An Assignment On
Performance of Banks with Special Reference to Bangladesh
Prepared For
Professor Dr. Shah Md. Ahsan Habib
Course Instructor
Financial Institutions & Markets (FIN 504/EMBA 564/MBM 524)
Department of Business Administration
East West University
Section-1
Session: Spring 2012
Prepared By
Md. Mesbah Uddin
ID: 2010-3-95-078
East West University, Bangladesh
April 17, 2012
Chapter One: Introduction
1.1 Background
Banking system plays a very important role in the economic life of the nation. The health of
the economy is closely related to the soundness of its banking system. In a developing
country like Bangladesh the banking system as a whole play a vital role in the progress of
economic development. A bank as a matter of fact is just like a heart in the economic
structure and the capital provided by it is like blood in it. As long as blood is in circulation
the organs will remain sound and healthy. If the blood is not supplied to any organ then that
part would become useless. So if the finance is not provided to agriculture sector or industrial
sector, it will be destroyed. Loan facility provided by banks works as an incentive to the
producer to increase the production. [1]
Banking is now an essential part of our economic system. Modern trade and commerce would
almost be impossible without the availability of suitable banking services. First of all,
banking promotes savings. All manner of people, from the ordinary laborers and workers to
the rich land owners and businessmen, can keep their money safely in banks and saving
centers. Secondly, banking promotes investments. Banks easily invest the money they get in
industry, agriculture and trade. They either invest it directly or advance loans to other
investors. Thirdly, it is most through banks that foreign trade is carried on. Whether we
export or import, it is through banks that money is transferred from one country to another.
The financial system of Bangladesh consists of Bangladesh Bank (BB) as the central bank, 4
state-owned commercial banks (SCBs), 4 government-owned specialized banks (SBs), 30
domestic private commercial banks (PCBs), 9 foreign commercial banks (FCBs) and 29 non-
bank financial institutions (NBFIs). The financial system also embraces Investment
Corporation of Bangladesh (ICB), House Building Finance Corporation (HBFC), Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) as the regulator of the capital markets, 2 stock exchanges,
insurance companies, micro-credit organizations and cooperative banks. The banking sector
is the dominant sector in the financial system of Bangladesh. The regulatory and supervisory
arrangements for these entities are well defined, with strong legal underpinnings. [2]
According to a Bangladesh Bank report, nominal GDP increased more than threefold from
TK. 2535.5 billion to TK. 7875.0 billion, within last one decade (2000-2001 to 2010-2011).
In 2010-2011 per capita income was USD 818 which was USD 374 in 2000-2001. Foreign
exchange reserve increased to USD 10.91 billion from USD 1.30 billion. Export income has
increased to USD 22.92 billion from USD 6.47 billion. Import payment has increased to USD
33.66 billion in 2010-2011 from USD 9.33 billion in 2000-2001. During the last FY wage
earners remittances was USD 11.65 billion which was only 2.50 billion in 2000-2001. All
these rapid growth in the economy has created demand for new banks. Since bank licenses
were last issued in 2000-01, the Bangladesh economy has grown manifold, with consequent
increase in financial service needs; in April, 2012 the Board of Directors of Bangladesh Bank
approved licensing of nine new commercial banks (three with NRB and six with indigenous
sponsors).
Evaluation of banks financial performance is important for all parties like depositors, bank
manager, stockholders, creditors, regulators and educationalist. In a competitive market
financial bank performance provides signals to depositor investors whether to invest or
withdraw fund from the bank. Similarly, it flashes direction to bank manager whether to
improve its deposit service or loan service or both to improve its finance. Stockholders and
creditors use the performance to evaluate the attractiveness of the bank as an investment by
examining its ability to meets its current and expected future financial obligation. Regulator
is also interested to know its regulation purpose. Educationalist can use this article for further
research.
