Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March.

2015

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC

SECTOR BANKS IN INDIA: AN ANALYSIS ON CAMEL MODEL

Hari Krishna Karri

Research Scholor
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad
Lecturer, Business Studies Department
Higher College of Technology, Muscat, Oman
Kishore Meghani
Research Scholar
Galgotia Institute of Mgt & Tech, Greater Noida
Bharti Meghani Mishra
Research Scholar
MohanLal Sukhadia University,Udaipur

Abstract
Banking sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in India. Today’s banking sector becoming
more complex. The objective of this study is to analyze the Financial Position and Performance of
the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank in India based on their financial characteristics. This
study attempts to measure the relative performance of Indian banks. For this study, we have used
public sector banks. We know that in the service sector, it is difficult to quantify the output because
it is intangible. We have chosen the CAMEL model and t-test which measures the performance of
bank from each of the important parameter like capital adequacy, asset quality, management
efficiency, earning quality, liquidity and Sensitivity.

Keywords: CAMELS Model, Bank of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, Financial performance

INTRODUCTION

As soon the bottom lines of Domestic Banks come under increasing pressure and the options for
organic growth exhaust themselves, Indian Banks will need to explore ways for inorganic
expansion. This, in turn, is likely to unleash the forces of consolidation in Indian banking.

C. Rangarajan
EX-Chairman of Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister

Banks are playing crucial and significant role in the economy in capital formation due to the
inherent nature, therefore banks should be given more attention than any other type of economic
unit in an economy. CAMEL approach is significant tool to assess the relative financial strength of
a bank and to suggest necessary measures to improve weaknesses of a bank. In India, RBI adopted
this approach in 1996 followed on the recommendations of Padmanabham Working Group (1995)
committee. The Reserve Bank of India has taken several measures since Independence to improve
18

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

access to affordable financial services through financial education, leveraging technology, and
generating awareness. The banking sectors performance is perceived as economic activities of an
economy. The banking sector reforms were aimed at making banks more efficient and viable as one
who had a role initiating these reforms

These Public Sector banks penetrate every corner of the country and have been extending a helping
hand in the growth of the economy.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature review is a study involving a collection of literatures in the selected area of research in
which the scholar has limited experience. In the past, various studies relating to the financial
performance of banks have been conducted by researchers.
A study conducted by Barr et al. (2002) viewed that “CAMEL rating criteria has become a concise
and indispensable tool for examiners and regulators”. This rating criterion ensures a bank’s healthy
conditions by reviewing different aspects of a bank based on variety of information sources such as
financial statement, funding sources, macroeconomic data, budget and cash flow.
Said and Saucier (2003) examined the liquidity, solvency and efficiency of Japanese Banks using
CAMEL rating methodology, for a representative sample of Japanese banks for the period 1993-
1999, they evaluated capital adequacy, assets and management quality, earnings ability and
liquidity position.
Prasuna (2003) analyzed the performance of Indian banks by adopting the CAMEL Model. The
performance of 65 banks was studied for the period 2003-04. The author concluded that the
competition was tough and consumers benefited from better services quality, innovative products
and better bargains.
Nurazi and Evans (2005) investigated whether CAMEL(S) ratios could be used to predict bank
failure. The results suggested that adequacy ratio, assets quality, management, earnings, liquidity
and bank size are statistically significant in explaining bank failure.
Bhayani (2006) analyzed the performance of new private sector banks through the help of the
CAMEL model. Four leading private sector banks – Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of
India, Housing Development Finance Corporation, Unit Trust of India and Industrial Development
Bank of India - had been taken as a sample.
Gupta and Kaur (2008) conducted the study with the main objective to assess the performance of
Indian Private Sector Banks on the basis of Camel Model and gave rating to top five and bottom
five banks. They ranked 20 old and 10 new private sector banks on the basis of CAMEL model.
They considered the financial data for the period of five years i.e., from 2003-07.
R.C.Dangwal and Reetu Kapoor (2010) conducted a study on financial performance of
commercial banks. In this study they compared financial performance of 19 commercial banks with
respect to eight parameters and they classified the banks as excellent, good, fair and poor
categories.
K.V.N.Prasad and Dr.A.A.Chari (2011) conducted a study to evaluate financial performance of
public and private sector banks in India. In this study they compared financial performance of top
four banks in India viz., SBI, PNB, ICICI and HDFC and concluded that on overall basis HDFC
rated top most position.
Dr.D.Maheshwara Reddyand K.V.N. Prasad (2011) conducted a study to evaluate performance
of regional rural banks:An Application of Camel model.
Dr.K.Srinivas and L.Saroja (2013) conducted a study to compare the financial performance of
HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank. From the study it is clear that there is no significance difference
between the ICICI and HDFC bank’s financial performance but we conclude that the ICICI bank
performance is slightly less compared with HDFC.

