Points to Second Wuhan Market Wall Str. J 2021 Available online: https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-hunt-for-covid-19-origin-patient-zero-points-to-second-wuhan-market- 11614335404 (accessed on 10 February 2022) 9 Ghosh, R.; Saima, F.N. Resilience of commercial banks of Bangladesh to the shocks caused by COVID-19 pandemic: An application of MCDM-based approaches Asian J. Account. Res 2021 , 6 , 281–295. [ CrossRef ] 10 Insaidoo, M.; Arthur, L.; Amoako, S.; Andoh, F.K. Stock market performance and COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from a developing economy J. Chin. Econ. Foreign Trade Stud 2021 , 14 , 60–73. [ CrossRef ] 11 Szmigiera, M. Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on the Global Economy—Statistics & Facts. 2022. Available online: https:// www.statista.com/topics/6139/covid-19-impact-on-the-global-economy/#topicHeader__wrapper (accessed on 26 April 2022) 12 Chinazzi, M.; Davis, J.T.; Ajelli, M.; Gioannini, C.; Litvinova, M.; Merler, S.; Piontti, A.P.y.; Rossi, L.; Sun, K.; Viboud, C.; et al The effect of travel restrictions on the spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak Science 2020 , 368 , 395–400 [ CrossRef ] 13 Ashraf, B.N. Economic impact of government interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: International evidence from financial markets J. Behav. Exp. Financ 2020 , 27 , 100371. [ CrossRef ] 14 Ҫ olak, G.; Öztekin, Ö. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on bank lending around the world J. Bank. Financ 2021 , 133 , 106207 [ CrossRef ] 15 Kozak, S. The Impact of COVID-19 on Bank Equity and Performance:The Case of Central Eastern South European Countries Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 11036. [ CrossRef ] 16 Azad, G.K Economic and Financial Stability Implications of COVID-19: Bangladesh Bank and Government’s Policy Responses ; Department of Communications and Publications, Bangladesh Bank: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2021; Available online: https://www.bb.org.bd/ /pub/special//covid 19_26092021.pdf (accessed on 14 February 2022) 17 Gazi, M.A.I.; Rahaman, M.A.; Hossain, G.M.A.; Ali, M.J.; Mamoon, Z.R. An Empirical Study of Determinants of Customer Satisfaction of Banking Sector: Evidence from Bangladesh J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus 2021 , 8 , 497–503. [ CrossRef ] 18 Shafiqullah; Rahman, T. Impact of COVID-19 on Major Macroeconomic Variables of Bangladesh: An ARIMA Model JnU J. Econ 2021 , 3 , 61–76 19 Correspondent, S. Bangladesh Inflation Crosses 6% in December, the Highest Level in 2021. Retrieved from bdnews 24.com. 2022. Available online: https://bdnews 24.com/economy/2022/01/07/bangladesh-inflation-crosses-6-in-december-the-highestlevel-in-2021#:~{}:text=Although%20 the%20 average%20 rate%20 was,of%20 a%20 pandemic%2 Dinduced%20 slump (accessed on 15 February 2022).