1.2 Objectives
Hence the objectives of this assignment are-
i. to discuss the theoretical aspects of Bank Performance and
ii. to discuss the bank performance evaluation practices in Bangladesh
Chapter Two: Theoretical Aspects of Banks’ Performance
Pandey (2004) stated that the easiest way to evaluate the performance of a firm is to compare
its present ratio with the past ratio. It gives an indicator of the direction of change and reflects
whether the firm’s financial performance has improved, deteriorated or re mained constant
over time. [3]
Al-Shammari and Salimi (1998) stated that profitability ratio especially Return on Equity
(ROE) signals the earning capability of the organization. They also suggest that higher return
on Equity (ROE) ratio is appreciable and it is the primary indicator of banks profitability and
functional efficiency. [4]
Bhatt and Ghosh (1992) stated that the profitability of commercial banks depends on several
factors some of them are endogenous and some exogenous. The endogenous factors represent
control of expenditure, expansion of banking business, timely recovery of loan and
productivity. The exogenous factors consist of direct investments, such as SLR (Statutory
Liquidity Ratio), CRR (Cash Reserve Ratio) and direct credit program such as region wise,
population wise guidelines on lending to priority sector. The regulated and restricted regime
in the operation of banking system of investment, credit allocation, branch expansion, interest
rate determination and internal management corded the productivity and profitability. [5]
Khan (2009) stated that bank is evaluated based on profit and loss as the same way for other
business. If the shareholders of the bank get more profit then the bank is identified as
successful. Banks can attain success if relevant risks are effectively controlled. [6]
Van Horne & Wachowicz (2005) stated that to evaluate a firm’s financial condition and
performance the financial analyst need to perform “checkups” on various aspects of a firm’s
financial health. A tool frequently used these checkup is a financial ratio. [7]
Jahangir et al. (2007) argued that the traditional measure of profitability through
stakeholder’s equity is quite different in banking industry from any other sector of business,
where loan-to-deposit ratio works as a very good indicator of banks’ profitability as it depict
the status of assets-liability management of banks. [8]
Performance and financial conditions of the scheduled banks are evaluated through CAMELS
rating system, which involves analysis and evaluation of the six crucial dimensions of
banking operations. The six indicators used in the rating system are:
(i) Capital Adequacy: Capital Adequacy focuses on the total position of banks'
capital and protection of depositors and other creditors from the potential shocks
of losses that a bank might incur. It helps absorbing all possible financial risks like
credit risk and other core risks, market risk, operational risk, residual risk, credit
concentration risk, interest rate risk, liquidity risk, reputation risk, settlement risk,
strategic risk, environmental & climate change risk etc. [2]
(ii) Asset Quality: Asset quality is related to the left-hand side of the bank balance
sheet. Bank managers are concerned with the quality of their loans since that
provides earnings for the bank. Government bonds and T-bills are considered as
good quality loans whereas junk bonds, corporate credits to low credit score firms
etc. are bad quality loans. A bad quality loan has a higher probability of becoming
a non-performing loan with no return. [9]
(iii) Management Efficiency (including implementation status of Core Risk
Management Guidelines),
(iv) Earnings,
(v) Liquidity: Liquidity is the ability to meet obligations when they come due
without incurring unacceptable losses. Managing liquidity is a daily process
requiring bankers to monitor and project cash flows to ensure adequate liquidity is
maintained. Maintaining a balance between short-term assets and short-term
liabilities is critical. [10]
(vi) Sensitivity to market risk.
Chapter Three: Bangladesh Aspects of Banks’
Performance
Banking sector in Bangladesh demonstrated a moderate level of resilience in FY11,
attributable to improvement in key financial indicators of the banking industry.[11] With a
view to maintaining soundness, solvency, efficiency and stability in the financial system,
Bangladesh Bank (BB) initiated a number of policy measures including greater emphasis on
risk managements in the banks, periodic review of stability of the banks and the banking
industry through stress testing, strengthening financial inclusion of under-served/un-served
productive economic sectors and population segments, encouraging enhanced CSR activities
and Green Banking initiatives (Chart 3.1 & 3.2). CSR activities of banks deepened and
broadened substantially in 2010, with 46 out of 47 banks reporting direct expenditure on this
count against only 24 in 2009. Direct CSR expenditure of the banks in 2010 totaled Tk.