19

Electroniccopy
Electronic copy available
available at:
at:https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411
Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Deepti Tripathi and Kishore Meghani (2014) conducted a study to compare the financial
performance of Axis and Kotak Mahindra bank (Private Sector banks). The CAMELS’ analysis and
t-test concludes that there is no significance difference between the Axis and Kotak Mahindra
bank’s financial performance but the Kotak Mahindra bank performance is slightly less compared
with Axis Bank.

OBJECTIVES

1) To Analyze and compare the Financial Position and Performance of the Public sector Banks
by Applying CAMEL Modal.
2) To give recommendation and suggestion for improvement of efficiency in Bank of Baroda
and Punjab National Bank.

METHODOLOGY

Sources of Data:

The study is based on secondary data. The data were collected from the official directory, Indian
Banking Association, RBI Bulletins, Dion Global Solutions Limited and data base of Centre for
Monitoring Indian Economy ( CMIE ) namely PROWESS. The Published Annual Reports of Bank
of Baroda and Punjab National Bank taken from their websites, Magzines and Journals on finance
have also been used a sources of data
To evaluate the comparative financial performance of Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank,
the study adopted the world-renowned: Capital Adequacy, Asset Quality, Management, Earning
Quality and Liquidity (CAMEL) model (with minor modification) with the statistical tools used are
arithmetic mean, t-test using SPSS 19

Period of Study:
The study covers a period of Five year from 2010-2014.

Sampling:
Two leading public sector banks- Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank- had been taken as a
sample.

Hypothesis:
From the above objectives of the following hypothesis is formulated to test the financial
performance and efficiency of the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank.

H0: There is no significant difference between financial position and performance of Bank of
Baroda and Punjab National Bank.

Research Modal:

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

FIGURE1: RESEARCH MODEL BASED ON THE ARTICLE PRESENTED BY

PROFESSOR SANGMI AND DOCTOR NAZIR (2011), CAMER MAGAZINE

I. CAPITAL ADEQUECY:

Capital Adequacy indicates whether the bank has enough capital to absorb unexpected losses. It is
required to maintain depositors’ confidence and preventing the bank from going bankrupt. It is
important for a bank to maintain depositors’ confidence and preventing the bank from going
bankrupt. It reflects the overall financial condition of banks and also the ability of management to
meet the need of additional capital.
The following ratios measure capital adequacy:

1. Capital Adequacy Ratio (CAR):

Capital adequacy ratio is defined as:

CAR = (Tier 1 Capital + Tier 2 Capital) / Risk weighted Assets

TIER 1 CAPITAL - (paid up capital + statutory reserves + disclosed free reserves) - (equity
investments in subsidiary + intangible assets + current and b/f losses)

TIER 2 CAPITAL – i. Undisclosed Reserves, ii. General Loss reserves, iii. hybrid debt capital
instruments and subordinated debts where risk can either be weighted assets (a) or the respective
national regulator's minimum total capital requirement.
If using risk weighted assets,

CAR = [(T1 + T2) / a] _ 10%

percent threshold varies from bank to bank (10% in this case, a common requirement for regulators
conforming to the basel accords) is set by the national banking regulator of different countries. But
As per the latest RBI norms, the banks should have a CAR of 9 per cent.

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

TABLE – 1 CAPITAL ADEQUACY RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
CAPITAL_ADEQUACY_RATIO BOB 5 13.8260 1.01808 .45530
PNB 5 12.8440 .75494 .33762

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t Df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
CAPITAL_ADEQUA Equal variances
1.139 .317 1.732 8 .121 .98200 .56682 -.32508 2.28908
CY_RATIO assumed
Equal variances not
1.732 7.378 .125 .98200 .56682 -.34453 2.30853
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.317 ≥ 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.121 ≥ 0.05
than hypothesis is accepted.