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: El Ghoul, Clark, Force, India, Trinh, Razia, Europa, Ariana, Almutawa, Duan, Islam, Golubeva, Najjar, Ethiopia, Alyousef, Arriola, Mark, Weiss, Cor, Gov, Shear, Scholz, Ghoul, Bureau, Development, October, Michalik, Sutter, Senior, Camel, Dey, Paul, Alam, Sutherland, Alkhalifah, Big, Ilo, Efendi, Pedraza, Reddy, Pan, Corp, Ruiz, Claeys, Ortega, Chen, Padhan, Arifin, Still, Nelson, Prat, Kowalski, Adnani, Stocks, Weber, Mental, Karim, Farabi, Jackson, Shen, Shetu, Trading]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 21 of 23 20 Statistics, B.B. Bangladesh Inflation Rate. Retrieved from Trading Economics, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 2022. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/bangladesh/inflation-cpi (accessed on 15 February 2022) 21 Bank, T.W. Unemployment, Total (% of Total Labor Force) (Modeled ILO Estimate)—Bangladesh. Retrieved from International Labour Organization, ILOSTAT Database. 2022. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS (accessed on 26 February 2022) 22 Gazi, M.I.; Alam, M.S.; Hossain, G.A.; Islam, S.N.; Rahman, M.K.; Nahiduzzaman, M.; Hossain, A.I. Determinants of Profitability in Banking Sector: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh Univers. J. Account. Financ 2021 , 9 , 1377–1386. [ CrossRef ] 23 Karim, R.; Shetu, S.A.; Razia, S. COVID-19, liquidity and financial health: Empirical evidence from South Asian economy Asian J Econ. Bank 2021 , 5 , 307–323. [ CrossRef ] 24 Dey, B.K Managing Nonperforming Loans in Bangladesh ; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2019. [ CrossRef ] 25 Paul, T.C COVID-19 Impact in Banking Industry ; Mercantile Bank Limited: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2021. Available online: https: //mblbd.com/assets/corporate/senior/COVID-19-Impact-in-Banking-Industry.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2022) 26 Reddy, S.K. Relative performance of commercial banks in India using CAMEL approach Int. J. Multidiscip. Res 2012 , 2 , 38–58 27 Subbaredy, K.; Reddy, M.K.K. Sustainable Growth Rate and Firm Performance. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Marketing and Sustainable Development, Rajampet, India, 13–14 October 2017; pp. 647–652 28 Moufty, S.; Clark, E.; Al-Najjar, B. The different dimensions of sustainability and bank performance: Evidence from the EU and the USA J. Int. Account. Audit. Tax 2021 , 43 , 100381. [ CrossRef ] 29 Weber, O.; Scholz, R.W.; Michalik, G. Incorporating sustainability criteria into credit risk management Bus. Strategy Environ 2010 , 19 , 39–50. [ CrossRef ] 30 Altahtamouni, F.; Alfayhani, A.; Qazaq, A.; Alkhalifah, A.; Masfer, H.; Almutawa, R.; Alyousef, S. Sustainable Growth Rate and ROE Analysis: An Applied Study on Saudi Banks Using the PRAT Model Economies 2022 , 10 , 70. [ CrossRef ] 31 Golubeva, O. Firms’ performance during the COVID-19 outbreak: International evidence from 13 countries Corp. Gov 2021 , 21 , 1011–1027. [ CrossRef ] 32 Jackson, J.K.; Weiss, M.A.; Schwarzenberg, A.B.; Nelson, R.M.; Sutter, K.M.; Sutherland, M.D Global Economic Effects of COVID-19 ; Congressional Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2021 33 Padhan, R.; Prabheesh, K.P. The economics of COVID-19 pandemic: A survey Econ. Anal. Policy 2021 , 70 , 220–237. [ CrossRef ] 34 Wahyuhadi, J.; Efendi, F.; Al Farabi, M.J.; Harymawan, I.; Ariana, A.D.; Arifin, H.; Adnani, Q.E.S.; Levkovich, I. Association of stigma with mental health and quality of life among Indonesian COVID-19 survivors PLoS ONE 2022 , 17 , e 0264218. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 35 Arriola, C.; Kowalski, P.; Kowalski, P.; Tongreen, F.V. International Trade during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Big Shifts and Uncertainty. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2022. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/ policy-responses/international-trade-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-big-shifts-and-uncertainty-d 1131663/ (accessed on 11 March 2022) 36 International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook, October 2020: A Long and Difficult Ascent. Retrieved from International Monetary Fund. 2020. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/09/30/world-economicoutlook-october-2020 (accessed on 26 February 2022) 37 The World Bank. The Global Economy: On Track for Strong but Uneven Growth as COVID-19 Still Weighs. 2021. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/06/08/the-global-economy-on-track-for-strong-but-unevengrowth-as-covid-19-still-weighs (accessed on 26 February 2022) 38 Abasimel, N.A.; Fufa, H.W. The Horrors of COVID-19 and the Recent Macroeconomy in Ethiopia J. Knowl. Econ 2021 , 13 , 305–320. [ CrossRef ] 39 Elnahass, M.; Trinh, V.Q.; Li, T. Global banking stability in the shadow of COVID-19 outbreak J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 2021 , 72 , 101322. [ CrossRef ] 40 Claeys, G. The European Central Bank in the COVID-19 Crisis: Whatever It Takes, within Its Mandate. 2020. Available online: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/intro/objective/html/index.en.html (accessed on 24 February 2022) 41 Shear, F.; Ashraf, B.N. The performance of Islamic versus conventional stocks during the COVID-19 shock: Evidence from firm-level data Res. Int. Bus. Financ 2022 , 60 , 101622. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 42 Shen, H.; Fu, M.; Pan, H.; Yu, Z.; Chen, Y. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Firm Performance Emerg. Mark. Financ Trade 2020 , 56 , 2213–2230. [ CrossRef ] 43 Demirgüç-Kunt, A.; Pedraza, A.; Ruiz-Ortega, C. Banking sector performance during the COVID-19 crisis J. Bank. Financ 2021 , 133 , 106305. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 44 Duan, Y.; el Ghoul, S.; Guedhami, O.; Li, H.; Li, X. Bank systemic risk around COVID-19: A cross-country analysis J. Bank. Financ 2021 , 133 , 106299. [ CrossRef ] 45 Apergis, N. Convergence in non-performing loans across EU banks: The role of COVID-19 Cogent Econ. Financ 2022 , 10 , 2024952 [ CrossRef ] 46 Korzeb, Z.; Niedzi ó łka, P. Determinants of Differentiation of Cost of Risk (CoR) among Polish Banks during COVID-19 Pandemic J. Risk Financ. Manag 2021 , 14 , 110. [ CrossRef ] 47 Katusiime, L. COVID 19 and Bank Profitability in Low Income Countries: The Case of Uganda J. Risk Financ. Manag 2021 , 14 , 588. [ CrossRef ]

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Ghana, Mohammad, Press, Class, Khan, Kil, List, Rehman, Rashid, Teker, Hassan, Ask, Carlson, Scotland, Fernando, Irfan, Gulzar, Abraham, Jabeen, Afr, Hargrave, Europe, Ang, Doku, Shan, Bashir, Borsa, Beers, Assous, Huang, Asia, Master, Street, Skaf, Hamid, Tsai, Fusi, Ting, Lett, Thakur, Boateng, Dev, Chang, Barua, Asp, Bouwman, Knowledge, Berger, Worth, Haris]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 22 of 23 48 Mohammad, K.U. How bank capital structure decision-making change in recessions: COVID-19 evidence from Pakistan Asian J Econ. Bank 2021 , forthcoming. [ CrossRef ] 49 Berger, A.N.; Bouwman, C.H.S. How does capital affect bank performance during financial crises? J. Financ. Econ 2013 , 109 , 146–176. [ CrossRef ] 50 Carlson, M.; Shan, H.; Warusawitharana, M. Capital ratios and bank lending: A matched bank approach J. Financ. Intermediation 2013 , 22 , 663–687. [ CrossRef ] 51 Doku, J.N.; Kpekpena, F.A.; Boateng, P.Y. Capital Structure and Bank Performance: Empirical Evidence from Ghana Afr. Dev. Rev 2019 , 31 , 15–27. [ CrossRef ] 52 Xu, J.; Haris, M.; Irfan, M. The Impact of Intellectual Capital on Bank Profitability during COVID-19: A Comparison with China and Pakistan Complexity 2022 , 2022 , 2112519. [ CrossRef ] 53 Dadoukis, A.; Fiaschetti, M.; Fusi, G. IT adoption and bank performance during the COVID-19 pandemic Econ. Lett 2021 , 204 , 109904. [ CrossRef ] 54 Miklaszewska, E.; Kil, K.; Idzik, M. How the COVID-19 pandemic affects bank risks and returns: Evidence from eu members in central, eastern, and northern europe Risks 2021 , 9 , 180. [ CrossRef ] 55 Lin, A.J.; Chang, H.Y.; Huang, S.W.; Tzeng, G.H. Improving Service Quality of Wealth Management Bank for High-Net-Worth Customers During COVID-19: A Fuzzy-DEMATEL Approach Int. J. Fuzzy Syst 2021 , 23 , 2449–2466. [ CrossRef ] 56 Ting, H.