2329.8 million as against TK. 553.8 million in 2009, which is four fold larger than in
2009.[12]
Chart 3.1: Structure of the Banking System in Bangladesh (2010)
Bank Type Total Assets
(Billion Taka)
% of Industry
Assets
Deposits
(Billion Taka)
% of Deposits
SCBs 1384.3 28.5 1044.9 28.1
SBs 295.4 6.1 183.4 4.9
PCBs 2854.6 58.8 2266.5 60.9
FCBs 320.8 6.6 227.1 6.1
Industry 4855.1 100 3721.9 100
Source: Bangladesh Bank
Chart 3.2: Distribution of Bank Branches in Different Regions
(up to February 2011) Type of Banks No. of Banks No. of Bank Branches As % of the Total
Branches
Urban Rural Total Urban Rural Total
SCBs 4 1243 2161 3404 36.52 63.48 100
SBs 4 157 1225 1382 11.36 88.64 100
PCBs 30 1805 1011 2816 64.10 35.90 100
FCBs 9 62 0 62 100 - 100
Industry 47 3267 4397 7664 42.63 57.37 100 Source: Bangladesh Bank
3.1 Performance and Rating of Banks
In Bangladesh, Performance and financial conditions of the scheduled banks are evaluated
through CAMELS rating system, which involves analysis and evaluation of the six crucial
dimensions of banking operations. The six indicators used in the rating system are (1) capital
adequacy, (2) asset quality, (3) management efficiency (including implementation status of
Core Risk Management Guidelines), (4) earnings, (5) liquidity, and (6) sensitivity to market
risk.
3.1.1 Capital Adequacy
Capital Adequacy focuses on the total position of banks' capital and protection of depositors
and other creditors from the potential shocks of losses that a bank might incur. Under Basel-
II, banks in Bangladesh are instructed to maintain minimum capital requirement (MCR) at
10.0 percent of the risk weighted assets (RWA) or Taka 4.0 billion as capital, whichever is
higher, with effect from July-September 2011 quarter. It may be mentioned that in the fourth
quarter of 2010 banks were required to maintain MCR at 9.0 percent of RWA or Taka 2.0
billion, whichever was higher.
Chart 3.3 shows that as on 31 December 2010 the SCBs, SBs, PCBs and FCBs maintained
CAR of 8.9, -7.3, 10.1 and 15.6 percent respectively. 2 SCBs, 2 SBs and 4 PCBs could not
maintain minimum required CAR. The CAR of the banking industry was 9.3 percent at end
2010 as against 11.6 percent at end 2009. All foreign banks maintained minimum required
capital.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs -0.40% 1.10% 7.90% 6.90% 9% 8.90%
SBs -7.50% -6.70% -5.50% -5.30% 0.40% -7.30%
PCBs 9.10% 9.80% 10.60% 11.40% 12.10% 10.10%
FCBs 26% 22.70% 22.70% 24% 28.10% 15.60%
Industry 5.60% 6.70% 9.60% 10.10% 11.60% 9.30%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
Pe
rce
nt
Chart 3.3: Capital to Risk Weighted Assets Ratio by Type of Banks [11]
3.1.2 Asset Quality
The asset composition of all commercial banks shows the concentration of loans and
advances (64.3%). The high concentration of loans and advances indicates vulnerability of
assets to credit risk, especially because of having significant portion of non-performing
assets. A huge nonperforming loan portfolio has been the major predicament of banks
particularly of the SCBs and SBs. However, investment of banks in bills, bonds, shares etc.
also demonstrates somewhat concentration (Chart 3.4).
Chart 3.4: Aggregate industry assets (Dec, 2010) [11]
The most important indicator intended to identify problems with asset quality in the loan
portfolio is the ratio of gross nonperforming loans (NPLs) to total loans and net NPLs to net
total loans. In 2010, FCBs have the lowest and SBs have the highest ratio of gross NPLs to
total loans. SCBs had gross NPLs to total loans ratio of 15.7 % whereas in case of PCBs,
FCBs and SBs, the ratios were 3.2, 3.0 and 24.2 percent respectively at end December 2010
(Chart 3.5 & 3.6). The ratio of NPL to total loans of all the banks shows an encouraging trend
since its decline from the peak (34.9 percent) in 2000, although the aggregate ratio was still
as high as 7.3 percent in December 2010. The reason is being high NPL of the SCBs and the
SBs.
The SCBs and SBs continue to experience high level of NPLs mainly due to substantial loans
provided by them on considerations other than commercial and under directed credit
programmes during the 70s and 80s. Poor appraisal and inadequate follow-up and supervision
of the loans disbursed by the SCBs and SBs in the past eventually resulted in massive
booking of poor quality assets remained significant in the portfolio of these banks.