2. Debt Equity Ratio

This ratio thus indicates the bank‘s financial leverage. In the case of manufacturing sector
the ideal ratio is 2:1. However, in the case of commercial banks, there is no standard norm
for debt – equity ratio this ratio indicates how much of the bank business is financed through
debt and how much through equity. It is the proportion of total outside liability to net worth.
Higher ratio indicates less protection for the creditors and depositors in the banking system.
This ratio indicates the degree of leverage of a bank.

1. TABLE – 2 Debt Equity Ratio

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
DEBT_EQUITY_RATIO BOB
5 .0500 .01871 .00837

PNB 5 .0600 .01414 .00632

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
DEBT_EQUITY_R Equal variances
1.600 .242 -.953 8 .368 -.01000 .01049 -.03419 .01419
ATIO assumed
Equal variances not
-.953 7.446 .370 -.01000 .01049 -.03450 .01450
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.242 ≥ 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.368 ≥ 0.05
than hypothesis is accepted.

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

II. Asset Quality:

This indicates what types of advances the bank has made to generate interest income. When loans
are given to highly rated companies, the rates attracted are lower than that of lower rated doubtful
companies. Thus asset quality indicates the type of debtors of the bank. Banks determine how many
of their assets are at financial risk and how much allowance for potential losses they must make.

1. Total Assets Turnover Ratio:

This ratio measures the efficiency in utilization of the assets. It is arrived at by dividing sales by
total assets. Total Assets Turnover Ratio=Sales/Total Assets

TABLE – 3 TOTAL ASSETS TURNOVER RATIO

Group Statistics

BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

TOTAL_ASSETS_TURNOVER_RATIO BOB
5 .0700 .00707 .00316

PNB 5 .0860 .00548 .00245

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
TOTAL_ASSETS_TU Equal variances
.103 .757 -4.000 8 .004 -.01600 .00400 -.02522 -.00678
RNOVER_RATIO assumed
Equal variances not
-4.000 7.529 .004 -.01600 .00400 -.02533 -.00667
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.757 ≥ 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.004 ≤ 0.05
than hypothesis is rejected.

2. Loan Ratio:
The ratio provides a general measure of the financial position of a bank, including its ability to meet
financial requirements for outstanding loans.
Loan Ratio = Loans/Total Assets.

TABLE – 4 LOAN RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
LOAN_RATIO BOB 5 .1140 .00548 .00245

PNB 5 .1900 .07450 .03332

Independent Samples Test

23

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
LOAN_RAT Equal variances
40.638 .000 -2.275 8 .052 -.07600 .03341 -.15304 .00104
IO assumed
Equal variances not
-2.275 4.043 .085 -.07600 .03341 -.16836 .01636
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.00 ≤ 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.085 > 0.05 than
hypothesis Ho is accepted.

III. Management Efficiency:

The bank management efficiency guarantees the growth and survival of a bank.
This parameter is used to evaluate management quality so as to assign premium to better quality
banks and discount poorly managed ones. It involves analysis of efficiency of management in
generating business (top-line) and in maximizing profits (bottom-line).

1. Credit Deposit Ratio:

It indicates the ability of a bank to convert its deposits into higher earning advances. It is the ratio of
how much a bank lends out of the deposits it has mobilized.
Credit Deposit Ratio=Total Advances/Customer Deposit.

TABLE – 5 CREDIT DEPOSIT RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
CREDIT_DEPOSIT_RATIO BOB
5 72.6900 2.08854 .93402

PNB 5 61.5020 19.90782 8.90305

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
CREDIT_DEPOSIT_ Equal variances
64.318 .000 1.250 8 .247 11.18800 8.95191 -9.45514 31.83114
RATIO assumed
Equal variances not
1.250 4.088 .278 11.18800 8.95191 -13.4568 35.83280
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.000 ≤ 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.278 > 0.05
than hypothesis Ho is accepted.

24

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

2. Total Income/Capital employed Ratio:

This measure narrows the focus to gain a better understanding of a company's ability to generate
returns from its available capital base.