-I. Factors Affecting Wealth Management Services: From Investors’ and Advisors’ Perspectives J. Wealth Manag 2017 , 20 , 17–29. [ CrossRef ] 57 Ang, S.-K. A Qualitative Study on the Challenges of Private Banking in Asia J. Wealth Manag 2010 , 12 , 68–77. [ CrossRef ] 58 Wu, C.-R.; Lin, C.-T.; Tsai, P.-H. Evaluating Business Performance of Wealth Management Banks Eur. J. Oper. Res 2010 , 207 , 971–979. [ CrossRef ] 59 Assous, H.F.; Al-Najjar, D. Consequences of COVID-19 on banking sector index: Artificial neural network model Int. J. Financ Stud 2021 , 9 , 67. [ CrossRef ] 60 Ul Rehman, S.; Ali Almonifi, Y.S.; Gulzar, R. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Islamic Bank Indices of the Gcc Countries Int J. Islamic Bank. Financ. Res 2021 , 7 , 1–17. [ CrossRef ] 61 El-Chaarani, H.; Abraham, R.; Skaf, Y. The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Financial Performance of the Banking Sector in the MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) Region: An Immunity Test of Banks for COVID-19 J. Risk Financ. Manag 2022 , 15 , 82. [ CrossRef ] 62 Barua, B.; Barua, S. COVID-19 implications for banks: Evidence from an emerging economy SN Bus. Econ 2021 , 1 , 19. [ CrossRef ] 63 Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE). List of Companies Selected Industry: Bank. 2022. Available online: https://www.dsebd.org/ companylistbyindustry.php?industryno=11 (accessed on 2 January 2022) 64 Teker, S.; Teker, D.; Kent, O. Measuring Commercial Banks’ Performances in Turkey: A Proposed Model J. Appl. Financ. Bank 2011 , 1 , 97–112 65 Rashid, A.; Jabeen, S. Analyzing performance determinants: Conventional versus Islamic Banks in Pakistan Borsa Istanb. Rev 2016 , 16 , 92–107. [ CrossRef ] 66 Corporate Finance Institute (CFI). Regression Analysis. 2022. Available online: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/ knowledge/finance/regression-analysis/ (accessed on 2 February 2022) 67 Hargrave, M. Return on Assets (ROA). Retrieved from Investopedia. 2022. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/r/returnonassets.asp (accessed on 18 February 2022) 68 Hassan, M.K.; Bashir, A.-H Determinants of Islamic Banking Profitability ; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, Scotland, 2005 [ CrossRef ] 69 Corporate Finance Institute (CFI). Return on Assets & ROA Formula. 2022. Available online: https://corporatefinanceinstitute. com/resources/knowledge/finance/return-on-assets-roa-formula/ (accessed on 18 February 2022) 70 Fernando, J. Return on Equity (ROE). Retrieved from Investopedia. 2021. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/r/returnonequity.asp (accessed on 18 February 2022) 71 Rahman, M.; Hamid, M.; Khan, M. Determinants of Bank Profitability: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh Int. J. Bus. Manag 2015 , 10 , 135–149. [ CrossRef ] 72 Bloomenthal, A. Net Interest Margin. Retrieved from Investopedia. 2021. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/n/netinterestmargin.asp (accessed on 19 February 2022) 73 Beers, B. What Does a High Capital Adequacy Ratio Indicate? Retrieved from Investopedia. 2021. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040115/what-does-it-mean-when-company-has-high-capital-adequacy-ratio. asp#:~{}:text=The%20 capital%20 adequacy%20 ratio%20(CAR)%20 is%20 a%20 measure%20 of%20 how,at%20 risk%20 for%20 becoming%20 insolvent (accessed on 19 February 2022) 74 Thakur, M. Capital Adequacy Ratio. Retrieved from Wall Street Mojo. 2022. Available online: https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/ capital-adequacy-ratio/ (accessed on 19 February 2022) 75 Master Class Article Debt-To-Assets Ratio: How to Calculate Debt-To-Assets Ratio 2022 Available online: https: //www.masterclass.com/articles/debt-to-asset-ratio-explained#:~{}:text=It%20 is%20 calculated%20 using%20 the,has%20 more%20 debt%20 than%20 assets (accessed on 20 February 2022).