Loans & Advances, 64.3
%
Govt. bills & bond, 10.1% Deposit with
BB, 6.2%
Cash in Tills, 1.1%
Other Assets, 18.3%
Other, 19.4%
Furthermore, these banks were reluctant to write-off the historically accumulated bad loans
because of poor quality of underlying collaterals.
Recovery of NPLs, however, witnessed some signs of improvement mainly because of the
steps taken with regard to internal restructuring of these banks to strengthen their loan
recovery mechanism and recovery drive and write-off measures initiated in recent years. The
total amount of written-off bad debts from June 2006 to June 2011 in different bank
categories is given in Chart 3.7.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs 21.4% 22.9% 29.9% 25.4% 21.4% 15.7%
SBs 34.9% 33.7% 28.6% 25.5% 25.9% 24.2%
PCBs 5.6% 5.5% 5.0% 4.4% 3.9% 3.2%
FCBs 1.3% 80.0% 1.4% 1.9% 2.3% 3.0%
Industry 13.6% 13.2% 13.2% 10.8% 9.2% 7.3%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%
Pe
rce
nt
Chart 3.5: NPLs To Total Loans Ratio by Type of Banks [11]
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs 13.2% 14.5% 12.9% 5.9% 1.9% 1.9%
SBs 22.6% 23.6% 19.0% 17.0% 18.3% 10.0%
PCBs 1.8% 1.8% 1.4% 0.90% 0.4% 0.0%
FCBs -2.2% -2.6% -1.9% -2.0% -2.3% -1.7%
Industry 7.2% 7.1% 5.1% 2.8% 1.7% 1.3%
-5.0%0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%
Pe
rce
nt
Chart 3.6: Ratio of net NPLs to net Total Loans by Type of Banks [11]
3.1.3 Management Efficiency
Sound management is the most important pre-requisite for the strength and growth of any
financial institution. The total expenditure to total income, operating expenses to total
expenses, earnings and operating expenses per employee, and interest rate spread are
generally used to gauge management soundness. In particular, a high and increasing
expenditure to income ratio indicates the operating inefficiency that could be due to flaws in
management.
As evident from Chart 3.8, in 2010, expenditure- income (EI) ratio of the SBs was the highest
among the shown bank clusters due to huge operating loss incurred by BKB and RAKUB.
The EI ratio of the SCBs was 80.7 which could mainly attributable to high administrative and
overhead expenses and suspension of income against NPLs. EI ratio of PCBs was also
substantially high due to deduction of loan loss provision, other assets and corporate tax from
current income.
0
100
200B
illio
n T
aka
30-Jun-05 30-Jun-06 30-Jun-07 30-Jun-08 30-Jun-09 30-Jun-10
SCBs 29.7 35.7 42.8 48.4 64.5 70.5
SBs 27.6 28.6 30.4 31 31.8 31.8
PCBs 32.9 40.7 45.5 49.4 54.7 69.6
FCBs 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2 2.1
Industry 91.3 106.5 120.3 130.5 153 174
Chart 3.7: Writing-off Bad Debts in Different Bank Categories [11]
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs 102.3% 101.9% 100.0% 100.0% 89.6% 75.6% 80.7%
SBs 104.0% 103.9% 103.5% 107.7% 103.7% 112.1% 87.8%
PCBs 87.1% 89.3% 90.2% 88.8% 88.4% 72.6% 67.6%
FCBs 76.3% 70.8% 71.1% 72.9% 75.8% 59.0% 64.7%
Industry 90.9% 92.1% 91.4% 90.4% 87.9% 72.6% 70.9%
0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%
100.0%120.0%
Pe
rce
nt
Chart 3.8: Expenditure-Income Ratio by Type of Banks [11]
3.1.4 Earnings and Profitability
Strong earnings and profitability profile of a bank reflect its ability to support present and
future operations. More specifically, this determines the capacity to absorb losses by building
an adequate capital base, finance its expansion and pay adequate dividends to its
shareholders. Although there are various measures of earning and profitability, the best and
widely used indicator is return on assets (ROA), which is supplemented by return on equity
(ROE) and net interest margin (NIM).