TABLE – 6 TOTAL INCOME /CAPITAL EMPLOYED RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
TOTALINCOME_CAPITALEMPLOYED_RATI BOB
5 7.7680 .37036 .16563
O
PNB 5 9.4380 .32950 .14736

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
TOTALINCOME_CA Equal variances
.116 .743 -7.533 8 .000 -1.67000 .22169 -2.18123 -1.15877
PITALEMPLOYED_R assumed
ATIO
Equal variances not
-7.533 7.893 .000 -1.67000 .22169 -2.18243 -1.15757
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.743 > 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.000 < 0.05
than hypothesis Ho is rejected.

IV. Earning Quality:

This parameter lays importance on how a bank earns its profits. This also explains the sustainability
and growth in earnings in the future. Earning quality represents the quality of a bank’s profitability
and its capability to maintain quality and earn consistently. This ratio measures the profitability or
the operational efficiency of the banks.

1. Net Profit Ratio:

Net profit ratio shows the operational efficiency of the business. Decreases in the ratio indicate
managerial inefficiency and excessive selling and distribution expenses and Increase shows better
performance.

Net Profit Ratio= (Net Profit/Total Income)*100

25

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

TABLE – 7 NET PROFIT RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
NET_PROFIT_RATIO BOB
5 13.9320 2.81693 1.25977

PNB 5 11.8840 3.44083 1.53879

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
NET_PROFIT_RA Equal variances
.070 .799 1.030 8 .333 2.04800 1.98869 -2.53792 6.63392
TIO assumed
Equal variances not
1.030 7.700 .334 2.04800 1.98869 -2.56923 6.66523
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.799 > 0.05 than equal variance not assumed is 0.333> 0.05
than hypothesis Ho is accepted.

2. Dividend per Share (DPS):

Dividend per share indicates the return earned per share. This ratio shows the amount payable per
share to equity shareholders. Dividend per share ratio ignores earnings retained in the business. This
ratio provides the better information about earning for equity shareholders.

Dividend per Share = Dividend on Equity Share Capital / No. of Equity Shares

TABLE – 8 DIVIDENDS PER SHARE RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
DIVIDEND_PER_SHARE BOB
5 18.3000 3.01247 1.34722

PNB 5 20.6000 6.30872 2.82135

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
DIVIDEND_PER_SH Equal variances
.775 .404 -.736 8 .483 -2.30000 3.12650 -9.50972 4.90972
ARE assumed

26

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
DIVIDEND_PER_SH Equal variances
.775 .404 -.736 8 .483 -2.30000 3.12650 -9.50972 4.90972
ARE assumed
Equal variances not
-.736 5.734 .491 -2.30000 3.12650 -10.0371 5.43714
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.404 > 0.05 than equal variance not assumed is 0.483>0.05
than hypothesis Ho is accepted.

3. Earnings per share: (EPS)

Earnings per share indicate the return earned per share. This ratio measures the market worth of the
shares of the company (Banks). Higher earning per share shows better future prospects of the
Banks. EPS indicates whether the earning power of the bank has increased or not.

Earnings per Share = Profit after tax-Preference Dividend / No. of Equity Shares

TABLE – 9 EARNING PER SHARE RATIO

Group Statistics

BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

EARNING_PER_SHARE BOB
5 105.2400 13.58148 6.07382

PNB 5 126.8860 20.75076 9.28002

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
EARNING_PER_SH Equal variances
.880 .376 -1.95 8 .087 -21.6460 11.09099 -47.2218 3.92988
ARE assumed
Equal variances not
-1.95 6.896 .093 -21.6460 11.09099 -47.9527 4.66070
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.376 > 0.05 than equal variance not assumed is 0.087 > 0.05
than null hypothesis Ho is accepted.

27

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

4. Return on Net worth (RON):

This ratio measures the overall profitability, the operational efficiency and borrowing policy of the
enterprise. It indicates the relationship of net profit with capital employed in the business. The
primary objective of business is to maximize its earnings and this ratio indicates the extent to which
this primary objective of business is being achieved.