[Find the meaning and references behind the names: Sri Lanka, Zhang, Murcia, Sri, Lanka, Bis, Ideal, Wiley, Bea, Andy, Jaffar, Wang, Jiang, Merchant, Kennedy, Acharya, Habibullah, Arabia, Hayes, Hasanov, Samad, Parra, Guzman, Rep, Blackwell, Matin, Contreras, Oaks, Akhtar, July, Guide, Puah, Jordan, Emu, Amin, Sage, Sufian, Tong, Cyprus, Murphy, Bangladeshi, Rauf]

Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6260 23 of 23 76 Accounting Tools. Debt to Equity Ratio. 2022. Available online: https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/debt-to-equity-ratio (accessed on 20 February 2022) 77 Thakur, M. Debt to Equity Ratio Formula. Retrieved from EDUCBA. 2022. Available online: https://www.educba.com/debt-toequity-ratio-formula/ (accessed on 20 February 2022) 78 Hayes, A. Shareholder Equity Ratio. Retrieved from Investopedia. 2021. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/s/shareholderequityratio.asp (accessed on 23 February 2022) 79 Rahman, M.Z.; Islam, M.S. Use of CAMEL Rating Framework: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of Selected Bangladeshi Private Commercial Banks Int. J. Econ. Financ 2018 , 10 , 120–128. [ CrossRef ] 80 Rauf, A.A. Towards Increasing the Financial Performance: An Application of CAMEL Model in Banking Sector in the Context of Sri Lanka Res. J. Financ. Account 2016 , 7 , 66–71 81 Murphy, C. Loan-to-Deposit Ratio (LDR). Retrieved from Investopedia. 2020. Available online: https://www.investopedia.com/ terms/l/loan-to-deposit-ratio.asp#:~{}:text=a%20 bank\T 1\textquoterights%20 LDR.-,What%20 Is%20 an%20 Ideal%20 LDR%3 F, for%20 expected%20 or%20 unexpected%20 contingencies (accessed on 23 February 2022) 82 Zhang, J.; Jiang, C.; Qu, B.; Wang, P. Market concentration, risk-taking, and bank performance: Evidence from emerging economies Int. Rev. Financ. Anal 2013 , 30 , 149–157. [ CrossRef ] 83 Laeven, M.L.; Ratnovski, M.L.; Tong, M.H Bank Size and Systemic Risk ; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2014 [ CrossRef ] 84 Sufian, F.; Habibullah, M.S. Determinants of bank profitability in a developing economy: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh J Bus. Econ. Manag 2009 , 10 , 207–217. [ CrossRef ] 85 Titko, J.; Skvarciany, V.; Jureviˇcien ˙e, D. Drivers of bank profitability: Case of Latvia and Lithuania Intellect. Econ 2015 , 9 , 120–129 [ CrossRef ] 86 Kumar, V.; Acharya, S.; Ho, L.T.H. Does Monetary Policy Influence the Profitability of Banks in New Zealand? Int. J. Financ. Stud 2020 , 8 , 35. [ CrossRef ] 87 Cook, R.D. Detection of Influential Observation in Linear Regression Technometrics 1977 , 19 , 15–18. [ CrossRef ] 88 Kennedy, P A Guide to Econometrics , 6 th ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008 89 Merchant, I.P. Empirical Study of Islamic Banks Versus Conventional Banks of GCC Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Res 2012 , 12 , 32–42 90 Jaffar, M.; Manarvi, I. Performance comparison of Islamic and Conventional banks in Pakistan Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Res 2011 , 11 , 60–66 91 Kohlscheen, E.; Murcia, A.; Contreras, J Determinants of Bank Profitability in Emerging Markets . BIS Working Paper No. 686. 2018 Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3098196 (accessed on 15 February 2022) 92 Samad, A. Determinants Bank Profitability: Empirical Evidence from Bangladesh Commercial Banks Int. J. Financ. Res 2015 , 6 , 173–179. [ CrossRef ] 93 Akhtar, M.; Ali, K. Factors Influencing the Profitability of Islamic Banks of Pakistan Int. Res. J. Financ. Econ 2011 , 66 , 125–132 94 Matin, K.A. Determinants of Bank Profitability In Proceedings of the Biennial Conference on Economics and Ethics, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 27–29 April 2017. Available online: https://bea-bd.org/site/images/pdf/new 17/72.