Analysis of these indicators reveals that the ROA of the SCBs was less than industry average
considering huge provision shortfall and that of the SBs even worse (Chart 3.9). PCBs' ROA
shows consistently strong position during last five years. FCBs' ROA has been consistently
strong during the last couple of years.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs -0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1%
SBs -0.1% -0.2% -0.3% -0.6% 0.4% 0.2%
PCBs 1.1% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% 2.1%
FCBs 3.1% 2.2% 3.1% 2.9% 3.2% 2.9%
Industry 0.6% 0.8% 0.9% 1.2% 1.4% 1.8%
-1.0%-0.5%0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%
Pe
rce
nt
Chart 3.9: Return on Assets (ROA) [11]
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs -6.9% 0.0% 0.0% 22.5% 26.2% 18.4%
SBs -2.0% -2.0% -3.4% -6.9% -171.7% -3.2%
PCBs 18.1% 15.2% 16.7% 16.4% 21.0% 20.9%
FCBs 18.4% 21.5% 20.4% 17.8% 22.4% 17.0%
Industry 12.4% 14.1% 13.8% 15.6% 21.7% 21.0%
-200.0%
-150.0%
-100.0%
-50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
Pe
rce
nt
Chart 3.10: Return on Equity (ROE) [11]
SCBs' ROE was -6.9 percent in 2005 and rose to 26.2 percent in 2009, but dropped down to
18.4 percent in 2010 as owners' equity had increased comparatively at higher rate than after
tax profit. In case of SBs, the ROE was still negative in 2010. The ROE of PCBs was robust
for last five years (Chart 3.10). The ROE of FCBs was 22.4 percent in 2009, but decreased to
17.0 percent as two FCBs incurred net loss in 2010.
Aggregate net interest income (NII) of the industry has consistently increased from Taka 16.6
billion in 2003 to Taka 121.9 billion in 2010 (Chart 3.11). However, the NII of the SCBs was
a negative amount of Taka 0.3 billion in 2003 and had become positive (Taka 7.7 billion) in
2005. The positive trend continued till 2010. In 2010, the NII of SCBs was Taka 19.8 billion.
The SBs had a positive trend since 2002 and it was Taka 6.2 billion in 2010.
Since 2005, SCBs have been able to increase their net interest income (NII) by reducing their
cost of fund. The NII of the PCBs has been incredibly high over the period from 2003
through 2010. Overall industry NII shows a consistently upward trend. The trend of NII
indicates that the interest spread of PCBs and FCBs is higher than that of SCBs and SBs.
3.1.5 Liquidity
Commercial banks' demand and time liabilities are at present subject to a statutory liquidity
requirement (SLR) of 19.0 percent inclusive of average 6.0 percent (at least 5.5 percent in
any day) cash reserve ratio (CRR) on bi-weekly basis. The CRR is to be kept with the BB and
the remainder as qualifying secured assets under the SLR, either in cash or in Government
securities. SLR for the banks operating under the Islamic Shariah is 11.5 percent. The
specialized banks (except Basic Bank Ltd.) are exempted from maintaining the SLR.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs 7.7 9 7.4 7.9 12.1 19.8
SBs 1 1.7 1.4 1.9 1.9 6.2
PCBs 21 25.4 36.1 48.5 56.7 82.8
FCBs 5.6 8.2 9.9 12.6 10.7 13
Industry 35.3 44.3 54.8 70.9 81.5 121.9
020406080
100120140
Bill
ion
Tak
a
Chart 3.11: Net Interest Income by Type of Banks [11]
Liquidity indicators measured as percentage of demand and time liabilities (excluding inter-
bank items) of the banks indicate that although all the banks had excess liquidity but the
amount was lower than the previous two years. Chart 3.12 & 3.13 show that the FCBs are
having the highest liquidity ratios followed by the SCBs. This situation of lower surplus of
liquidity made the money market volatile.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs 20% 20.10% 24.90% 32.90% 25.10% 27.20%
SBs 11.20% 11.90% 14.20% 13.70% 9.60% 21.30%
PCBs 21% 21.40% 22.20% 20.70% 18.20% 21.50%
FCBs 41.50% 34.40% 29.20% 31.30% 31.80% 32.10%
Industry 21.70% 21.50% 23.20% 24.80% 20.60% 23%
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Chart 3.12: Liquidity Ratio by Type of Banks (Liquid Asset) [11]
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SCBs 2% 2.10% 6.90% 14.90% 17.60% 8.20%