Return on Net Worth = Net Profit / Net-worth

TABLE – 10 RETURN ON NET WORTH RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
RETURN_ON_NET_WORTH BOB
5 17.0460 3.53943 1.58288

PNB 5 17.2100 5.66225 2.53223

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
RETURN_ON_NET_ Equal variances
.708 .425 -.055 8 .958 -.16400 2.98625 -7.05032 6.72232
WORTH assumed
Equal variances not
-.055 6.712 .958 -.16400 2.98625 -7.28729 6.95929
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.425 ≥ 0.05 greater than equal variance assumed is 0.958 ≥
0.05 than null hypothesis Ho is accepted.

5. Return on Assets:
Higher return on asset means greater returns earned on assets deployed by the bank.This ratio
measures the return on assets employed or efficiency in utilization of the assets.

Return on Assets = Net Profit / Total Assets

TABLE – 11 RETURN ON ASSETS RATIO

Group Statistics

BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

RETURN_ON_ASSET_RATIO BOB
5 1.0860 .24805 .11093

PNB 5 1.1160 .30574 .13673

28

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
RETURN_ON_ASSE Equal variances
.057 .817 -.170 8 .869 -.03000 .17607 -.43603 .37603
T_RATIO assumed
Equal variances not
-.170 7.674 .869 -.03000 .17607 -.43905 .37905
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.817 ≥ 0.05 than equal variance not assumed is 0.869 ≥ 0.05
than null hypothesis Ho is accepted.

V. Liquidity Ratios:

Liquidity is very important for any organization dealing with money. For a bank, Liquidity is a
crucial aspect which represents its ability to meet its financial obligations. Liquidity ratios are
calculated to measure the short term financial soundness of the bank. The ratio assesses the capacity
of the bank to repay its short term liability. This ratio is also an effective source to ascertain,
whether the working capital has been effectively utilised. Liquidity in the ratio means ability to
repay loans. If a bank does not have sufficient liquidity, it may not be in a position to meet its
commitments and thereby may lose its credit worthiness.

1. Current Ratio:

Current ratio judges whether current assets are sufficient to meet the current liabilities or not. It
measures the liquidity position of the bank in terms of its short term working capital requirement.

Current Ratio = Current Assets/ Current Liabilities

TABLE – 12 CURRENT RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
CURRENT_RATIO BOB
5 .0220 .00447 .00200

PNB 5 .1740 .33879 .15151

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

29

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
CURRENT_RAT Equal variances
6.920 .030 -1.003 8 .345 -.15200 .15153 -.50142 .19742
IO assumed
Equal variances not
-1.003 4.001 .373 -.15200 .15153 -.57264 .26864
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.030 < 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.373 > 0.05
than null hypothesis Ho is accepted.

2. Liquidity / Quick Ratio:

Liquid assets are current assets less stock and prepaid expenses. Liquid assets include cash in hand,
balance with RBI, balance with other banks (both in India and abroad) and money at call and short
notice. Current liabilities include short-term borrowings, short-term deposits, bills payables and
outstanding expenses.

TABLE – 13 QUICK RATIOS

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
QUICK_RATIO BOB
5 24.8680 2.39999 1.07331

PNB 5 22.8220 1.77710 .79474

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
QUICK_RAT Equal variances
.763 .408 1.532 8 .164 2.04600 1.33552 -1.03371 5.12571
IO assumed
Equal variances not
1.532 7.372 .167 2.04600 1.33552 -1.07994 5.17194
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.408 > 0.05 than equal variance assumed is 0.164 > 0.05
than null hypothesis Ho is accepted.

VI. Sensitivity to Market Risk:

30

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Sensitivity focuses on an institution's ability to identify, monitor, manage and control its market
risk, and provides institution management with a clear and focused indication of supervisory
concerns in this area.

1. Interest Spread Ratio:

Spread is the difference between interest earned and interest paid. So spread is the amount available
to the commercial banks for meeting their administrative, operating and other expenses. As a matter
of practice, banks try to increase the spread volume so that it is sufficiently available to meet the
non-interest expenses and the remainder contributes to the profit volume.