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2022) 95 Hasanov, F.; Bayramli, N.; Al-Musehel, N. Bank-Specific and Macroeconomic Determinants of Bank Profitability: Evidence from an Oil-Dependent Economy Int. J. Financ. Stud 2018 , 6 , 78. [ CrossRef ] 96 Nuriyeva, Z. Factors Affecting the Profitability of Azerbaijan Banking System. Master’s Dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean University, Gazima ˘gusa, North Cyprus, Turkey, July 2014. Available online: http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/ handle/11129/1616/NuriyevaZulfiyye.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 14 February 2022) 97 Adelopo, I.; Lloydking, R.; Tauringana, V. Determinants of bank profitability before, during, and after the financial crisis Int. J Manag. Financ 2018 , 14 , 378–398. [ CrossRef ] 98 Andy Field Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 3 rd ed.; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009 99 Ali, M.; Puah, C.H. The internal determinants of bank profitability and stability Manag. Res. Rev 2019 , 42 , 49–67. [ CrossRef ] 100. Almazari, A.A. Impact of Internal Factors on Bank Profitability: Comparative Study between Saudi Arabia and Jordan J. Appl Financ. Bank 2014 , 4 , 125–140 101. Gemar, P.; Gemar, G.; Guzman-Parra, V. Modeling the sustainability of bank profitability using partial least squares Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 4950. [ CrossRef ] 102. Amin, R.; Nahiduzzaman. Performance Analysis of Mobile Banking During the COVID-19 Pandemic Period Comparing with the Pre-pandemic Period of COVID-19: An Empirical Study on Bangladesh GATR Account. Financ. Rev 2021 , 6 , 54–68. [ CrossRef ]

Other Environmental Sciences Concepts:

[back to top]

Discover the significance of concepts within the article: ‘Impact of COVID-19 on Financial Performance and Profitability of Banking...’. Further sources in the context of Environmental Sciences might help you critically compare this page with similair documents:

Car, Der, Laar, Camel, Ear, Great depression, Regression, Literature review, Bangladesh, Liquidity, Empirical evidence, Theoretical framework, Financial crisis, Commercial bank, Economic crises, Significant effect, Study sample, Research design, COVID 19, Global economy, COVID-19 Pandemic, Empirical results, Regression analysis, Hypothesis, Null hypothesis, Alternative hypothesis, Pandemic period, Intellectual capital, Global trade, F-test, Regression model, Empirical study, Sustainability, Partial Least Square, Pearson Correlation, Service quality, Financial performance, Fixed-effect model, Significant negative impact, Independent sample T-test, Variance Inflation Factor, Dependent variable, Independent variable, Random effect model, Multicollinearity, Data source, Banking system, GDP growth rate, Levene's test, Adjusted R 2, Descriptive statistic, Equal variance assumption, Normality, Exchange rate, World Bank Report, Unemployment rate, COVID-19 period, Internal factor, Islamic bank, Panel data, Financial health, Retained earnings, Significant positive association, Normal probability plot, Hypothesis test, Inflation rate, Adjusted R 2 value, Profitability, Normality assumption, Hausman test, Banking sector, Panel data regression model, Autocorrelation, Mobile banking, Financial sector, Explanatory variable, Unit root, Panel unit root test, Return on asset, Sustainability issue, Global economic growth, Fixed-Effect Regression Model, Proxy variable, Multicollinearity issue, Internal determinants, Panel data set, Pre-pandemic period, Conventional Banks, Real Interest Rate, Standardized Residual, Cook's Distance, Management Efficiency, Scatterplot, Bank stability, Multivariate outlier, Regression result.