The UK banking industry has steadily moved from the traditional role of financial intermediation and is increasingly relying on non-traditional business activities that generate fee income, dealings profit and other types of noninterest income. Using the dataset of large British Banks for the period 1986-2012, this study investigates the changes in the bank income structure as a result of the 1986 deregulation and tease out the effect that these changes have had in relation to systemic risk. On a micro analysis, larger banks are more able to sustain high levels of noninterest income. Among the banks Lloyds and HSBC stand out as

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to present an analysis of the UK bank loans and deposits in tandem, linking the loan-to-deposit (LTD) ratio to macroprudential policy and funding restrictions. LTD ratio is used by micro and macroprudential authorities to address both structural (long-term) and cyclical (short-term) liquidity risks. It is an outcome of several political and economic factors and should be evaluated against this background. Design/methodology/approach The authors use trend analysis and panel regression to investigate LTD ratio of Major British Banking Groups from 1945 to 2012 in the midst of changing the UK Government policies. Findings The results show that wholesale funding, government intervention and repression were the major forces behind LTD trends. Originality/value The authors recommend the use of LTD as a complement to other liquidity ratios in micro and macro-prudential regulation, particularly in the context of current reforms to banking capital requirements.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, several educational institutions were thrust into a forced culture change as learning, teaching, and assessment moved from traditional face-to-face (F2F) instruction to remote delivery with a profound effect on pedagogy. This paper uses transformative learning theory to explore various aspects of academics’ transition from face-to-face to remote teaching. Findings from an online cross-sectional survey of academics in higher education institutions ( n = 95) indicate that academics were confronted with a disorienting dilemma that challenged previously unquestioned teaching experiences, beliefs, and values upon transition to remote teaching. This was followed by reflection, adoption, and implementation of different modes of instructional delivery. The results indicate statistically significant differences in critical reflection, openness, and teaching differently based on race. As higher education institutions transition to a “new” phase of instructional delivery, re-thinking professional development and support for the transformed academic in a new operating environment that remains prone to disruptive events becomes imperative.

Our study evaluates students’ approaches to and perceptions of the use of hands-on at-home laboratory kits (HALK) experiments, open-source computer-based simulations (OSCBS), and their combination (OSCBS-HALK) in undergraduate introductory asynchronous online physics courses. Anonymous survey data from students who had completed online physics courses with labs based on simulations, at-home lab kits, or both were collected using a modified version of the Learn Questionnaire (MVLQ). Findings in this study indicate that among the six scales (interest and relevance; peer support; staff enthusiasm and support; teaching for understanding; alignment; and constructive feedback) used to measure students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environments, interest and relevance, peer support, and teaching for understanding had statistically significant different means across the three lab types. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test for the interest and relevance scale indicated that students viewed using a combination approach of OSCBS and HALK labs (M = 3.98, SD = 0.61) more significantly positive than using computer-simulated labs only (M = 3.56, SD = 0.75). Compared to other labs, computer-simulated labs were perceived to lead to a deep approach to learning. However, they had the lowest interest and relevance, peer support, and alignment ranking among the three lab groups. Thus, developing strategies to improve students’ engagement and ability to translate the simulations into physical processes is recommended for OSCBS.