Spread Ratio (%) = (Spread / Working Fund)*100

TABLE – 14 INTERESTS SPREAD RATIO

Group Statistics
BANKS N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
INTEREST_SPREAD_RATIO BOB 5 5.3240 .69049 .30880

PNB 5 5.0040 2.98406 1.33451

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
INTEREST_SPREAD Equal variances
5.189 .052 .234 8 .821 .32000 1.36977 -2.83871 3.47871
_RATIO assumed
Equal variances not
.234 4.427 .826 .32000 1.36977 -3.34268 3.98268
assumed

*Findings: The Significant p value is 0.052 > 0.05 than equal variance not assumed is 0.821 > 0.05
than null hypothesis Ho is accepted.

*
(If variances are equal p value will be greater than 0.05 use equal variance assumed) (If variances
are unequal p value will be greater than 0.05 use equal variance not assumed)
If (sig.2 tailed) ≤ 0.05: significant difference – reject hypothesis.
If (sig.2 tailed) ≤ 0.05: no significant difference NS
Group means are significantly different as the value in the sig. (2 tailed) low is less than 0.05

H0: μ1 = μ2 (Null hypothesis: mean of two banks are equal)

Ha: μ1 < μ2 (Alternate hypothesis: mean of two banks are not equal)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS:

31

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Based on the above analysis, the following are the summary of findings; conclusions and
suggestions about the comparative financial performance of the Bank of Baroda and Punjab
national bank are drawn:

1. The capital adequacy and Tier I capital ratio of Bank of Baroda and Punjab national Bank is more
than the Basel Accord norms .We conclude that both the banks are good with respect capital
adequacy because it is above the Basel norms.

2. The loans to total assets of Punjab National Bank are more compared with Bank of Baroda.
Hence, we can say that the risk is more in Punjab National Bank compared with Bank of Baroda.

3. The total advances to customer deposit of Punjab National Bank are less compared with Bank of
Baroda. Hence, Bank of Baroda is managing more efficiently for converting deposits to advances.

4. The net profit ratio of Bank of Baroda is more compared with Punjab National Bank.

5. The Average current assets and quick assets of Bank of Baroda is more compared with Punjab
National Bank. So, we can conclude that the Bank of Baroda liquidity has well compared with
Punjab National Bank. and the t-test has also proved the same in the case of all the liquidity ratios.

6. The debt-equity ratio of Punjab National Bank. 6.00 % is more compared with Bank of Baroda
5.00 %; hence long term solvency is well in Punjab National Bank.

7. The spread ratio of Bank of Baroda is more compared with Punjab National Bank. Hence, we can
say that the Punjab National Bank Interest income more compared with interest expenses. Hence
Punjab National Bank earns more profits.

From the CAMELS’ analysis it clears that there is no significance difference between the Bank of
Baroda and Punjab National Bank’s financial performance but we conclude that the Punjab
National Bank performance is slightly less compared with Bank of Baroda.

CONCLUSION:

All the two banks have succeeded in maintaining CRAR at a higher level than the prescribed level,
10%. But the Bank of Baroda has maintained highest across the duration of last five years. It is very
good sign for the banks to survive and to expand in future.
Out of 14 ratios used in the CAMEL model the average figures of Bank Of Baroda is the best for (6
ratios) followed by Punjab National Bank (5 ratios). Thus it is established that Bank of Baroda is
the best bank in the selected public sector banks.
In nutshell it can be concluded that transparency and good governance would work as principal
guiding force in present scenario.

Limitations of the study:

The study is based on secondary data collected from the secondary data source, internet and
websites of various banks concerned. Therefore, the quality of the study depends upon the accuracy,
reliability, and quality of secondary data source. The published data is not uniform and not properly
disclosed by the banks.

Scope for Further Research:

32

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

Capital Adequacy ratio (CAR) is a ratio that regulators in the banking system use to watch bank’s
health, specifically bank’s capital to its risk. Regulators in most countries define and monitor CAR
to protect depositors, thereby maintaining confidence in the banking system. This research paper
and its findings may be of considerable use to banking institutions, policy makers and to academic
researchers in the area of banking performance evaluation with special reference to capital
adequacy.