SBs 6.20% 3.80% 5.60% 4.90% 7.10% 2.30%
PCBs 5.10% 5.60% 6.40% 4.70% 5.30% 4.60%
FCBs 23.60% 16.40% 11.20% 13.30% 21.80% 13.20%
Industry 5.30% 5.10% 6.90% 8.40% 9% 6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Chart 3.13: Liquidity Ratio by Type of Banks (Excess Liquidity) [11]
Chapter Four: Conclusion
Evaluation of banks’ financial performance is important for all parties like depositors, bank
manager, stockholders, creditors, regulators and academic researchers. From the presented
data, it is evident that banks are performing very well in Bangladesh, due in part by the rapid
economic growth and strict regulatory supervision of Bangladesh Bank. Over the years,
performance of the banking sector has improved significantly as has Bangladesh Banks’
supervision capacity and tools. Net NPL ratios have declined by more than two thirds since
2004. Return on assets has tripled since 2005 (from 0.6% in 2005 to 1.8% in 2010 for all
banks). Return on equity has sharply increased from 12.4% in 2005 to 21% in 2010. Private
and foreign banks are better in terms of capital adequacy (10.1% & 15.6% respectively),
qualities of assets (NPLs of PCBs was 3.2% & FCBs was 3% in 2010), expenditure- income
ratio (67.6% & 64.7% respectively) etc than SCBs and SBs.
The economy of Bangladesh has grown and the banking system has become more
competitive, but still 45% of the population remains unbanked. Although private and foreign
banks are better in terms of performance, they offer only limited access to people. On the
contrary, there is much more access of mass people to the state-owned commercial banks and
specialized banks because of wider distribution of their branch network (Chart 3.2). As of
February 2011, while there was no branch of the foreign banks in the rural areas, only 35.9%
of the total branches of the local private banks were located in rural areas. On the other hand,
63.48% and 88.64% of the total branches of state-owned commercial banks and specialized
banks are located in the rural areas respectively.
Efficient capital infusion by the existing banks will augment the banking system’s capacity to
meet the credit needs of the expanding corporate sector in this fast growing economy and
opening of new branches in rural areas will increase rural presence of banks and widen
financial inclusion. And thus we can ensure the access of the mass population to the banking
services and include them in the financial system.
Chapter Five: References
[1] Chowdhury, T. A. & Ahmed, K. (2009), “Performance Evaluation of Selected
Commercial Banks in Bangladesh”, International Journal of Business and
Management, 4 (4), 86-97.
[2] Financial Stability Report (2010), Department of Off-site Supervision, Bangladesh
Bank
[3] Pandey I. M. (2004), “Financial statement analysis”, Financial Management, (9th
edition). New Delhi, India:Vikas, pp. 517-558.
[4] Al- Shammari, M. & Salimi, M. (1998), “Modeling the operating efficiency of banks: A
parametric methodology”, Journal of Logistic Information Management, 11, 27-41.
[5] Bhatt, P. R. & Ghosh, R. (1992), “Profitability of Commercial banks in India”, Indian
Journal of Economics,14-27.
[6] Khan, A. R. (2009), “Sources and uses of funds, performance evaluation and bank
failure”, Bank Management: A fund Emphasis, (2nd edition), Dhaka: Decent Book
House, pp. 51-68.
[7] Van Horne J. C. & Wachowicz Jr. J. M. (2005), “Financial statement analysis”,
Fundamentals of Financial Management, (11th edition). India, Pearson, pp. 125-168.
[8] Jahangir, N., Shill, S. & Haque, M. A. J. (2007), “Examination of Profitability in the
Context of Bangladesh Banking Industry”, ABAC Journal, 27( 2), 36-46.
[9] Asset quality. [cited April 17, 2012]; Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_quality
[10] Liquidity. [Cited April 17, 2012]; Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Liquidity
[11] Annual Report (2010-2011), Bangladesh Bank
[12] Review of CSR initiatives in banks (2010), Department of Off-Site Supervision,
Bangladesh Bank