REFERENCES:

1. Sathya and Bhattacharya et el (1997) : “Impact of Privatization on the Performance of the Public
Sector Banks, Journal of Management Review: pp 45-55.
2. K. SRINIVAS (2010): “Pre and Post Merger Financial Performance of Merged Banks- A Select
Study”, Indian Journal of Finance, May 2010.
3. Chowdari Prasad and K.S. Srinivasa Rao (2004) : “Private Sector Banks in India - A SWOT
Analysis, Bankers Profession, pp 28-33.
4. Sanjay J. Bhayani (2006): “Performance of the New Indian Private Banks – A Comparative
Study, Banking Review: pp 55 – 59.
5. Chidambaram R.M and Alamelu (1994): “Profitability in Banks – A matter of Survival, The
Banker: pp 1-3 May.
6. Das A. (1997): “Technical, Allocative and Scale Efficiency of Public Sector Banks in India, RBI
Occasional Papers, June to September.
7. Barman R. B. and Samanta G. P “Banking Services Price Index: An Exploratory Analysis for
India” (www.financialindia.com)
8. Bhadury Prof. Subrato (2007) conducted study on “Commercial banking in India new challenges
and opportunities after liberalization” South Asian Journal of Socio-Political Studies (Vol No-2,
Jan-June 2007).
9. Board John Sutcliffe, Ziemba Charles, William T.(2003) “Applying Operations
ResearchTechniques to Financial Markets” Interfaces; (Mar/Apr2003, vol. 33 issue 2), (Pg12 24).
10. Brown Craig O. and Dinc I. Serdar (2005) “The Politics of Bank Failures: Evidence from
Emerging Markets” Quarterly Journal of Economics, (November 2005) (Pg-1413-1443).
11. Batra Mr. Sumant & Dass Kesar (2003) “Maximising value of Non Performing Assets” Forum
for Asian Insolvency Reform (FAIR) (Seoul, Korea 10 - 11 November 2003).
12. Chhikara Dr. Sudesh (2007) “Causes and Impact of Non Performing Assets in Public Sector
Banks: A state level Analysis” Amity Management Analyst ( Vol 1, No 2) (2007) ( Pg. No. 48-56).
13. Chipalkatti Niranjan , Rishi Meenakshi (2007) “Do Indian banks understate their bad loans?”
The Journal of Developing Areas. Nashville: (Spring 2007. Vol. 40, Issue. 2) ;( Pg. 75-91).
14. Chakrabarti Rajesh and Chawla Gaurav (2005) “Bank Efficiency in India since the Reforms: An
Assessment” Money & Finance ICRA Bulletin, (July-Dec’05) (Pg.-31-42).
15. Deolalkar G.H “The Indian Banking Sector On the road to progress” Article from
(www.fedral.co.in) 15. Derviz Alexis and Podpiera Jiri “Predicting Bank CAMEL ad S&P ratings:
The Caste of Czech Republic” Working Paper Series, printed and distributed by Czech National
Bank (http://www.cnb.cz.).
16. Das, Abhima, Ghosh, Saibal (2006) “Financial Deregulation and Efficiency: An Empirical
Analysis of Indian Banks during the Post Reform Period” Review of Financial Economics;
(Sep2006, Vol. 15 Issue 3), (Pg193-221).
17. Dhar V Ganga and Reddy G Nares (2007) “Mergers and acquisitions in the Banking Sector- an
Empirical Analysis”ICFAI Reader, (March 2007), (Pg: 42-50).
18. Frierson, Robert DeV (2007) “Orders Issued under section 4 of the Bank holding Company
Act” Federal Reserve Bulletin; (3/1/2007), (Pg44-48).

33

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411

Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 4, No.8; March. 2015

19. Dr.D.Maheshwara Reddyand K.V.N. Prasad (2011) conducted a study to evaluate performance
of regional rural banks:An Application of Camel model. Journal of Arts , Science and
commerce.Volume 2, Isue-4,Oct 2011
20. K. Srinivasl, Saroja (2013) “Comparative Financial Performance of HDFC BANK and ICICI
BANK” Scholars world-International Refereed Multidisciplinary Journal of Contemporary
Research Volume.1, Issue.2, July 2013 [107]
21. Kishore Meghani , Deepti Tripathi and Swati Mahajan (2014) “ FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
OF AXIS BANK AND KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK IN THE POST REFORM ERA: ANALYSIS
ON CAMEL MODEL.” International Journal of Business Quantitative Economics and Applied
Management Research Volume 1, Issue 2, July 2014 (Pg.-108-141).

34

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2577411